>You have two options, choose one: Your analysis is sensible. Where we should choose the most likely explanation, it might become sharper: - In case you're n

>You have two options, choose one: Your analysis is sensible. Where we should choose the most likely explanation, it might become sharper: - In case you're not familiar with it, one helpful tool is prior probability (Bayesian thinking). This video is short and accessible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrK7X_XlGB8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrK7X_XlGB8 - There is a public intelligence budget in 2018 of $54.9 billion in the United States[1], as compared with the combined annual R&D expenditure of Apple, Google, Intel, and Microsoft at $53.2 billion[2]. This employs over 100,000 people[3]. - According to Snowden, they covertly use microphones.[4] He had reporters put their mobile phones in a fridge/microwave, since they could be turned on remotely. A sensible assumption is that you are unlikely to chance upon a covert surveillance mechanisms if one is installed. (For example, speakers could also be used as microphones.) Where a bug is present, I think assigning 1% to the probability of finding it is reasonable. In view of the above, after you find an undisclosed and apparently (but not physically) disabled microphone in a product, which is more likely? 1. One of the 100,000 people mentioned, using some of the $59,900,000,000 annual budget mentioned, put it there. They do this thousands of times per year, and you've just found one of them. However, the chances of your finding it are low. (1%). 2. It was put in there as part of normal product design but left unused. Perhaps it will be legitimately enabled in a future version. Perhaps Google will use it for OK Google, its voice assistant. It has no covert intention. Google spends a lot of effort on ensuring privacy. The chances of your finding it are very high (90%) - it's not meant to be hidden and is no secret. If the chances of your finding a covert device is 1% in case there is one, and the chances of your finding an unused but not physically disconnected microphone is 90% if there is one, then to complete your analysis of which is more likely, you should know how many times the scenarios in 1 and 2 occur. I hope these additional tools - Bayesian probability and some figures about the base rate, could make your analysis sharper. Personally, I feel it's likely that a 1% chance of discovering a covert bug, multiplied by the thousands of such bugs (devices) out there, makes it more likely than the 90% chance of finding a totally unused and unadvertised microphone in a product, since there would be few such cases. -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intelligence_budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intelligence_bud... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/265645/ranking-of-the-20-companies-with-the-highest-spending-on-research-and-development/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/265645/ranking-of-the-20... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Com... [4] Pick your reference: https://www.google.com/search?q=snowden+microphones https://www.google.com/search?q=snowden+microphones