8 ms·

Things change once we've found the rest of a tea set in various orbits. There may not be strong direct evidence but it's no longer a silly conjecture, it's the

by indrax 9y ago

Things change once we've found the rest of a tea set in various orbits. There may not be strong direct evidence but it's no longer a silly conjecture, it's the kind of thing that we find. So those other examples mean you do have the burden of justifying your 'conspiracy' label.

eivarv 9y ago
Not really; it isn't actually proven until you have proof. As FooHentai originally said, "There is a clear evidential basis to infer the NSA's intent and capabilities in this area" - but it tells us nothing about this particular case, which remains speculation. One could say the odds have changed, but we still don't know anything about the real state of things. The "'conspiracy'-label" is applicable regardless, whether we're talking about fact or fiction.
- yellowapple 9y ago
  If you find that someone broke into your house and stole your Xbox, and there's a guy down the street who you already know has a long criminal record of home burglaries, is it unreasonable to suspect that guy to be a likely culprit? Likewise, if there's a backdoor in every new PC's CPU, and there's a three-letter agency presiding over that CPU vendor's jurisdiction that has a long track record of backdooring things, is it unreasonable to suspect that maybe - just maybe - that TLA is responsible? Now of course the ex-con or the TLA can be totally innocent here, but if I were a detective, they'd be the first ones from whom I'd be asking for alibis.
  - eivarv 9y ago
    I don't think your analogy holds up; The hypotheticals aren't comparable, nor is the prior available information - and even though the Intel AMT/ME situation is egregious, explaining it simply as "a backdoor" is an oversimplification. I'd agree that probabilities with regard to what is reasonable to assume (the operative word here) shift as a consequence of circumstantial information, but you can't really draw any conclusions based on that - hence the burden of proof, i.e. the presumption of innocence in your analogy.

by indrax 9y ago

eivarv 9y ago

Not really; it isn't actually proven until you have proof. As FooHentai originally said, "There is a clear evidential basis to infer the NSA's intent and capabilities in this area" - but it tells us nothing about this particular case, which remains speculation. One could say the odds have changed, but we still don't know anything about the real state of things. The "'conspiracy'-label" is applicable regardless, whether we're talking about fact or fiction.

yellowapple 9y ago
If you find that someone broke into your house and stole your Xbox, and there's a guy down the street who you already know has a long criminal record of home burglaries, is it unreasonable to suspect that guy to be a likely culprit? Likewise, if there's a backdoor in every new PC's CPU, and there's a three-letter agency presiding over that CPU vendor's jurisdiction that has a long track record of backdooring things, is it unreasonable to suspect that maybe - just maybe - that TLA is responsible? Now of course the ex-con or the TLA can be totally innocent here, but if I were a detective, they'd be the first ones from whom I'd be asking for alibis.
- eivarv 9y ago
  I don't think your analogy holds up; The hypotheticals aren't comparable, nor is the prior available information - and even though the Intel AMT/ME situation is egregious, explaining it simply as "a backdoor" is an oversimplification. I'd agree that probabilities with regard to what is reasonable to assume (the operative word here) shift as a consequence of circumstantial information, but you can't really draw any conclusions based on that - hence the burden of proof, i.e. the presumption of innocence in your analogy.