The point is that the intent is not clearly malicious. It could be, if we get further evidence that points in that direction, but you can’t say the evidence we have means it was a malicious act.
People should always be skeptical, but that doesn’t mean we get to deny the facts just because we don’t like them.
And did Xi use these backdoors? Were they exploited in the wild?
That anything can be used for the CCP doesn’t mean everything is. That’s an appeal to probability fallacy. Just because the Chinese government has a vested interest in seeing the US fall doesn’t mean every flawed piece of software or hardware was put there at Xi’s behest or that he even knows about them.
Again, just because we would rather see a malicious actor doesn’t mean one is there. Sometimes, life is just a bunch of mundane mistakes.
The point is that the intent is not clearly malicious. It could be, if we get further evidence that points in that direction, but you can’t say the evidence we have means it was a malicious act.
People should always be skeptical, but that doesn’t mean we get to deny the facts just because we don’t like them.
Everything made and done by China is for the CCP. That’s how we know it’s malicious. Xi has clearly stated that.
And did Xi use these backdoors? Were they exploited in the wild?
That anything can be used for the CCP doesn’t mean everything is. That’s an appeal to probability fallacy. Just because the Chinese government has a vested interest in seeing the US fall doesn’t mean every flawed piece of software or hardware was put there at Xi’s behest or that he even knows about them.
Again, just because we would rather see a malicious actor doesn’t mean one is there. Sometimes, life is just a bunch of mundane mistakes.
Source?