@Jertec is it just me or did this ticket get deleted?

• https://github.com/GrapheneOS/os-issue-tracker/issues/2052

Adding comment from jertec because I thought it was very insightful

Thank you for taking the time to reply. From your response, I'm gathering that Graphene won't develop any features, unless they directly enhance security. Even basic features that have been with lineage for over a decade, since the early Cyanogen days. I understand why this might be. Let me just respond to two points you made, because I believe this feature does actually fit with with graphene, based on what you said.

Force close on back isn't a legacy navigation mode feature. It's alive and well right now in the gesture base navigation system. You can witness it in lineage, as a gesture. The back gesture is enhanced. The user can execute the gesture as normal for the simple back functionality. To force closing the foreground app, the user executes the same gesture, but pulls further along the screen. I use this frequently on my pixel running lineage 21, and would find it difficult to live without.

This is certainly a security feature. If I find that an app is behaving in a way that I find threatens my security, in one gesture I can kill its processes. One example might be if I accidentally click on a malicious link, and find my browser opening up to a page I dont trust, or have reason to suspect could be malicious. Being able to kill the process within two seconds is critical.

@Jertec this info may be useful for CalyxOS:

• https://gitlab.com/CalyxOS/calyxos/-/issues/1573

CalyxOS's ticket is still open. They got stuck on the implementation for gesture-based nav. I don't think they know that it's available for gesture nav.

Probably Calyx would implement this into CalyxOS if we could point them to the code implementation of it in Lineage that you described above.

On 2023-03-022, @thestinger wrote:

There is no back button in the modern navigation mode (gesture navigation). We don't take proposals for improvements to traditional 3 button navigation.

This is an important security feature for a user who is playing with a new app. Sometimes a fat-finger mistake or a misbehaving app may begin to do something undesired (eg exfiltrating data by mistake), and it's necessary for the user to quickly kill the app.

The above process takes a long time, and is probably not fast enough to kill an app that, for example, is sending an unwanted POST request. By adding this feature, the time to kill the app could be reduced to ~1 second.

It's not a security feature and this is not a real world scenario.

@thestinger can you please check to see if you accidentally deleted the ticket (and, if so, undelete it), so the historical record isn't lost and others won't open a similar ticket in the future (because they can't find the now-deleted ticket)?

• https://github.com/GrapheneOS/os-issue-tracker/issues/2052

I've wanted to use both Graphene and Calyx, but--like you--I saw this feature as a requirement. I can't use an OS that doesn't let me kill misbehaving apps

This is certainly a security feature. If I find that an app is behaving in a way that I find threatens my security, in one gesture I can kill its processes. One example might be if I accidentally click on a malicious link, and find my browser opening up to a page I dont trust, or have reason to suspect could be malicious. Being able to kill the process within two seconds is critical.

Absolutely this. I use this feature at least a few times per day (though not just due to malicious links). It's very important to be able to quickly "turn it off and turn it on again" imho.

GrapheneOS and CalyxOS are very different. GrapheneOS is a hardened OS with substantial privacy/security improvements:

https://grapheneos.org/features

CalyxOS is not a hardened OS. It greatly reduces security vs. AOSP via added attack surface, rolled back security and slow patches.

Compatibility with Android apps is also much different. GrapheneOS provides our sandboxed Google Play compatibility layer:

https://grapheneos.org/usage#sandboxed-google-play

Can run the vast majority of Play Store apps on GrapheneOS, but not CalyxOS with the much more limited microG approach.

https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm is a third party comparison between different alternate mobile operating systems. It could include many more privacy/security features but it's a good starting point.

https://privsec.dev/posts/android/choosing-your-android-based-operating-system/ is an article with more long form comparisons between OSes.

GrapheneOS and CalyxOS are very different. GrapheneOS is a hardened OS with substantial privacy/security improvements:

https://grapheneos.org/features

CalyxOS is not a hardened OS. It greatly reduces security vs. AOSP via added attack surface, rolled back security and slow patches.

Compatibility with Android apps is also much different. GrapheneOS provides our sandboxed Google Play compatibility layer:

https://grapheneos.org/usage#sandboxed-google-play

Can run the vast majority of Play Store apps on GrapheneOS, but not CalyxOS with the much more limited microG approach.

https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm is a third party comparison between different alternate mobile operating systems. It could include many more privacy/security features but it's a good starting point.

https://privsec.dev/posts/android/choosing-your-android-based-operating-system/ is an article with more long form comparisons between OSes.

@thestinger can you please address the issue with the ticket having been deleted at this link in your repo?

• https://github.com/GrapheneOS/os-issue-tracker/issues/2052

It currently just says

This issue has been deleted. 

@maltfield You were told to stop spreading misinformation about GrapheneOS and are now promoting an insecure OS which misleads users about privacy and security, directly against the rules of our issue tracker. As is, you're on track to be banned.

What misinformation did I spread?

When I click on the ticket, it shows me This issue has been deleted. Jertec said he has the same issue.

Do you want a screenshot?

@maltfield The issue was deleted because of your behavior there. It was only deleted because of what you were doing. You then created this repository where you continued and escalated the inappropriate behavior. As is, you're banned from participating either on our issue tracker or elsewhere. The starting point for being unbanned would be removing this repository and talking to us about the issue in private instead of trying to create drama as you're doing. You could have simply left the issue alone and it wouldn't have been deleted.

@thestinger What did I do that was bad behaviour? I didn't even leave a single comment on the ticket..

The starting point for being unbanned would be removing this repository and talking to us about the issue in private

I created this repo so I could message @Jertec because they have no contact info on their user profile and DMs are not possible on GitHub.

@maltfield Delete this fork of our repository where you're spreading misinformation about GrapheneOS. Your choice if you want to be permanently banned across platforms.

@thestinger Sorry, I'm confused. Can you please tell me what misinformation I am spreading?

@maltfield Repeatedly making false claims about GrapheneOS, misrepresenting what this feature does and promoting malicious projects heavily involved in attacks on GrapheneOS.
...
@maltfield You know why this is inappropriate and you know what you're doing wrong. Don't play games trying to create public drama.
...
@maltfield You're currently banned for 1 hour. It will be doubled for every 5 minutes you fail to delete this repository.

If I open a feature request for two distinct ROMs, then I'm spreading misinformation?

Just to be clear: you banned me because I opened a ticket for a feature request with two distinct ROMs instead of just GrapheneOS. Is that correct?

No, you're banned for making this fork of our repository where you're making false claims about GrapheneOS, false claims about what this feature does and you're promoting a malicious group.
...
The ban is also going to apply to Matrix, Mastodon, Twitter, email and any other platform. It hasn't been done there yet simply because if you stop then it's easier to only have to undo it on GitHub.

What was the false claim? Because I consider the ability to do a fast kill -9 on a misbehaving app to be a security feature?

Just to be clear: you banned me because I consider a shortcut to kill an app to be a security feature? Is that correct?

@maltfield Burning an hour of my time, having me lose a whole day of energy to work on GrapheneOS and creating this public drama post to be used as additional attacks on GrapheneOS by the people you're supporting is helping us how exactly?

Could we discuss the substance of my comment, instead? Please take for granted that I'm acting in good faith, and consider my comment on how this feature isn't just a legacy feature, and can be implemented into the gesture based navigation, and also that it does enhance security. Could we discuss implementation?

@Jertec Not what was said.

Understood. Thank you for explaining, and a thousand apologies for mis-deducing. If you reopen the issue, I will delete my comment, remove that piece, and post repost the rest. I don't want to create any drama.

As soon as this repository is deleted, there can be a constructive discussion about implementing a shorter way to force kill than pressing app info in recent apps, launcher or settings.

Now I have to go do something else and the whole time I'll be concerned about further attacks on GrapheneOS and myself from this repository.

@maltfield Hello. I'm the community manager for the GrapheneOS project. Would you be okay with me sending you an e-mail to further discuss? I don't think what's going on here is achieving anything productive.

If you're okay to discuss, I'll use the e-mail found in your GitHub profile.

@Jertec I'd also be happy to reach out to you, but see no public way of doing so.

@Jertec I'd also be happy to reach out to you, but see no public way of doing so.

@matchboxbananasynergy now you're where I was ~2 hours ago. I decided to open this ticket and @ them. It works.

@maltfield Hello. I'm the community manager for the GrapheneOS project. Would you be okay with me sending you an e-mail to further discuss? I don't think what's going on here is achieving anything productive.

If you're okay to discuss, I'll use the e-mail found in your GitHub profile.

You're welcome to email me, but--unless you're sending me secret keys or PII--I prefer to have conversations openly (licensed CC BY-SA), especially regarding bans. Is there any reason you can't discuss this here?

@matchboxbananasynergy now you're where I was ~2 hours ago. I decided to open this ticket and @ them. It works.

You're welcome to email me, but--unless you're sending me secret keys or PII--I prefer to have conversations openly (licensed CC BY-SA), especially regarding bans. Is there any reason you can't discuss this here?

I'll send you an e-mail now. Feel free to respond and take it from there.

I don't see having public discussions like this in public as productive, but rather an opportunity for unnecessary drama to be caused. I don't believe that to be your intention, so I don't see a reason why you'd be opposed to discussing in private.

@Jertec I'd also be happy to reach out to you, but see no public way of doing so.

Sorry, I've barely done anything with this github account. You can find me on Telegram, and I've subscribed to the GrapheneOS group. Feel free to mention me @Jertek.

https://t.me/GrapheneOS

Note: I've documented this (unfortunate) exchange with Daniel Micay (thestinger) here:

• https://tech.michaelaltfield.net/2025/08/19/grapheneos-daniel-micay-banned/

Why I was banned from GrapheneOS by Daniel Micay)

You can also read a screenshot of this thread here (before thestinger deleted their messages above):

@maltfield You're doing this over 1 year after this thread which you made after your duplicate issue had been publicly available for around a year. An initial response has been posted at https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/115056172025799459. You're obsessively trying to target me with harassment based on fabrications and misrepresentations including posting this in dozens of different places. I do not understand why you've suddenly decided to try to personally harm me by contributing to harassment. Both videos you've linked in your post are Kiwi Farms style harassment material doing the same, including one from an overt Kiwi Farms user. It's not too late for you to stop. It's likely you won't stop, and there will be a significant response from GrapheneOS including documenting your libel and harassment in an article on our site and making sure that has a significant impact. What you're doing has had a substantial negative impact on my well being and the GrapheneOS project. You aren't going to evade experiencing any consequences for trying to direct more harassment towards me. You don't appear to understand the magnitude of the mistake you're making and the door temporarily remains open to having peace with us if you stop this harassment towards me.

thestinger left a comment (#1)

@maltfield You're doing this over 1 year after this thread which you made after your duplicate issue had been publicly available for around a year. An initial response has been posted at https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/115056172025799459. You're obsessively trying to target me with harassment based on fabrications and misrepresentations including posting this in dozens of different places. I do not understand why you've suddenly decided to try to personally harm me by contributing to harassment. Both videos you've linked in your post are Kiwi Farms style harassment material doing the same, including one from an overt Kiwi Farms user. It's not too late for you to stop. It's likely you won't stop, and there will be a significant response from GrapheneOS including documenting your libel and harassment in an article on our site and making sure that has a significant impact. What you're doing has had a substantial negative impact on my well being and the GrapheneOS project. You aren't going to evade experiencing any consequences for trying to direct more harassment towards me. You don't appear to understand the magnitude of the mistake you're making and the door temporarily remains open to having peace with us if you stop this harassment towards me.

I am sorry it took me so long to finally publish this article. It wasn't a priority, but I do think it's important to transparently document when people at the top of organizational hierarchies abuse their power.

Documenting and archiving your public comments and actions is not an attack against you.

It's never too late for you to apologize (not just to me, but to others you've made baseless accusations against) and lift bans against users like myself.