Hacker News Reader

However, the suggestion upthread wasn't

P(NSA abuses H's access) > P(someone abuses H's access),

which would be an example of the fallacy you cite, but

P(NSA abuses H's access) > P(H abuses H's access).

The article discusses the NSA embedding themselves in the Huawei support infrastructure. If true, Huawei's access is being abused by individuals who work for both Huawei and the NSA. So, in order for the NSA to abuse Huawei's access in the way discussed in the article, then that requires Huawei employees to abuse Huawei's access. Hence, P(NSA abuses H's access) <= P(H abuses H's access)

I don't see how the possibility of abuse immediately assumes execution. For now, we have no evidence of Huawei engineers abusing the infrastructure.

What we do have evidence for is NSA abusing Huawei - http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nsa-spied-on-chine...

Nothing is assumed to be happening, that's why we're talking about probabilities. We are discussing the possibility that the NSA could be infiltrating and subverting the Huawei support infrastructure. That's what the article is about. We're not discussing whether or not the NSA directly hacked Huawei. While that is also a worrying piece of news, it isn't the same thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com