Regarding calculated risk:
The attached video specifically discusses the role of such risks in political games in the discipline of political decision-making. All political opposition carries risk, and the safest option is not to oppose at all.
I disagree with the recent article posted by iyouport, which analyzed the arrest of "Program-think”. The article suggests that "Program-think” may have neglected aspects beyond the data security measures, and cited an example that his anonymous approach meant that there was no trustworthy person to help him, so no one could assist him when things went wrong.
I strongly disagree with this point of view. I believe that he is a very successful activist, having been active for 12 years. From a probability perspective, if we consider one year as one cycle (this is a typical cycle of campaigns), he has completed 12 cycles, which has benefited many people. Furthermore, reports indicate that he had sensed something was abnormal long before his arrest, but he chose not to stop his work, which proves that he was prepared.
What iyouport suggests, that one should let a trustworthy person hold their information, actually has a greater chance of leading to arrest in shorter period than twelve years, as in the case of "Program-think”. Opposition movements carry risks, and seeking a foolproof plan is not possible. If one really seeks a foolproof plan, then the best course of action is not to act at all. Therefore, there is a term in English called "take calculated risk", which means to take risks that have been calculated. For "Program-think”, the probability of his arrest, calculated over twelve cycles, was 1/12. Even for myself, I would take such risks because they are better than many other forms of opposition. Pursuing 100% security is equivalent to doing nothing. And believing that one must prepare for arrest by finding someone trustworthy will only increase the risk.
Attachment: Video with English translations: