Can you people cut the fucking bullshit? Everyone here is speaking either "quantitatively" or in "probabilistic" terms, but I have yet to see research or actual discourse backing it up.
You're saying Huawei is more power hungry than the NSA?
EDIT:I'm sorry for being so abrasive.
Huawei accounts alone are already at risk of being abused by Huawei. We don't know if NSA has access to the accounts. But even if they did, it would still be more probable that Huawei's access would be abused than the NSA using Huawei's access.
(edited a few times for clarity)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nsa-spied-on-chine...
1)We can assume NSA has access. 2)Is it not the NSA that wants to actively penetrate every single device in existence? https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/03/20/hunt-... 3)Is there any evidence that Huawei abuses their customers? Like, evidence, not CNN talking points.
Attackers are not earthquakes.
If we assume that both NSA and Huawei are intelligent actors (spare us the jokes please) and that both NSA and Huawei have the option of abusing a certain power, then
P(I get pwned) = P(NSA wants to pwn me) + P(Huawei wants to pwn me) + P(other)
P(NSA abuses H's access) > P(someone abuses H's access),
which would be an example of the fallacy you cite, but
P(NSA abuses H's access) > P(H abuses H's access).
Conjunction fallacy only applies if A=A. Here, your first A is different than your second A, no? If A is "X will abuse account access, given the opportunity" then it matters who is X.
I have no information on what sort of access Huawei employees have but I assume at the very least they are not recruited specifically to spy on me and find 'individuals of interest'. People who are recruited to spy on individuals will have a completely different mindset to your average network engineer.
But either way it's a less than ideal situation, and too much power is at the fingertips of these employees.