[onetwofiveten]

Sorry, no,

P(A) >= P(A n B)

Always holds whether or not A and B are independent. A contains (A n B) therefore is always bigger.

The assumption being made is that the NSA can't abuse the Huawei access without Huawei being complicit. I.e. if NSA pwn me, Huawei gave them access, so actually it's the NSA and Huawei pwning me together.

P(NSA pwn me) = P(NSA pwn me because Huawei pwned me and gave them access) <= P(Huawei pwn me)

[marshray]

> P(A) >= P(A n B) Always holds whether or not A and B are independent

Yeah.

> The assumption being made is that the NSA can't abuse the Huawei access without Huawei being complicit.

I didn't understand that. That seems like a ridiculous assumption.

[onetwofiveten]

The article is about the possibility that the NSA could be bribing Huawei engineers or infiltrating Huawei with spies. Either way, it requires Huawei employees to be complicit, and for the Huawei support infrastructure to be compromised.