To be slightly snarky, Rob is arguing two points here: * The WSJ allegations--that Huawei has allowed unauthorized use of its lawful intercept capabilities by

To be slightly snarky, Rob is arguing two points here: * The WSJ allegations--that Huawei has allowed unauthorized use of its lawful intercept capabilities by Chinese intelligence--are anonymous and therefore unreliable. * Rob personally knows (based on his own experience, omitting any details that would enable us to validate the story)that Huawei has allowed unauthorized use of its lawful intercept capabilities. ...er, what? In a less contrarian framing, this could be rewritten as, "The WSJ article is accurate, and I'm even willing to put my name on the public record as having seen similar things." It's fashionable these days to criticize anonymous sourcing--and, hey, I agree a reader should be cautious about such things--but this has to be the first time I've seen someone criticize an anonymously sourced article while explicitly validating its claims.