One thing I don&#x27;t understand about this article is, it talks about groups assisting in surveillance while acting as if they are opposing it, and questioning whether current companies might be doing the same.<p>This could be a valid concern, but if it is, I do not know how to address it, and it seems like an accusation which doesn&#x27;t have much of a way to defend against. What standards of evidence would it want, to conclude that a company was not secretly assisting in surveillance?<p>&quot;Yes, they might look like a well adjusted person, but so did &lt;person that was secretly a serial killer&gt;! So maybe they are one!&quot; Is not sufficient to conclude that a random, seemingly well adjusted person is likely to be a serial killer. Thats not really quite whats going on here, but it seems possible that it isn&#x27;t &#x2F;entirely&#x2F; unlike it?<p>This seems to be sort of a wink-nudge thing accusing greenwald of being a pawn of the govt, and I don&#x27;t think it provides sufficient evidence to justify making that accusation.<p>Even if Greenwald&#x27;s claim about what the prime motivations of the nsa et all are is false, that would not necessarily mean that it is deceptive.<p>And then it ends with a &quot;oh he probably wont respond to this because he is a TOOL OF THE POWERS THAT BE&quot; type thing.<p>I do wonder if some of the points it makes at the beginning might be good, but I got a sort of, feel from it, reminiscent of either tabloids or , well, I hesitate to use the term &quot;conspiracy theory&quot;, because a prediction that there is a conspiracy about something is not necessarily incorrect or unjustified. So, I don&#x27;t mean &quot;conspiracy theory&quot; in the literal sense, but in the figurative sense of, &#x2F;relatively unjustified&#x2F; idea of a group being involved in a bad conspiracy.