Comment by eagleislandsong
13 days ago
I agree overall with your analysis. Nonetheless when one says that there is good evidence for something, rather than that there is good circumstantial evidence or that there are very reasonable grounds to assume something, one is making a different claim.
We must also ask whether circumstantial evidence or reasonable assumptions alone should be enough to force a company to divest its assets.
Divest the assets or leave the foreign market they are in that's regulated them out.
The thing about nation state level conspiracies is that they rarely are kind enough to write down all of the details about their intents in any format you’re going to see. That is the very nature of a conspiracy.
And so knowing this you are going to need some kind of framework in order to make decisions off in the absence of perfect information.
The one I outlined above is the same one that was used in this case and is really at the foundation of everything to do with threat modelling, this isn’t some kooky thing I just made up.