Unless you're an information security professional, it seems unreasonable to expect an average Signal user to know more about the security of Cellebrite than Cellebrite's user (the police).
If you're using Signal at all, you probably care at least a little about security, so it's not a given, but probably the vast majority of Signal users wil never hear about this.
I wasn't trying to say you're automatically guilty if you don't warn the police about what Signal could do.
I was just trying to say that a statement that _implies_ a trap exists, if you know enough about a piece of software, it's not a reasonable warning that a trap exists.
If you know the trap exists, a case can be made that such an indirect statement is actually baiting the trap, rather than warning about it.
