My argument is weaker, it's just "trust but verify" plus our disagreement about the background probabilities of such rumors being correct based off of the contextual information we each believe is relevant. Chinese espionage and tech transfer is not a new thing but it's only recently been coming to a head in geopolitical discourse.
Most of the indicting evidence is mainly cyber-security related, which is not always the same as exploiting a hardware backdoor. But hardware backdoors are a solid vector for penetrating digital systems and this strategy has been exploited by state actors and corporate actors in domestic and foreign operations before. Like NSA plus Intel chips or their Google data-center taps as revealed through the PRISM leaks. Or Google with their microphones bypassing the recording lights.
So even if the evidence currently falls in Apple's favor, which is fine, there's still no good reason to believe that this will always be true and it's still good security hygiene to go through a cycle of paranoia to ensure that it stays true. China is just the most recent bad actor to add to the pile of institutions to defend against.
I agree that the rumor itself could be weak. But I would also be curious under what conditions you would be willing to take on the possibility of compromised hardware. Would it have to be Apple's CEO taking the issue public, risking their stock price? Would it have to be a verified Apple insider putting their reputation on the line for leaking trade secrets about their pipeline without confronting their superiors first?
Try browsing this 2018 report: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Section%20301%20FINAL.P...
Most of the indicting evidence is mainly cyber-security related, which is not always the same as exploiting a hardware backdoor. But hardware backdoors are a solid vector for penetrating digital systems and this strategy has been exploited by state actors and corporate actors in domestic and foreign operations before. Like NSA plus Intel chips or their Google data-center taps as revealed through the PRISM leaks. Or Google with their microphones bypassing the recording lights.
So even if the evidence currently falls in Apple's favor, which is fine, there's still no good reason to believe that this will always be true and it's still good security hygiene to go through a cycle of paranoia to ensure that it stays true. China is just the most recent bad actor to add to the pile of institutions to defend against.
I agree that the rumor itself could be weak. But I would also be curious under what conditions you would be willing to take on the possibility of compromised hardware. Would it have to be Apple's CEO taking the issue public, risking their stock price? Would it have to be a verified Apple insider putting their reputation on the line for leaking trade secrets about their pipeline without confronting their superiors first?