zlacker

The headline is exaggerated to make the cops sound like idiots. If they suspect someone might be a drug dealer (fair - it's a clue), that's very different from thinking they "must" be a drug dealer.

>>skybri+(OP)
Your characterization is under-exaggerated to make this problem sound normal. It's not.

> Every time we see a Google Pixel, we suspect it might belong to a drug dealer

Being a Pixel or GrapheneOS user should never be a "clue" of criminality. It should never result in police detaining you or rummaging through your phone. Any police that acts in this way is indeed an "idiot."

>>sorami+qt
It would be if they did that, and maybe they do, but the article doesn't say they do that. You've added your own assumption.

>>skybri+TO
Of course they do. What else do you think they're going to do? Keep their "suspicions" to themselves?

> Every time we see a Google Pixel, we suspect it might belong to a drug dealer

This means something, you know.

>>sorami+141
I don't know what specifically it means because I don't know how law enforcement works in Spain. Do you?

It seems like you're asking me to imagine something, but I'm not taking the bait. I'm not going to confuse imagining things with having evidence for them.

>>skybri+6S1
It at the very least means people with Pixels or GrapheneOS are treated unfairly by law enforcement. It's unfair because owning either of those is in no way indicative of a crime. You can't possibly IANAL your way out of this fact.

It's rich to accuse others of "baiting" while engaging in sealioning. I'm not the one trying to strip all meaning from words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning