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 i

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.