Thank you, I will devour it, but it seems to misrepresent a naïve point: simple Bayes. Id est,

> Law enforcement officials in Catalonia say they associate Pixels with crime because drug traffickers are increasingly turning to these phones

And that is correct behaviour under frequentistic reasoning (and still abysmal behaviour in the non-expressed potential case that it be done indiscriminately): if in a population a tool is related to many criminals and the very few sane people, that tool is a justified element for suspicion. But for suspicion only, in the coldest terms: the Sane use it, and using it is a sign of sanity: for that reason, of course you do not /assume/ that those who use that tools are criminals.

To have a knife raises suspect in the land of the stabbers and raises little suspect in the land of the scouts.

Only the bad tail of the curve mixes "suspect" and "assumption"; and only the worse tail of the curve thinks that since stabbers use knives we should do without them. Especially in this dire case in which obviously for reasons of Dignity, we will not, all capitals, ___will not___, keep spying devices on us. It is difficult to find examples and similes stronger than the actual case.

The article in fact fumbles into a very bad sentence:

> You might be wondering: if I don’t have anything to hide, why should I bother using GrapheneOS? That[!!!] a fair question

No, that is a very stupid question: Dignity imposes privacy, and we have ___everything___ to hide to the zombie apocalypse of cretins.

Statements like this are a stretch. This was not the fact of using the OS, but specifically the fact of wiping it. The situation is atrocious enough as is, no need to make up additions.