zlacker

[return to "Cops say criminals use a Google Pixel with GrapheneOS – I say that's freedom"]
1. patcht+6a[view] [source] 2025-07-23 14:19:50
>>pabs3+(OP)
GrapheneOS says

"European authoritarians and their enablers in the media are misrepresenting GrapheneOS and even Pixel phones as if they're something for criminals. GrapheneOS is opposed to the mass surveillance police state these people want to impose on everyone"

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114784469162979608

State employees in their official capacity making inaccurate claims to media about GrapheneOS to smear it as being for criminals and as the users as largely being criminals is a state sponsored attack on the GrapheneOS project.

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114813613250805804

◧◩
2. chasil+hn[view] [source] 2025-07-23 15:31:22
>>patcht+6a
I have never been to Spain, and I have only slight familiarity with issues in Barcelona and greater Catalonia, but this gives me pause:

"There’s a bitter irony here, too, as GrapheneOS recently pointed out in a tweet. The Spanish region of Catalonia was at the center of the massive Pegasus spyware scandal in 2019.

"Pegasus, a sophisticated surveillance tool sold exclusively to governments, was reportedly used to hack phones belonging to Members of the European Parliament and eavesdrop on their communications. Yet, police in this very region are now scrutinizing savvy Pixel and GrapheneOS users for hardening their devices against unlawful surveillance and other attack vectors."

◧◩◪
3. Firmwa+yq1[view] [source] 2025-07-23 21:49:54
>>chasil+hn
All this surveillance tech and law enforcement still don't know who the child abusers on the Epstein list/island were.

Something tells me domestic surveillance is only applied to peasants not the wealthy and powerful.

◧◩◪◨
4. ars+AU1[view] [source] 2025-07-24 02:31:53
>>Firmwa+yq1
Isn't the theory that this is because Clinton was one of them, and he was president at the time?

Even if Trump was one of them, he had no power at that time, so couldn't have done anything to stop (or bury) the surveillance, but Clinton could.

> Something tells me domestic surveillance is only applied to peasants not the wealthy and powerful.

I suspect it's applied to them even more than the rest (ordinary people are not that interesting to surveil), the question actually is what is done with the surveillance afterward.

[go to top]