Dude awesome post. Thanks for that.

The fuck?

Why the hell doesn't the FTC shut these companies down? Why doesn't the FCC kick the carrier's behind into policing these companies better? Why doesn't the US attorney's office rain hellfire and brimstone down on these companies to the extent it did to Aaron Schwartz?

Premium SMS is billed through the carriers, so they have a relationship with the SMS company. There is a clear money trail. The recipient is most likely incorporated. This should be easy.

With all the US mistrust of government right now, this would be an easy way to gain some respectability.

Um... there is now an enormous economic incentive to do this.

Are you saying that the current situation is exactly like it was in the last decade?

This whole thing about privacy will be a non-issue in about 2 years.

There's currently a mass-exodus away from US-based cloud services, and (within the US) away from all cloud services.

Cloud services will have to provide privacy or go out of business. The only way to ensure privacy is client-based encryption keys and open-source software. Since it's impossible to control the distribution of open-source software, the client-side package will end up being free.

This is a good thing, IMHO. Cloud services will focus on the actual service, they won't be able to rummage around in our lives (both corporate and personal), they won't be able to "monetize" their customers as products to advertisers, and the NSA will be shut out of much illegal snooping.

People are already thinking about how to encrypt existing web-based mail services, and I'm even hearing rumors about replacing SMTP altogether with a more secure protocol.

Expect a lot of wailing and gnashing-of-teeth from the government, proposals to make this or that protocol "illegal" or to require government backdoor access, but in the end it will come down to simple economics.

There is an enormous market-driven push towards more privacy. Edward Snowden has had a measurable effect on the world, and probably deserves the Nobel peace prize he was nominated for.

In an alternate universe where certain facts are known for certain, then sure there may be a problem. Over here, we can make up whatever stories we want about these alternate universes, but they don't affect us.

If the coworker takes off at a critical time without notice (did that actually happen?), then the job will be poorly done and you should raise the issue to management. Point out that the department was understaffed, and it's management's responsibility to have the right talent in-house at the right time.

Or, you take home extra pay pulling overtime picking up the slack, which costs management more than regular time, so they will eventually notice.

Or, you refuse unpaid overtime or have previous commitments that you cannot break and let your boss know this. If your boss can force you to come in to work even though you've got Laker's tickets, find another job.

You shouldn't particularly care if coworkers take time off or not - care about getting the job done on time, under budget, and at good quality. If you can't do this, care about whether it's your fault. Don't let your boss put unreasonable demands on you - that will only shift the blame to you when you can't pull off a miracle. Let them know about problems as they arise, and don't accept blame for things you can't control.

Holding yourself to a high standard of professionalism will work out better in the long run than putting "staying employed" ahead of everything else in your life. It may cost you in the immediate short-term, but the total returns over time far outweigh the immediate costs.

I'm not disturbed by the note, and yes it's likely a poor choice of words from a non-English speaker.

Are we now condemning conspiracy to submit fraudulent information? I thought fraud was the bad act.

I've worked with non-English speaking students, and there are a surprising number of awkward constructions that you wouldn't notice as a native speaker.

For example, one multiple-choice optics test question had this answer: "The image is half as large".

The phrase "half as large" translates simultaneously into "big" and "small" at the same time... it was pointed out that many students didn't know what this meant. The first rewrite came out as "half the size", but since many cultures implicitly measure size in terms of area instead of height, lots of people misinterpreted this as well (half the height = 1/4 the area). Having an answer "none of the above" further confused the issue. The test should have been specific in saying "half the height".

I've proofread/edited more than 10 papers written by foreign types, and "twisted meanings" are quite common - phrases that seem syntactically reasonable but which have a different meaning to a native speaker. (I grew up in Amish territory - statements like "Sarah is wonderful sick today" and "throw papa down the stairs his hat" were commonplace.)

I wouldn't think twice about the note in the paper. Unless the researcher actually makes up the analysis out of whole cloth it's not a problem.

Science is about evidence, not hearsay.

Thanks - that's pretty insightful.

I am reading into Glen's statements (I said so in the post), so no I can't point to anything firmer.

I would like to see more evidence, though. Your first link talks about two known incidents - it would be good to have more information so we can tell who is right without speculation. The real situation may be closer to what I wrote, the WSJ extrapolation from two incidents, or something completely different.

We'd be better off with more facts.

Reading into Glen Greenwald's comments and some of his other statements, it would seem that much of the spying is used not for security purposes, rather it's to give an edge to certain select US businesses.

If this is true, it would be huge. Citizens don't count for much in terms of US policy decisions, but an unfair boost to chosen businesses would tick off every other business in the US and abroad - the economic ramifications would be nothing short of tectonic.

There really is a difference between short-term advantage and long-term gain, and it's one of the ways to measure intelligence. If Glen should withhold the information for fear of ticking off the US government, he gives up the potential benefits of a future where the US has been forced to stop such corrupt and illegal practices.

The long-term gain is enormous and long-lasting, the short-term pain is fleeting and ephemeral. That's why he is releasing the information.

In the long run, we're all better off by having this information out in the open.