Employee Outsourced Programming Job To China, Spent Days Websurfing

New submitter kju writes "The security blog of Verizon has the story of an investigation into unauthorized VPN access from China which led to unexpected findings. Investigators found invoices from a Chinese contractor who had actually done the work of the employee, who spent the day watching cat videos and visiting eBay and Facebook. The man had Fedexed his RSA token to the contractor and paid only about 1/5th of his income for the contracting service. Because he provided clean code on time, he was noted in his performance reviews to be the best programmer in the building. According to the article, the man had similar scams running with other companies."

Comments

Part of me says, "Good!"

[Maow]

I'm a bit torn on TFS.

On one hand, companies outsource "our" jobs with absolutely no remorse at all.

On the other hand, ... fingers?

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[indeterminator]

I'm a bit torn on TFS.

On one hand, companies outsource "our" jobs with absolutely no remorse at all.

On the other hand, ... fingers?

On the other hand, many companies wouldn't mind... IF you told them what was going on. I'm guessing the major issue here is the omission of details by the employee.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Anonymous Coward]

well.. and the fact the employee here was collecting a 400% markup..

employee did employer a favor.. proved his own job could be outsourced better at a fraction of his salary. fire the employee, keep the contractor.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[kiddygrinder]

yeah as if, i'm sure if i told my boss i was doing this they'd be so keen to keep paying me to do it rather than firing me and doing it themselves whilst keeping 4/5 of my salary.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[History's Coming To]

The major issue is handing over access keys to a corporate VPN to a random bloke in another country. Frankly, I'm quite impressed with the general concept, but introducing a huge security breach isn't going to make you popular, he should have just had the guy email him code and the ctrl-V it himself, cutting the security breach out, he'd probably never have been caught unless there was something unexpected in the code.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[indeterminator]

my boss

I quoted the problematic part. s/boss/client/ and all is well. Independent contractors do this all the time.

Some other important things: (a) You want to get permission from your boss/client *before* making the arrangement. (b) You *don't* want to disclose the rate of your subcontractor to your boss/client. (c) You *definitely* don't want to send your *personal* RSA token and access credentials to your subcontractor.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[TheLink]

Was he using the same contractor for everything? If he wasn't then maybe he's a competent project manager with a good eye for talent.

It's not so easy to get good results from outsourcing. So some of his 400% markup might be justified ;).

Re: Part of me says, "Good!"

[ayahner]

Really? What does the employer bill for the employees hours on the project? I think $150-200 is the norm.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[war4peace]

There are other issues here.
If the code is sensitive enough, an employer is willing to pay a lot more and keep the job in-house rather than outsource it. You want, as an employer, to have as much control as possible over someone who codes your financial software, for example.
Also I'm sure that there are zounds of rules that were broken by this behavior.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[ByOhTek]

Yes, it's bad if the employee has 400% markup, but good business if the company does it.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[adrn01]

Employee is in wrong position, if was able to successfully find / hire / manage a highly competent programmer in China.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[arth1]

On one hand, companies outsource "our" jobs with absolutely no remorse at all.

On the other hand, ... fingers?

On the gripping hand, the problem is giving your personal RSA encryped access into a company's network to unidentified third parties.
Perhaps this developer could provide his services for a fifth of the going rate because he also snooped around and collected and sold data.
Clandestine data mining and illegal data bourses is no longer a SciFi concept; it happens every day.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the Chinese programmer didn't do it himself either, but hired an Indian programmer for 1/5 of what he got ...

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[ByOhTek]

Note: that was sarcasm - there should have been a question mark at the end. They should be put on equal footing, or because the employees are more likely to spend the money (i.e. not invest which aggregates more money to them), and therefore keep a pool of money that will help draw and encourage investors, even in a stagnate economy... I can even seen putting some favoritism towards the employee doing it.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[eulernet]

VPN is not really the problem, since VPN access tends to be quite limited in scope.

I think that the main problem is that a random guy in China has a local copy of all the source code of the company.

If access to the code required some NDA, the company is now in pretty deep shit.

Anyway, kudos to the chinese guy, he seems to be a good coder and had to work at an unusual work schedule.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[AndyMackee]

Yep. But you know what's funnier? I know of folks who take on outsourced jobs and then outsource them even further. That's, like, outsourception!

---

Some cool Big Data projects

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[GameboyRMH]

If I was doing this I would have used a home computer as a "VPN terminal," as in it connects to the work VPN, and then Chinese guy connects to that home PC through another VPN service and into the work VPN. If anybody asks about it, I leave my home PC connected to the VPN all day. If that doesn't cut it then I'd have to get creative with portable VPN software and steganographically hidden VPN connections on the work PC.

Funny that a lowly employee doing this isn't praised as a successful businessman...

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Luckyo]

This was mt first thought as well. If employer's management has any common sense, at this point the man should be pushed into management ASAP. People who can do outsourcing that well are very rare.

Re: Part of me says, "Good!"

[krisyan]

The down side is that company now knows where they can get high quality work for 1/5 the cost.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Dcnjoe60]

Employee is in wrong position, if was able to successfully find / hire / manage a highly competent programmer in China.

I don't think you want this guy as your program manager. Look at the facts. He was paid $X and paid somebody to do his job for less. He isn't making any extra money and in fact is taking home less money than if he did the job himself (and since he isn't a business, he can't even deduct the outsourcing expense from taxable income). The guy still had to show up at work each day (where he would just surf the net), but his outsourcing activities didn't free him up to do other programming which would bring him additional revenue.

No, the only reason to do something like this is because you are incompetent at the job you were hired for and need to cover that up, or you are an idiot because you are giving away a large chunk of your pay so you can surf the net. Neither of those are qualities that I would want in a manager.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Dcnjoe60]

The major issue is handing over access keys to a corporate VPN to a random bloke in another country. Frankly, I'm quite impressed with the general concept, but introducing a huge security breach isn't going to make you popular, he should have just had the guy email him code and the ctrl-V it himself, cutting the security breach out, he'd probably never have been caught unless there was something unexpected in the code.

The major issue is a dishonest employee. While he may be crafty, he still took credit for others work and tried to cheat the system. Handing over the access keys is just a manifestation of the dishonesty, but not the problem, itself.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Dexter Herbivore]

He's in the wrong industry, he should be a merchant banker.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Dcnjoe60]

On one hand, companies outsource "our" jobs with absolutely no remorse at all.

On the other hand, ... fingers?

On the gripping hand, the problem is giving your personal RSA encryped access into a company's network to unidentified third parties.
Perhaps this developer could provide his services for a fifth of the going rate because he also snooped around and collected and sold data.
Clandestine data mining and illegal data bourses is no longer a SciFi concept; it happens every day.

All of the problems that you list, while serious, are actually symptoms of a deeper problem. In short, this is really the tale of a dishonest employee and dishonest employees can do all sorts of damage in a company. People shouldn't marvel at how crafty he was, but instead how devious he was. If he was willing to do this, then what else was he willing to do or would he have done in the future, if not caught? Most people that embezzle funds (which this guy didn't do, but the principle applies) start with the intention of paying it back. Most never pay it back until ordered by the court. They start small, find there aren't any consequences and continue to escalate their dishonesty. That is the pattern with almost all employee dishonesty issues and there is no reason to expect this guy would have been different.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[beowulfcluster]

Maybe the Indian programmer hired a laid off American programmer who figured it was better than nothing.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[beowulfcluster]

If you're only doing it at one place then you might be an idiot, but if as reported with this guy you're doing it at several jobs...? Suddenly you're taking home a lot more than you'd do if you were doing a real job yourself, and you're watching cat videos while doing it. If you have multiple clients who are all satisfied enough with the work your team does that they want to keep hiring you, what more do you need in a manager?

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Anonymous Coward]

We solved the physical security problem by hanging the RSA key on the wall and pointing a web cam at it.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[LordLimecat]

You mean, except for the whole "some random dude in another country now has his RSA ID and noone was the wiser", ya sure.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[BVis]

The major issue is a dishonest employee. While he may be crafty, he still took credit for others work and tried to cheat the system.

That's the American Dream, 2013 style. Hard work only gets you more hard work, but exploiting the hard work of others makes you rich. As others have pointed out, employers do this all the time, and not only is it accepted, it's expected. But when a peon.. whoops, excuse me, the proper term is "an employee", turns the tables on them, well, we can't have that, can we. Companies don't like it when you don't eat the shit you're given.

To me, yes, what this guy did was wrong and dishonest. But, to a lot of people, the only thing this guy did wrong was get caught. Companies that work the system (legally or not) are praised as 'innovative' and 'efficient', and the execs get huge bonuses while the people who do actual work struggle to make ends meet with their salaries that don't keep pace with inflation. And, should the companies get caught doing something that's actually illegal instead of just morally reprehensible, they pay a fine (which is generally less than the amount of savings/extra profit they realized through the illegal activity) and get a stern talking to. But, when this guy does the same thing, he loses his job, gets his reputation ruined, and may very well go to jail. God Bless America.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Austerity Empowers]

I'm amazed it worked, after having pulled my 3rd all nighter supporting our cheap chinese labor (who I had no choice on) and their absolutely brain-dead retarded mistakes, I question that someone wouldn't have figured out that this was happening.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[schlesinm]

The major issue is handing over access keys to a corporate VPN to a random bloke in another country. Frankly, I'm quite impressed with the general concept, but introducing a huge security breach isn't going to make you popular, he should have just had the guy email him code and the ctrl-V it himself, cutting the security breach out, he'd probably never have been caught unless there was something unexpected in the code.

Exactly. Skip the VPN issue and he'd probably still be making a ton of money for sitting on his ass all day.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Anonymous Coward]

companys have no loyalty to employees anymore, so the reverse is just common sense.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[war4peace]

Wait, wait.
Company A outsourcing to company B involves liability from company B if something is afoot.
Employee A outsourcing his own work to Chinese guy X means Chinese guy X can fuck the company without ever being caught, and employee A will get the shaft, but the company is still screwed.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[dubbreak]

VPN is not really the problem, since VPN access tends to be quite limited in scope.

And my experience says the opposite. Whatever you'd have access to locally as a user you'd have over VPN. How would you do your job otherwise? The point of VPN is to make it a secure connection so you can have access to whatever you'd have access to locally.

If the company has an NDA, is ISO registered, has to follow any government security protocol (I worked at a private Canadian company that followed US security regulations in order to sell to US gov) etc.. this could lead to trouble. Of course sweeping it under the rug would have been better than advertising it if that's the case.

I agree on the kudos. Finding good people is tough enough locally. Outsourcing is hell. In a contracting type situation (as long as it didn't have a no substitution clause) this would have been perfectly ok (if not better than ok since it appears good code was actually written). The interesting part is whether the company would have paid the same had they known. They were quite willing to pay a wage of X when they thought it was the local guy producing the code, but my guess is they'd want to pay a small % of X for the Chinese worker even with this guy managing him. In reality, since he was producing the best code in the company, he should have been getting the biggest wage (reward your stars and all that).

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[cusco]

So money is the only thing that motivates you to work? That's really sad, you're in the wrong job (whatever it is). I enjoy my work, but there's a certain amount of drudgery associated with it at times (mostly data entry setting up new customer sites). If there were a way to hand off that portion of my work, and still get paid half or more what I normally would while I goofed off instead, I would consider it a good deal. Mind you I'm not an idiot who would ship off my security token without customer approval, but otherwise I think he found an interesting solution.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[afidel]

Any decent VPN software at a security focused company will not allow split tunneling for exactly the reason you state, someone controlling the workstation could ride the corporate VPN in.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[cusco]

Your employer needs to find a better contracting company, they're out there. Of course those charge more than $10/day, and in a corporate culture where low-bid is the only qualification considered by management you might be stuck. If this guy was paying 1/5 his salary to the contractor then he's probably found one of the best, someone that Verizon would be lucky to find in any country.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[dubbreak]

This.

A contractor or consulting company would do this no problem. That's a b2b relationship though. Employees are supposed to be subservient, "Yes mastah, whatever you need mastah."

If we ignore any issues with security it's really hard to fault the guy. The point as an employee is to do your job and do it well. The code he (had) produced was apparently commendable. He did his job well though not by the traditional solution (working hard and doing it yourself). Does that make it the wrong solution?

The biggest issue is the company "got tricked" into paying more for a cheap worker. Of course had they done the outsourcing themselves they'd probably have one or more of the worst producing low quality coders that require tons of rework (the normal reality of outsourcing).

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[JosKarith]

Money's not the only motivator to go to work but it's the deal breaker. And if i could earn 80% of my salary by sitting on my arse working on personal projects then I'd go for it.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[GameboyRMH]

In that case I'd use SSH and VNC on the "VPN terminal" computer for the connection to the Chinese guy. Any software he needs would have to be installed on it.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Half-pint HAL]

People who can do outsourcing that well are very rare.

How "well" is that? He pushed a "critical infrastructure" job offshore without a full ISO security audit, putting his employer in the position where they risk losing their ISO certification and get sued into non-existance. The reason his offshoring was cheap and profitable was because he made a very, very bad job of it. He has lost his job, and the only reason he hasn't been sued into bankruptcy is the fact that his employer is sh*t-scared of anyone knowing it was them.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[phillyclaude]

it's programmers all the way down

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[TheLink]

Reminds me of: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2003-08-03/

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[desdinova 216]

now we're just getting recursive

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit! You clearly have no idea what the vast majority of managers do when they're not in "meetings".

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, whenever I'm in a "stagnate economy" that's what I do.

Do you really expect to be taken seriously on a subject as complex as economics when you can barely put a sentence together?

You lot really are idiots aren't you.

(hint, that's what we call a rhetorical question, google it.)

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[cayenne8]

It's not so easy to get good results from outsourcing. So some of his 400% markup might be justified ;).

This man is my God!!!!

Now....how can I implement something of this sort? Just need to learn my lessons where this guy screwed up.

Ok, no unauthorized VPN's into the work network, do all that from home is a start.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Luckyo]

Well enough not to be found out for a long time and be found best coder of the workplace.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[cayenne8]

So money is the only thing that motivates you to work?

Of course it is....? Are you kidding?

I'd assume that is the case for most people out there.

If I won the lottery tomorrow, with enough money to never work again, I'd be out of here so fast it would make your head swim.

I'd likely not even bother coming back for my stuff at my desk (not that much there, nothing really personal).

The only reason I work...is to earn as much money as possible, which gives me the means to pay for the life and lifestyle I enjoy. If I didn't have to burn hours working for money, I can tell you, I could easily spend the rest of my life pursing happiness to the fullest!!

I like to travel, date various women, I have hobbies, I have TONS of things that I'd be doing every day if I didn't have to bother coming to a job to work.

Why would anyone work if they didn't have to?

I know there are some fringe cases out there, people who apparently actually define themselves by their jobs. They're also the ones that hit deep depression or get really overly upset if they lose their job, or something goes wrong at work at times.

I've never understood that, I guess I never will.

I'm defined by myself, and I really, really do LIKE myself....and would love to not have to work, and spend more time having fun and doing interesting things.

Are you just joking, or do you actually work for any other reason than making money?

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[ultranova]

In other words, he knows how to make a profit by screwing over other people and escape the consequences. Clear Wall Street material.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Dcnjoe60]

The report said that "evidence suggests" that he did this among several companies in the area. That would be suspect because for the same scheme to work with other companies, they would have to either be hiring him to work from home or not requiring him to work in the office or that he used the scheme previously, but not simultaneously.

Unfortunately, since his actions could be construed as fraud, if the conclusion of the report writer is accurate, it just bolsters the prosecutor's case.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Dcnjoe60]

So money is the only thing that motivates you to work? That's really sad, you're in the wrong job (whatever it is). I enjoy my work, but there's a certain amount of drudgery associated with it at times (mostly data entry setting up new customer sites). If there were a way to hand off that portion of my work, and still get paid half or more what I normally would while I goofed off instead, I would consider it a good deal. Mind you I'm not an idiot who would ship off my security token without customer approval, but otherwise I think he found an interesting solution.

I never said money was my motivator (as a matter of fact, I am currently working for a large non-profit as significantly less than market rate). However, you state you that if you could hand off part of your work and still get paid half while you goofed off instead, you would do it. What's stopping you? There are plenty of part time jobs out there. Nobody is forcing you to work full time if you want to be paid less and work less.

OTOH, that is not what this guy did. He was paid in full and worked less. The difference is in the above scenario, you are still being paid a supposedly just wage for the amount of work you are doing. In his case, he was not -- he was not working at all, or very little and receiving his full wage. How is that any different than the bookkeeper keeping a little extra from the accounts?

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[ultranova]

Why would anyone work if they didn't have to?

Because accomplishing things you consider valuable triggers the reward circuits in your brain. That's the reason people do volunteer work, have hobbies, etc.

Both you and the parent are confusing "work" and "job". They are not the same thing, altough if you're lucky they might overlap.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[trev.norris]

I see this in the same light as sub leasing your apartment. The site is down right now, but I can imagine he didn't use this contractor for all his work. Maybe he had a task that would better be accomplished by someone else. And calling this a "scam" is over the top. If anything he should be promoted to manager.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Bobfrankly1]

You mean, except for the whole "some random dude in another country now has his RSA ID and noone was the wiser", ya sure.

Now I haven't used an RSA id personally, but couldn't the employee have kept his RSA ID, set it up on a home computer, and given the outsourced programmer remote access to it?

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[ultranova]

I'm amazed it worked, after having pulled my 3rd all nighter supporting our cheap chinese labor (who I had no choice on) and their absolutely brain-dead retarded mistakes,

Hey, austerity empowers.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[LordLimecat]

RSA tokens generally require you to either have the device or have near-realtime communication with a person who does have the device.

As China is 12 hrs off of the US (DC to Shanghai), that seems problematic.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[GovCheese]

If only our local programmer had used his free time at work to mine for gold with which to pay the Chinese contractors. It would be an inverse of something, but I'm not sure what.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[grep_rocks]

You are spot on - I don't know if this employer attitude is really a leftover from slavery or not, but it sure feels that the employer is entitled to all the profit and that employee is, in effect property of the employer, even the langage is skewed this way "Joe belongs to Fred" instead of "Joe works in Fred's organization" - in this case it just pisses the employer off that the employee was profiting from a similar realtionship.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[ultranova]

Most people that embezzle funds (which this guy didn't do, but the principle applies) start with the intention of paying it back.

Except that the principle doesn't apply, because this guy didn't embezzle anything. He was paid to produce code and produced the code. He didn't write the code himself, but that, in itself, is not dishonest, unless there's some particular reason why he should had (security clearance, for example).

They start small, find there aren't any consequences and continue to escalate their dishonesty. That is the pattern with almost all employee dishonesty issues and there is no reason to expect this guy would have been different.

Yes, there is: this guy had delivered what he had been paid for, and according to the summary done that in a timely manner and commendable quality.

There are problems with the approach the guy took to his job, which mostly deal with outsiders getting access to information they possibly shouldn't, but getting your assigned task accomplished in an unorthodox manner cannot in itself be considered dishonest.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Kjella]

If we ignore any issues with security it's really hard to fault the guy. The point as an employee is to do your job and do it well. The code he (had) produced was apparently commendable. He did his job well though not by the traditional solution (working hard and doing it yourself). Does that make it the wrong solution?

No, but you can do it honestly where the company is aware they're hiring a contractor or dishonestly where they're not. I've been both a consultant and an employee and there are far more differences than just security. Contractors are external, employees are internal so doing it this way you end up as a mole on the inside. There's no right or wrong to it, as an employer I can chose to hire an employee or a contractor with different pros and cons, but if I hire one and get the other then you're fundamentally misrepresenting yourself.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[dcw3]

So money is the only thing that motivates you to work?

Of course it is....? Are you kidding?

That's just sad. While money is certainly one motivator, there are plenty of others, and what motivates you the most depends upon your current life situation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[cayenne8]

Both you and the parent are confusing "work" and "job".

Well, work and job both have connotations of doing something you generally don't enjoy. It wouldn't be called work or a job if you enjoyed it.

There's tons of things I LOVE to do...but wouldn't get paid for, or..if I did them for money (again assuming I have a dependence on earning an income to live), they would cease to become fun really.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[cayenne8]

Maybe you just haven't found the right job/career yet?

Well, I've not seen any job openings for Lottery Winner. There's things I LOVE to do...but again, they don't pay any money, or, if I did some for money, they do not pay enough money to allow me to live the lifestyle I like and buy the things I want.

I have some fairly expensive hobbies.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Dcnjoe60]

Most people that embezzle funds (which this guy didn't do, but the principle applies) start with the intention of paying it back.

Except that the principle doesn't apply, because this guy didn't embezzle anything. He was paid to produce code and produced the code. He didn't write the code himself, but that, in itself, is not dishonest, unless there's some particular reason why he should had (security clearance, for example).

They start small, find there aren't any consequences and continue to escalate their dishonesty. That is the pattern with almost all employee dishonesty issues and there is no reason to expect this guy would have been different.

Yes, there is: this guy had delivered what he had been paid for, and according to the summary done that in a timely manner and commendable quality.

There are problems with the approach the guy took to his job, which mostly deal with outsiders getting access to information they possibly shouldn't, but getting your assigned task accomplished in an unorthodox manner cannot in itself be considered dishonest.

The delivering what he was paid to approach only applies if he was a contractor, not an employee. There is no question that he was in fact an employee, so delivering what he was paid to approach does not apply. If I work in a warehouse and I am supposed to move six pallets that were just delivered to the appropriate shelves and it is supposed to take eight hours and it only takes me three? Is it alright for me to sit around the rest of the day and expect to be paid my full wage? Why do people get upset about government workers who seem to sit around not working, but not this guy? It's the same principle - employees are expected to perform the work they are assigned. And that means they themselves are expected to do it.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[cusco]

What's stopping you?

Contractual obligations with our clients. The Verizon guy handed off his security key, obviously I'm not going to do that, it would be breach of our contract with them. There aren't really any part-time positions in my industry (physical security), just full time and big-honking-mountains-of-hours positions. I've managed to back out to the point where I'm only working a little more than full time, and I'm comfortable with that. Remote access is making me even more comfortable with it.

I suppose my position on the Verizon guy is that he was being employed to deliver a product, which by all accounts he was delivering very well. That he blew off his company's security policies in the process is where I have a problem with him.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[cayenne8]

That's just sad. While money is certainly one motivator, there are plenty of others, and what motivates you the most depends upon your current life situation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs [wikipedia.org]

Well, many if not most of the things I see on that pyramid are what I call necessities of life.

To attain all of those...you need Money, and in these times, LOTS of money.

. Therefore to satisfy my needs, I have to do something (preferably legal) to earn enough money so I can have the necessities and the things I like to do on "my" time.

A job is merely a means to that end....I earn money, with money I can do things that please me.

If I did not have to earn another dime, and was wealthy enough to never have to work again...I have no problem filling my time with entertaining things to do.

Yes, my main needs is $$$, in today's world, it is the ONE thing that allows me to do what I want, where I want and enjoy myself.

Anyone that seriously says money does not buy them happiness, PLEASE, send said fulfilling financial tokens my way, and I assure you that I can put them to good use making the rest of my life extremely comfortable, full and happy.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[cusco]

I get to do fun and interesting things in my job, and they let me take time off in big enough chunks that I can do other fun and interesting things (travel mostly). I could probably make more money working somewhere else or working more hours, but I make enough to be comfortable and I like what I do between 8:00 and 5:00.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[codewarren]

Because accomplishing things you consider valuable...

That's what the GP wants to do. What he's tired of doing is accomplishing things that SOMEONE ELSE considers valuable.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[tnk1]

That's really the only reason to do something like this: use your workplace to work on other stuff that will make you money or hone your skills. Otherwise, you're paying someone so you can web surf, and do you really need to web surf for 8 hours a day?

Now, if you could find a way to be able to use this outsourced worker to let you get outside and do other things, instead of working, this would work nicely. For instance, if you worked from home, this could buy you the ability to get out of the house and do things.

Still, I don't think this is beneficial unless you have a good plan for what it is buying you. On the other hand, the markup you would put on the work is essentially what contracting companies do anyway, so it may not be unethical to charge the markup itself. The lack of ethics is that you aren't supposed to be a contractor, you're supposed to be an in-house expert on their stuff.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[karnal]

Apparently you're not understanding what disabling split tunneling does on a VPN.

When you disable split tunneling while using VPN, you essentially lose the route out of your computer towards the internet. The only route that your PC knows is through your VPN adapter, which then sends any packet that way. Even local traffic - say my PC is on 192.168.1.1, my router is 192.168.1.5 and another PC is at 192.168.1.2 - when my PC is on VPN, I can't talk to the internet (without going to the company first) nor can I talk to 192.168.1.5.

Once you fire up the VPN session, the SSH would drop towards the Chinese guy, because all packets are now going across the tunnel.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[dubbreak]

No, but you can do it honestly where the company is aware they're hiring a contractor or dishonestly where they're not. I've been both a consultant and an employee and there are far more differences than just security. Contractors are external, employees are internal so doing it this way you end up as a mole on the inside. There's no right or wrong to it, as an employer I can chose to hire an employee or a contractor with different pros and cons, but if I hire one and get the other then you're fundamentally misrepresenting yourself.

That's a good point but I think there's a little more grey/gray to it than just black and white. When I hire a contractor it means no benefits and generally short term (at a higher rate per hour and generally higher than total hourly cost of having an employee). With an employee it's long term relationship (I can't ditch them whenever I want like a contractor.. at least not in my jurisdiction) and I'm expected to provide benefits etc (though apparent hourly rate is lower). I pay whatever I hire (employee/contractor) to do a particular job at a particular level for their pay grade (there are expectations that go with the pay level).

An individual, say John Smith, can be a business. In my jurisdiction you can act as a sole proprietorship under your own name. So if I hire John Smith I can actually be hiring the company called John Smith. John has full liability for his actions (as he is not a corporation of limited liability) as you would expect from an individual. So my (weak) argument is that a person can be (or rather is) a company.

If corporations can be treated as individual entities, why not people as companies? The law where I live supports it.

I'm quite sure you are right and he misrepresented himself, but I'm curious how clear you have to be. I'd have to ask my lawyer what she thinks would happen here if you tried to fire someone for doing this locally. Is it actually a breach of contract? Any employment agreement I've signed has not stated that I was the sole supplier of the work, just my responsibilities, benefits etc. Actually it would breach the NDAs I've signed and that's most likely an offense you can fire over (despite the employee sided labour legislation).

On a side note: I had a great contractor under me. Couldn't be happier with his work (great code, better than mine.. easy to read and maintain, super clean). If I later found out it wasn't him actually doing the work I wouldn't have given a shit. I hired him and it was under the understanding it was him who would be doing the work, but in the end all I care about is results. If he was able to find someone that put out that level of code (especially if he was unable to do so himself) and was able to translate my requests so clearly.. fucking kudos to him. I got what I wanted at the fair going rate.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[radtea]

. But when a peon.. whoops, excuse me, the proper term is "an employee", turns the tables on them, well, we can't have that, can we.

I believe the correct terminology in the current version of NewSpeak is "job consumer".

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[GameboyRMH]

Ah I see...but I have a solution: SSH & VNC into another box controlling the computer connected to the VPN via USB keyboard, mouse & display emulation :D

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[fahrbot-bot]

well.. and the fact the employee here was collecting a 400% markup..

You just defined Verizon's relationship with its customers.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[ewibble]

Why would doing something you like for money stop being fun. Sure some parts of the job, may not be enjoyable but others our. Even in hobbies you may not enjoy every single aspect of that hobby.

I like my job, solving problems is great fun. Are there things I would rather do yes, but that doesn't mean work is not enjoyable. There is nothing about work that implies that it cannot be fun.

As for the percentage of the population who enjoy there work it is hard to say because I can only draw from my personal experience, probably the same as you

quick search give a bunch of numbers:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/carminegallo/2011/11/11/your-emotionally-disconnected-employees/ 70% unhappy
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-10-04/strategy/30001895_1_new-job-passion-careers 80% unhappy.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-6056611.html 55% unhappy and rising but you would expect that sort of thing with shrinking job market, since more people have to settle.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[BVis]

I can't ditch them whenever I want like a contractor.. at least not in my jurisdiction

Guessing from that and from your use of 'labour' (and the fact that where you are, employees are apparently treated like human beings) that you're not in the USA. Nearly all (if not all) states in the USA are 'at-will' employment states. Contractor, full-timer, whatever, you can be fired at any time for no reason whatsoever with no notice, no severance, no nothing. The only thing they're obligated to give you is pay to-date, and compensation for any earned time off (and you sometimes have to fight for that.) One minute you're working at your desk, the next you're being escorted to the door with a pamphlet in your hand telling you how to file for unemployment assistance, and your belongings being shipped to your house in a box.

People try to say 'well, you can quit anytime you want, so it's only fair'. Well, to those people, I say "bullshit, you need the company more than the company needs you, and they go to great lengths to remind you of that."

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[ByOhTek]

Actually, I've seen them with USB connections so you don't have to type in the code.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[dubbreak]

So, while we might admire his "initiative"....I, for one, would NEVER hire this guy.

I'd hire him to manage outsourcing. He's obviously more successful than most at it.

Yes, his resume is most likely misleading (as it wasn't him), but not totally as he was the one who implemented those result (albeit not directly which is a lie). My question is: why is he doing this? If I were him I'd be running a consulting business, but maybe where he is that wouldn't work?

My experience with consulting agencies that put cheap foreign labour on your project is that they suck. Maybe this was all some far reaching plan to get caught so he gets tons of publicity for his "outsourcing that doesn't suck". I was talking to some software people from a big insurance company somewhere in SoCal (national company they told me.. and he was astonished I had never heard of them). They said their trick to outsourcing was same time zone (i.e. mexico) and was super proud of their "low" 20% rework. The outsourced workers only produced code 80% of their local counterparts, but that was considered "good" because it was still cheaper to do the rework. Different time zone added other issues and they were getting much lower quality from overseas).

I could have argued that there's a lot more than money to cost (are you still hitting deadlines with 20% rework?!), but the fact that they'll settle for 80% because it saves them 25% in up front dev costs (I really doubt they had any total cost analysis and the guy didn't seem to understand long term software costs).

I, like many in software, have a negative view of outsourcing. It's hard enough to communicate between staff in the same room, let alone across continents, time zones and differing cultures. That's my bias, and that's the kind of bias this guy has to fight against to work this way legitimately. Once you have a few successful project under your belt it's easier, but getting people to take the risk in the first place is difficult.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[tnk1]

Actually, I'd probably still maintain a job if I got rich, although it would definitely be part time or low stress. I'm in the business because I like working with computers, not strictly for the money. The money only comes into play in my choice of employers. If I didn't care that I needed to make as much, I would probably join a non-profit, or I'd offer to work for peanuts on some high technology installation. Possibly work on maintaining school district computers for kids.

I don't work to live, but I think that you get paid for jobs precisely because jobs are useful. And being useful can provide happiness. If I was to fear anything about old age, for instance, it would be the fact that I am superfluous to anything that is going on. While I think that life is important, in and of itself, it is particularly improved by doing something that lets you help other people and keep your mind occupied.

A lot of these rich trust fund kids out there are the way they are precisely because they have money and don't actually fulfill any role except to gratify themselves.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[ByOhTek]

It isn't.

My argument is that the employer and employee should be considered on equal terms (though I can think of good arguments for favoring the employee, from a pure economic standpoint).

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[ByOhTek]

Not disagreeing with the access point, but I've seen people making more of an issue on the fact that the employee was making the profit. Yeah, the token issue was bad, and has serious legal, ethical and security repercussions.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[fahrbot-bot]

Why would anyone work if they didn't have to?

My wife died in 2006 when I was 42; we were together for 20 years. We lived responsibly, partly because she was 19 years older than me and would retire way before me, so I'm debt-free and don't need to work (ever again), but do because I haven't yet figured out what I want to do with my self/life and I'd be bored otherwise. My house is quiet and lonely enough on the weekends as it is, I don't need that 24/7.

Some things are not so simple...

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Farmer Pete]

There are "Soft" tokens. Basically an app on your computer or smartphone.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[ewibble]

Most, if not all of those things above safety don't really require money (maybe family aka children because you have to provide their needs). In fact working to much may detract from some of them, and good job can provide easily provide items in the Self-actualization, and Esteem categories with no money paid.

Maybe you pay for friendships, intimacy, self-esteem .. Sure the basic necessities of life cost money but today as a percentage of income they are much less than throughout history. All you need is a place to live, food to eat, be able to go to the doctor. 100 years ago how many people went do a doctor? To satisfy these you don't need the best just enough to meet your needs.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[cayenne8]

Why would doing something you like for money stop being fun.

It ceases or becomes less fun, when you are dependant on that money for living, it introduces worry about the money, more than the enjoyment of the task.

And again...things I like to do, make very no money or not nearly enough to support my lifestyle.

For instance.

I like to cook. I do it for friends and neighbors and myself. If I were a lottery winner, I might possibly buy a small restaurant, and open it to cook stuff for whenever I felt like it. Frankly, if you make something small, good and hard to get into, foodies will flock to it.

However, in the past, I did food service for a living, and it is TOUGH...hours and work.

I hope I NEVER have to do that again for a living, to have my livelihood depend on the stress and strain of doing that to live.

However, if I had extreme wealth...I could open a place do it for fun.....open when I felt, whatever, but if I didn't feel like doing it that day, I wouldn't have to.

With a 'job' or 'work'...you don't have that option because you depend on it for money, and that adds strain and decreases or destroys the fun in it.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[viperidaenz]

So put a webcam in front of the token.

If the guy set up a VPN at his own home and had the Chinese contractor go through that no would know any better.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[mdielmann]

Now, I don't know if RSA has a locale element to it's codes, but the last time I saw one of these (which I admit was years ago) you had a 6 second window to use the code. I don't think that could have realistically changed - just how fast can you enter that code? So the simple solution would be for him to have the Chinese guy working with it and still keep possession is to show it via a webcam. This will probably cut the window down to about 4 seconds or more - still a reasonable time frame if you're quick.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[viperidaenz]

"According to the article, the man had similar scams running with other companies"

Sounds like you're a little wrong there. He did free up his time to work elsewhere.
He made more money, had more free time and all he had to do was manage a few people while watching funny cat videos and browsing sex toys on ebay

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[mdielmann]

Sure, what he did was unethical. But, had he the mandate of the company he was doing this with, it would simply be called subcontracting to an independent organization, with the employee being the coordinator.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[cayenne8]

Most, if not all of those things above safety don't really require money (maybe family aka children because you have to provide their needs). In fact working to much may detract from some of them, and good job can provide easily provide items in the Self-actualization, and Esteem categories with no money paid.

Maybe you pay for friendships, intimacy, self-esteem .. Sure the basic necessities of life cost money but today as a percentage of income they are much less than throughout history. All you need is a place to live, food to eat, be able to go to the doctor. 100 years ago how many people went do a doctor? To satisfy these you don't need the best just enough to meet your needs.

I have plenty self esteem...that's easy, in fact, I have no concept on how people can go without it...it is easy to 'love' one's self. That should just come naturally.

I don't want kids, they would be a drain on my finances and time, a sacrifice I'm not willing to make... I like doing what I do with the freedom to come and go as I please, and not have to answer to anyone else on what I choose to spend MY money on. I'm very giving with friends and family, but it is by choice...not a necessity that I sacrifice for others.

I have a nice home, I have LOTS of nice toys (cars, computers, upteen different hobbies that require stuff)...

My needs are to be free to travel, spend money on friends, meet,date and bed some women as they come along my path...etc.

Just existing (only shelter, food, etc)...is NOT living. This is the only shot at life I have...I intend to make the most of it and experience a ton of it (and I already have a LOT there)....that is what fuels my life, existence and desire to go forward.

That all requires money as fuel. So, I do what I have to to get money, to fun what is fun.

Just getting by on what you NEED to live...to me, is a wasted life.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[cayenne8]

Do you try beating him yourself, knowing that you can do it if you try hard enough? Or do you download a Chess bot to play for you and certainly beat Bobby? One is easier, but less fun, right?

Download the chess bot of course.

That way, I can maximize my time while that is going on, do to something else to earn MORE money..or to go have fun.

with the chess bot, I could be earning money AND at the same time, having a drink with friends at a bar?

No other possible decision. Whatever it takes to maximize MY life.

After all, I only get one!!

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[ewibble]

from:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-study/102186/the-mega-millions-jackpot-reached-record-high-today-does-winning-the-lottery-m#
Discusses how winning the lottery does not make you happier.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[davester666]

Yes, the contractor has to have a VPN connection to the employee's home. The employee needs to periodically upload the work from his home to the office. And maybe sometimes just forward the connection through his home as necessary for specific projects.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[cayenne8]

My wife died in 2006 when I was 42; we were together for 20 years. We lived responsibly, partly because she was 19 years older than me and would retire way before me, so I'm debt-free and don't need to work (ever again), but do because I haven't yet figured out what I want to do with my self/life and I'd be bored otherwise. My house is quiet and lonely enough on the weekends as it is, I don't need that 24/7.

Sorry to hear about your loss, but why are you alone?

That was about 7 years ago...do you not have a bunch of other friends or people you can do things with? When you were married, did you not keep close friends then...or was it just you and her and no outside people?

You're near 50....hell, get out there, meet another woman, they are a dime a dozen out there. Get laid. Hell, if you want..get involved.

I know there is a period of grieving, but you're still in this world, and I doubt your wife would want you to be down forever. Get out and enjoy yourself. If you don't have to work for a living...get out and find something to do.

Have you ever been a tourist in your own town?

Once, when I was in between contracts for about 7mos...I got up each day....walked the dog, hit the gym for a couple hours...and in the afternoons, I'd hop on my motorcycle and do something different every day. I went to check out the various museums...stuff like that.

And if you like computers...tinker with those.

And start to embrace some 'alone time'. I love my alone time, make use of it to do things that having someone around all the time can distract you from, like maybe learning a new language.

And hell...TRAVEL. If you have the means, go somewhere. How about this spring, go rent a bungalow in Key West and go party on Duval street and dine out for a week? Plenty of people to meet there or anywhere else you travel.

There's not a lack of things to do in this world at all, just pick something and GO.

Good luck. Again, sorry about your wife passing, but after 7 years, you really need to be moving on and enjoying the rest of your life. Your a the midpoint now, don't waste time!!

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[cayenne8]

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-study/102186/the-mega-millions-jackpot-reached-record-high-today-does-winning-the-lottery-m# Discusses how winning the lottery does not make you happier.

I BEG of the powers that be.

Please give me the chance to prove everyone wrong that says that winning the lottery does not make you happier.

I assure you...I will be ecstatic the rest of my days.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[dubbreak]

One more reason I don't choose to live in the US. Some of the laws get twisted a little. E.g. I heard about someone going to court because he was fired for smoking weed on the job. Labour code prohibits being intoxicated on the job (or anything illegal), but he still got his day in court. He didn't win of course, but it's a PITA for the employer. All-in-all though, I think it's better. It just forces employers to think carefully about who they hire (and whether they keep them beyond probation). You can fire at will when the employee is in probation, but after than you need documented cause (either a history of small offenses or something that is considered a fire-able offense).

In software it makes employers think carefully about whether they need a contractor or employee. Though I've seen that sway towards hiring contractors when in fact employees were needed (to not risk long term costs associated with employees). You need long term employees vested in your software for it to last long term. There's pros and cons to both sides, but I think the pros are in favour of society on strong labour laws (whereas it's businesses that win on weak ones).

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[ewibble]

Being dependent on something makes you less happy yes, It introduces stress, if you have financial security in your life ( don't mean mega wealth just enough to know you are not going starve) it helps make you more happy. I enjoy hard work it makes me feel good to know I have accomplished something. It is all about degree of course, I need other things in my life apart from work and if the job takes too much of my of that it would stop being enjoyable. Working can be fun, it just there has to be a balance. I find family fun too but that may change if I couldn't get away once an a while.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Farmer Pete]

My brother in law is a contractor. He was telling me how it's pretty often that he gets work from other contractors, and then he subcontracts the work out to people who some times work with him. It's no surprise that it costs people so much money to have work done when 3 people have to make a profit on it.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Farmer Pete]

Sorry, I forgot to mention he is a construction contractor.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[BVis]

It's also a little easier to work as a contractor in countries where your health care coverage isn't tied to employment. If you're not worried about whether you'll be able to afford to go to the doctor, should you not have private health insurance, then it's easier to be more flexible. Here, people get 'stuck' in jobs that they hate or are hazardous to their mental or physical health, simply because they need health coverage for a sick relative. Working as a contractor over here is great; you get higher pay, more flexibility, a chance to gain new skills, etc... so long as you don't get cancer. Then, you're well and truly fucked. Medical bankruptcy is not something that exists outside our borders, as far as I know.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[ewibble]

Good luck to you, I do know a paraplegic and I asked him if he is less happy after his accident and he said no. Then again 1 case does not make a proof.

I would of course suggest saving, so you are not as financially dependent on your job, just on the off change you don't win lotto.

Once again good luck.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Spiridios]

You mean, except for the whole "some random dude in another country now has his RSA ID and noone was the wiser", ya sure.

Now I haven't used an RSA id personally, but couldn't the employee have kept his RSA ID, set it up on a home computer, and given the outsourced programmer remote access to it?

Possibly, but the network setup could be a bit difficult since, I'm assuming, the RSA token allowed access to the work VPN. The only time I've used an RSA token was on a VPN which had a client that refused to allow both your home network and your work network to be active at the same time. So you end up having to set up the VPN on a virtual machine, let the outsider remote into the host machine and from there he can access the guest and thus, the VPN.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Farmer Pete]

Very few companies I have been part of allow full access to VPN users. They typically follow a least privileged approach. In other words, you get exactly what you ask for and nothing else. If you need to RDP to Box A, you wont be able to RDP to Box B. You could ask to RDP to subnet 10.45.24.*, but you'll need to justify it. It's a bit of a PITA to setup the access, but the end result is a lot more secure.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[ewibble]

If you do win, and you are not happier will you give your money to charity? I would suggest that might actually make you happier.
http://www.livescience.com/2376-key-happiness-give-money.html
8-).

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[dubbreak]

Yeah. That would be my main reason. Socialized healthcare that works (and actually costs the government less per capita than the US privatized care does/did). It's not actually free (as a contractor you have to pay your MSP fees yourself, which employers generally pay in addition to "extended medical"), but it's affordable. Under a certain income I think it is free, I think. Most of the time if you have a significant other with family coverage, your base MSP fees are covered as well.

I was actually looking into this recently as I'm looking to hire employees (three categories of monthly rate: Single - $60.50, Family of 2 - $109, Family of 3 or more: $121). For extended medical/dental/optical it looks like around $265/month for an employee (depending on claim history). That gets you a lower deductible on prescriptions, cheap or free dental visits (most I've paid is $50 for a filling) and free eye checkups and money towards glasses every X years (varies on plan, some suck some are good). Often extended will let you double up if you have multiple plans (e.g. both wife and husband have plans). Your primary plans covers the initial amount, then the secondary often covers the rest.

I recently broke an arm which required surgery. I checked into how much it would be if you weren't covered (e.g. out of country visitor).. >$12K. I paid nothing. It was an accident, and I'd assume they'd collect from the insurance company (since it was the other driver's fault.. and his insurance should pay not government dollars), but that's all opaque to me since it's handled within the system. Even if broke it mountain biking I wouldn't have had to pay. I was out of pocket $40 for my second cast (which extended would probably cover if it wasn't a vehicle accident.. vehicle insurer is deemed primary in accidents).

The main thing is you're not going to die if you don't have extended health care and you aren't going to go bankrupt from cancer or a complicated pregnancy or a heart condition etc.

There are of course compromises. E.g. if you could use knee surgery but are "lower prioriy" (older, doesn't affect ability to work etc) you'll be at the end of a long waiting list. You can travel elsewhere and pay to have it done sooner, or wait. I've heard of people with a broken bone (that requires fixation) waiting a week in a cast before going in for surgery. Mine was bad enough that it had to be done asap. As long as you are drugged well enough and it's not dire, I guess waiting is ok, but it's definitely not fun.

No silver bullet. But I think it works better for the poor up to middle income people (maybe even upper middle). Straight private definitely favours the rich. I think we're trying to figure out a mixed system so that people can pay for private care and get quicker care (in Country), but doesn't pull doctors from public care and result in longer waiting lists. Basically you don't want to change the existing so that people can pay to jump the line (which is what can happen if a surgeon works in both private and public practices).

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[BVis]

Your numbers make me laugh and then cry. Blue Cross/Blue Shield (the private insurer that my employer has a contract with) gets $1,200/month for my family (three of us, soon to be four). Doesn't include dental, that's Delta, and they cover a whopping $1,000 a year for dental work. I have three crowns that need to be done, and each one is about $1,500 by the time you're done with it. Oh, and vision is yet ANOTHER plan, and I just paid $500 for glasses.. and that was AFTER the discount.

If you are destitute or below the poverty line for the size of a family you have, you can get Medicaid, but good luck finding a good doctor that will accept it. Also, if you have an elder parent that is going to require extended nursing home care, you better shield your assets, because they'll take EVERYTHING if you're not careful. The house, your savings, their savings, everything. THEN they'll start to pay for Shitty Nursing Home Inc. to take care of them. And forget about pensions, those don't exist for the vast majority of US workers, unless you're one of the small minority that has union protection, and even THEN they're shitty.

Assuming Canada from the $ units. How hard is it to get a work card up there if you're a US citizen with a fairly in-demand skill set?

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[dubbreak]

I know a few americans working in Canada now. If you have a job offer apparently it's easy. Without you can still get a work permit if you can prove you have enough funds. The basics are: you need to prove a good skill set (generally a degree is the easiest way to prove that) and that you are broke and going to leach off the system.

Here's a self test to see if you are eligible to work in Canada. And more info on working in Canada.

Cost of living is pretty high though depending on area. The most desirable areas (e.g. Vancouver) have some of the highest living costs in the world (when compared to income). Think San Diego housing costs with slightly lower wages (one of my friends just moved to SD.. he said avg family home was slightly cheaper in SD, but something well renovated in a good area would be slightly more.. very comparable though). You can find cheap regions, but you have to like winter sports. Right now I have green grass and a house that costs twice the price of a comparable in an area with a foot of snow. In the US you can have warm and cheap depending on which state you are willing to live in.

Oh yeah.. income tax is higher. So that is part of why the medical fees appear low. You can try out your expected wage in this calc. Anyhow.. this is way off topic now. Feel free to email me (stephen at arcane innovations dot com) if you have any questions. If you are in software/engineering I can help with job searching resources (on the west coast at least).

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[pjt33]

I'd contact James Randi and collect my $1m.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[fahrbot-bot]

Thanks for the encouraging words.

I'm not a shut-in, but have always been rather solitary and okay with it. All of my long-term friends live far away, with the nearest about 120 miles away. My wife was a teacher and had lots of friends, but I was okay hanging with just her for most of the time. I can keep busy on my own, most of the time. I've got home improvements, whenever I get the enthusiasm for that, and have 4 computers at home w/Windows and Linux - one is my MythTV system. I've live in the same city since 1981 and the same house since 1993. I live in a tourist town in Virginia and have (and do) see the things worth seeing, within reason... I'm not into traveling by myself, don't really see the point w/o someone to share it with and I'm not really interested in going out to get laid - dating/sex is (was) fun, but over-rated unless with the right person. I'm not interested in being with just anyone.

Basically, I'm slowly getting my personal shit in order, while I figure things out. I had a *really* good relationship with my wife and she was a wonderful person. She wanted me to find someone else and I promised her I would at least consider it, but she's a tough act to follow and I'm not interested in anything less. I'm not hung up on my past, but am defined by it.

On a really personal note. She was diagnosed with a brain tumor and died literally in my arms seven weeks later. I heard her last breath and felt her last heart beat. That gave me a lot of perspective on a lot of things - not all of it/them good. The seventh anniversary of her death was Sunday, January 13, 2013 @ 3:00pm so this week isn't good for me.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[DarwinSurvivor]

Or just use a fucking virtual machine. You guys and your Goldberg routing.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[cusco]

Historically it wasn't until about 100 years ago that going to a doctor actually improved your chances of surviving a major health incident. Even then, more often than not you'd end up a morphine or cocaine addict from the patent medicines he prescribed.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[ewibble]

I agree, I am just saying that health care may be expensive (in the US), per unit of health per unit of real cost it are actually much better off, now than before.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[cusco]

sometimes I surprise them by showing up just because they have a hot receptionist

FTFY :-)

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Kalriath]

Pushing the button on it via a webcam could be problematic.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Rakarra]

As China is 12 hrs off of the US (DC to Shanghai), that seems problematic.

So maybe the Chinese guy worked 9pm - 5am (his time). Doesn't seem like that big a problem. Some people work really well like that, and maybe even prefer it. Others just can't work at night.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[viperidaenz]

Not all RSA tokens have a button, the last three I've used didn't. Just a 6 digit LCD screen.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[AdamWill]

"Now....how can I implement something of this sort?"

It's called 'subcontracting'. Set yourself up a corporation, bid on some code contracts, buy some purchasing managers some dinners, you'll be well on your way to millions and self-loathing. Double dip!

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[carnivore302]

Maybe the American programmer hired Spongebob, who paid to do the job.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Rich0]

Why would anyone work if they didn't have to?

Because accomplishing things you consider valuable triggers the reward circuits in your brain. That's the reason people do volunteer work, have hobbies, etc.

Both you and the parent are confusing "work" and "job". They are not the same thing, altough if you're lucky they might overlap.

I'm sure that if I won the lottery I wouldn't just lie in bed all day. However, what I spend my time on would change significantly. Right now how I spend the majority of the day is governed by what I can get paid for. There are lots of things that would be more fulfilling to do if I didn't have that constraint.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Rich0]

He didn't suggest that he would just watch youtube all day.

As far as not finding the right job/career goes, well, duh. The problem is that people don't pay you to do what YOU want to do. They pay you to do what THEY want you to do. If somebody really wants to paint and have a family that lives in their own house, then unless they're in the top ~50-100 artists globally they simply aren't going to be happy with that as a career.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Rich0]

No, but you can do it honestly where the company is aware they're hiring a contractor or dishonestly where they're not.

Is it dishonest of a company to not list on the box of their product the names of everybody who worked on it? Is it dishonest for you to buy a device from Apple only to find out that it was really made by Foxconn?

They paid him to do a job. He did the job. There was always the risk that he could have stolen their code and sold it to the highest bidder, and that didn't change when he subcontracted the work.

The only reason that people have a problem with what was done is that we basically treat employees as slaves.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Rich0]

When I hire a contractor it means no benefits and generally short term (at a higher rate per hour and generally higher than total hourly cost of having an employee). With an employee it's long term relationship (I can't ditch them whenever I want like a contractor.. at least not in my jurisdiction) and I'm expected to provide benefits etc (though apparent hourly rate is lower).

If things really worked that way then I'd be much more sympathetic to the company. Modern companies hire and fire on a whim, and they do stuff like reduce pension plans mid-career (or even post-career in some cases - via bankruptcy). Many companies don't pay benefits at all.

If employees really had "jobs for life" as long as they performed reasonably well then I'd be much more sympathetic to the employer. In such an arrangement the employee is trading security for profit - the company is the one taking the risks, but they also get the rewards, and the employee just gets a steady paycheck. However, the modern corporation puts quite a bit of pay at-risk, and the job as well. If your product doesn't pan out they just fire everybody working on it. If the product does do well then the corporation keeps the 400% profit margin for itself. The days of keeping you around and paying you until they can find another task to train you to work on are over. If they need less of A and more of B they don't retrain, they just fire a bunch of A-workers and hire a bunch of B-workers.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Rich0]

Yeah, the kinds of rates for healthcare you just quoted are the kinds of rates many Americans pay for healthcare even if they are full-time employees with employer-provided coverage.

If you have to pay your own way, add at least one zero. Most people who do contracting/consulting tend to go through big firms as a result - they're really just employees of somebody else.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Rich0]

The delivering what he was paid to approach only applies if he was a contractor, not an employee. There is no question that he was in fact an employee, so delivering what he was paid to approach does not apply.

What's the difference? If he didn't deliver more value for less money he'd be fired in a heartbeat like any contractor. If the company needed less of his services and more of somebody else's he'd be fired in a heartbeat like any contractor. If the company just wanted to pay him less they'd give him a take-it-or-leave deal like any contractor.

In the US there really is no such thing as an "employee" any longer. You're just somebody who does a job, and you'll do the job for as long as the job needs doing and there isn't anybody who can do it for a fraction of a penny less.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[GameboyRMH]

I just wanted to demonstrate the futility of any DRM-like protections on the VPN client application. Next they could try to detect when they're in a VM like some viruses do.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[DrStoooopid]

One word:

DROPBOX

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[cayenne8]

...you'll be well on your way to millions and self-loathing.

Well, I'll take the millions, but I don't see any possibility for any type of loathing, especially for 'self'.

:)

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[cayenne8]

I feel for ya man.

Good luck....you'll do fine. I wish you the best!!

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Anguirel]

I like to travel, date various women, I have hobbies, I have TONS of things that I'd be doing every day if I didn't have to bother coming to a job to work.

I like to travel, be with my wife, I have hobbies, and I have TONS of things I already do every day because I have a job I want to do. Sure, there are other things I'd enjoy doing as well, and I do enjoy them when I take vacations or have a few days of holiday, but often at the end of those breaks, I genuinely look forward to getting back into work to tackle the latest problems. I could have moved into higher-paying alternative careers, but instead of hating every day I go to work, I wake up happy about going into work. I get to do interesting things every day with awesome people, and they actually give me money for it so I can do other interesting things outside of work after... So while I could easily earn more by sacrificing that to be in a company I didn't like, doing work I didn't enjoy as much, probably in an industry I don't have any respect for, I earn enough to have the life and lifestyle I want right now, and also save for retirement.

I'm defined by myself, and I really, really do LIKE myself....and would love to not have to work, and spend more time having fun and doing interesting things.

Are you sure about that? Because it seems to me that you're more defined by what you can afford, and you're willing to sacrifice who you wish you were to buy those things.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[jonadab]

> fire the employee, keep the contractor.

No, no, no. You don't _fire_ the employee. In fact, give him a commendation for original thinking.

Then eliminate his current position by outsourcing it to the contractor, and reassign him into a newly created position in the Labor Outsourcing department (a subdivision of HR) -- on commission, so that in order to maintain his former salary level he has to outsource the job of one of his (now former) coworkers every week.

And, if you want to be really evil, feature a story about it on the front page of the employee newsletter.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[luis_a_espinal]

I'm a bit torn on TFS.

On one hand, companies outsource "our" jobs with absolutely no remorse at all.

On the other hand, ... fingers?

On the other hand, many companies wouldn't mind... IF you told them what was going on. I'm guessing the major issue here is the omission of details by the employee.

The serious issue here was that the employee Fedexed his RSA key. It is amazing how many people in this thread have failed to recognize this as a problem significant enough to warrant dismissal (and depending on the type of work you do, legal prosecution.)

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[Bobfrankly1]

Pushing the button on it via a webcam could be problematic.

Just rig a CD-ROM with a tray in front of it. Eject the tray via software and you can push that button.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[cavebison]

proved his own job could be outsourced better at a fraction of his salary

Not necessarily at all.

a) Security. The Chinese contractor probably had business-sensitive info that the employer would not have wanted given out.
b) Management. External contractors need management, technical info and guidance, which was obviously provided by the employee. Is the employer able to provide management of foreign externals? Many think they can, then are shocked when they get a poor result.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[cavebison]

fire the employee, keep the contractor.

Really? Fire someone who shows initiative, ability to manage others (managing external devs is often not trivial), and can potentially save the company lots of money?

Promote him is more like it, and see how he can improve productivity.

Re:Part of me says, "Good!"

[sodul]

We did that at my startup 10y ago. One of the founders setup a Yahoo messenger webcam to point to the rya key of a remote contractor.
They later got acquired by Microsoft.

Outsourcing

[Janek Kozicki]

Now, who is going to complain about job outsourcing? Market & economy have laws that can't be broken. No matter how hard some countries try to.

Re:Outsourcing

[erroneus]

Yeah something of a double-edged sword there. Of course their argument is about knowledge and all that, but in reality, many outsourced jobs go to contract companies who then sell the jobs out to other, unknown entities. All the companies out there having things made by slave children invariably claim no knowledge based on these types of practices.

Also, outsourcing happens on our soils as well. I once spent some time with a company that sold our services to another company and the markup rate was 50% or more of what I was getting. I was rather disgusted at the notion. It was impossible for me to get that job, but by going through one of these companies, I could get it and there I was, "the same damned person."

But we people routinely get angry at people who do the very same things we do... or we simply get angry at the wrong people. Case in point: A guy finds his woman has been with another man. The guy gets angry and goes after the other man. Say what?! This guy is doing what pretty much every other guy would do when it's being made available to them. Why get pissed off at another guy who is doing what you would be tempted to do? I wouldn't. The real problem was the woman and sometimes she is blamed and other times even forgiven. Ridiculous.

So the business who is likely to outsource (call centers and stuff like that) finds one of its employees is paying someone else to do the work he was hired to do. On one hand, they shouldn't care. On the other, there are security concerns... sort of. If they thought he was a safe employee, they now know it was just an illusion like all of our other notions of being safe. (But we gave up our freedom, our right to self-defence and lots and lots of money to taxes and we're NOT safer? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!)

Well, there is certainly much to talk about with regards to this and a lot of perspectives to weigh in. But most of us definitely feel companies like Verizon 'deserves' this though it would only make a difference if most everyone was doing this... which they aren't. Can't be. So, kudos to the scammer. May he never be given another job like this or in the industry again. You are scum just like the companies who outsource our jobs. It doesn't make it right when you do it, any more than when they do it. That they get upset when someone did it to them shows perfectly that they know what they are doing and who they are doing it to. That they feel justified in doing it while others shouldn't just shows their hypocrisy.

Re:Outsourcing

[mwvdlee]

Also, outsourcing happens on our soils as well. I once spent some time with a company that sold our services to another company and the markup rate was 50% or more of what I was getting. I was rather disgusted at the notion. It was impossible for me to get that job, but by going through one of these companies, I could get it and there I was, "the same damned person."

If you would have gotten sick, died or otherwise unable to work, would you have been replaced at no additional cost?
If your expertise wasn't up to the required standards, would you have been replaced at no additional cost?
If you turn out to be a criminal, could they sue you for all damages or just a small fraction of it?
It's all about insuring risks.

Re:Outsourcing

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's more about the IRS and benefits. The IRS started getting mad at employees taking on independent contractors instead of full time employees. There was even a lawsuit a couple years ago where a guy won benefits from the company that he was contracting for.. Not health care benefits but he is now allowed to go to the company parties and all of that stuff. Going through the middle man consulting firm, stupid though it may be, adds a layer between the employer and you making them safer against the IRS reclassifying you as an employee. Also, wrt the lawsuit I mentioned when that all went down my employer instituted a new rule that no contractor could work for them for more than 1 year. You'd have to take off at least 90 days, and then could return.

Re:Outsourcing

[14erCleaner]

I once spent some time with a company that sold our services to another company and the markup rate was 50% or more of what I was getting. I was rather disgusted at the notion. It was impossible for me to get that job, but by going through one of these companies, I could get it and there I was, "the same damned person."

By going through an agency, the employer can get rid of you more easily when the job is completed. Laying off employees is hard; not renewing a contract is easy. Also, part of the markup is for payroll overhead and benefits (if any), etc. You wouldn't get all of that even if you were a direct employee.

Re:Outsourcing

[dcollins]

"This guy is doing what pretty much every other guy would do when it's being made available to them. Why get pissed off at another guy who is doing what you would be tempted to do? I wouldn't. The real problem was the woman and sometimes she is blamed and other times even forgiven. Ridiculous."

Uh, I'm pretty sure that's the most misogynist thing I've read at Slashdot, ever.

Re:Outsourcing

[ctrlshift]

Uh, I'm pretty sure that's the most misogynist thing I've read at Slashdot, ever.

You must have missed this thread.

:-P

Re:Outsourcing

[cayenne8]

There was even a lawsuit a couple years ago where a guy won benefits from the company that he was contracting for.. Not health care benefits but he is now allowed to go to the company parties and all of that stuff. Going through the middle man consulting firm, stupid though it may be, adds a layer between the employer and you making them safer against the IRS reclassifying you as an employee. Also, wrt the lawsuit I mentioned when that all went down my employer instituted a new rule that no contractor could work for them for more than 1 year. You'd have to take off at least 90 days, and then could return.

Yup, and that motherfucker damned near fucked up a good thing for us!!

There is no loyalty by employers anymore.

If you're gonna have the job stability (none) of a contractor, you might as well get the bill rate as a contractor, so you can plan for downtime, etc...

Re:Outsourcing

[erroneus]

No it's holding women to a standard. It's not misogynist.

When a couple are in a 'relationship' it is an agreement of sorts that does not extend to the world. And if that agreement is breeched, only one of the two parties can be responsible for it. A third party cannot be responsible for breeching that agreement.

What I find to me extremely weird is the unexplained "lower standard" we expect of women. We don't expect them to keep their word or their promises or to keep secrets. We expect that it is somehow a woman's perogative to change her mind without cause, notice or explanation. I'm not sorry that I heartily disagree with this notion. Men and women are people and I hold them both to the same expectations of honor and integrity.

So once again, if a girlfriend cheats, I am not going to blame the handsome, charming stranger. I am going to hold her accountable for her actions. How is that misogynist?

Re:Outsourcing

[erroneus]

Personally? :) I would entertain the notion. I've got an open mind with regards to those kinds of things. The way I see it, the whole practice of sexuality is all masturbation. One person cannot feel what another person feels. The best two (or more) people can do is do it at the same time with each other. It's like sharing a meal -- when another person eats, I don't get full.

As for other relationship needs, once again, we are really only feeling ourselves. The feeling of being loved or needed is something we, as individuals feel and those things are subject to interpretation. So over all it all comes down to how we understand ourselves.

This would seem to suggest that relationships don't actually exist. Not true. They serve practical purposes. What purposes they serve are up to the people to determine. Some people feel it is wrong to do things with people unless there is a formal relationship involved. Some people need to share resources and/or skills to keep costs down. Some people feel security in limiting contact with others. These should all be pretty obvious.

But at the end of the day, the more illusions we maintain about love, affection, attraction and need of one another, the crazier some things become.

RE: Voice equality. From my perspective, my voice is louder and more valid than hers. From her perspective, her voice is louder and more valid than mine. We each make our own decisions while weighing in the needs and interests of the other. But due to human factors such as language, individuality, reflection and projection, it is nearly impossible to be objective in all things and to maintain the illusion that the relationship is its own entity any more than a corporation is a person.

Re:Outsourcing

[rjstanford]

By going through an agency, the employer can get rid of you more easily when the job is completed. Laying off employees is hard; not renewing a contract is easy. Also, part of the markup is for payroll overhead and benefits (if any), etc. You wouldn't get all of that even if you were a direct employee.

Actually in my experience the opposite is frequently true. Employees work "at will" and can quit or be fired at any time. Contractors often have things like rolling 30 day windows thus requiring a month of notice either way - you know, because they have "contracts" that spell those things out.

Legality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from the security issues, is such a thing legal in the US? I mean, are you required by contract to do the work you are paid for yourself?

Re:Legality?

[kestasjk]

Not usually, they typically pay someone to do a certain job by whatever means within the law when contracting.

It would probably go against their IT policy though to allow someone else access to your account, and if he signed any NDAs or other IP agreements without getting the Chinese subcontractor to sign (which would still be pretty questionable) then he'll be in trouble.

Re:Legality?

[Anonymous Coward]

are you required by contract to do the work you are paid for yourself?

Depends on the contract.
In a lot of workplaces it is not enough to do the work you are hired to do, you will also have to do it the "correct" way. You may do customer support just as well with your feet on the desk but that doesn't mean that every company will tolerate that. Some companies will have no problem with you showing up unshaved and with less formal clothing to a customer meeting, some companies will fire you for that.

In this particular case the company doesn't like it if people in his position outsources their work. If if was in a manager position it might have been a different case. Perhaps the only problem was that he didn't report the outsourcing upwards or that he didn't use the time saved by outsourcing his job in a way that was beneficial to the company.
Did he pay taxes for the services he hired. Since he did it on work time, would the company be liable for tax fraud if the IRS showed up and had a look? Perhaps that was a risk the company didn't want to take.

Re:Legality?

[erroneus]

The IRS will have MUCH to say over this. Of that you can be sure.

Re:Legality?

[egcagrac0]

The IRS will have MUCH to say over this. Of that you can be sure.

I'm curious - why?

The individual hired a Chinese consulting firm to produce code. The subcontracted agency seems like it would be outside the authority of the IRS.

Re:Legality?

[crizh]

Presumably the cost of the sub-contractor is deductible?

Re:Legality?

[steviesteveo12]

Depends on the contract. For example, the special thing about an employment contract is the personal obligation.

Re:Legality?

[alphatel]

Presumably the cost of the sub-contractor is deductible?

Absolutely 100%. Not only that but you can deduct other expenses like dry cleaning clothes to make it look like you were doing the work and the VPN used to migrate your subcontractor into the job site. Get a real crafty accountant and you should be able to keep every red cent.

Re:Legality?

[beelsebob]

Most employment contracts require you to turn up, and do what someone else tells you to do while present. If you don't do what they tell you to do, then you're certainly in breach of contract.

If he had been a contractor, and simply had to produce the goods, this might have been different.

Re:Legality?

[Sique]

This is the mantra of civilization in general. One of the big advantages of being in a civilisation are the famous shoulders of giants. You don't need to invent a way to store speech in a durable way, you can use paper, pen and an alphabet. You don't even need to invent speech, you can use the language of your environment. You don't need to invent iron casting and forging, you can go to Home Depot and buy nails and screws. And yes, at first you look if you can borrow something (if it was in use before, it is probably usuable), then you look if you get it for free (with no guarantee that it works), then try to buy it somewhere and only if it is really not available at a price you see fit, you do it yourself.

Re:Legality?

[Anonymous Coward]

was sending the RSA key to china an illegal act in itself? encryption is on the munitions export list. (I know it's dumb for it to be there, but there are many other laws that are dumb)

Re:Legality?

[arth1]

Get a real crafty accountant and you should be able to keep every red cent.

The problem is that for most of us non-millionaires, what a real crafty accountant charges is more than what the IRS wants.

Plus, of course, that when we pay taxes, we do get something back, like roads and police. The accountant, on the other hand, does not feed back to society; it is a parasite that is useful for the host, but bad for the species.

Re:Legality?

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution to this is to dedicate a small number of those web serving hours to teaching yourself all the tax codes, so that you can act as your own accountant.

Re:Legality?

[Hognoxious]

Not usually, they typically pay someone to do a certain job by whatever means within the law when contracting.

The summary says he was an employee, not a contractor.

The article says "unable to establish a database connection".

Re:Legality?

[Dcnjoe60]

The IRS will have MUCH to say over this. Of that you can be sure.

Along with the State Department since he was working with foreign nationals.

Re:Legality?

[Dcnjoe60]

Presumably the cost of the sub-contractor is deductible?

Absolutely 100%. Not only that but you can deduct other expenses like dry cleaning clothes to make it look like you were doing the work and the VPN used to migrate your subcontractor into the job site. Get a real crafty accountant and you should be able to keep every red cent.

That is true, only if the guy doing this is an employer, which he is not. It is possible that he set up his own separate company and filed all the paperwork with the State Department to hire foreign nationals, but it is unlikely. Since he is an employee and not an actual employer, then he has no legitimate business expenses to deduct.

The danger for this guy, if he wants to go that route is that his real employer can then go after him for fraud, because he was running a business on their time, using their resources for his personal gain. The government can also go after him for corporate espionage if he was actually a business, but impersonating an individual and then sending sensitive corporate data to a foreign national. The list goes on.

Re:Legality?

[Dcnjoe60]

Most employment contracts require you to turn up, and do what someone else tells you to do while present. If you don't do what they tell you to do, then you're certainly in breach of contract.

If he had been a contractor, and simply had to produce the goods, this might have been different.

That's my thought on this, more or less. In addition, since he obviously wasn't doing the work he was paid to do, it is quite possible that his employer will go after him to recoup the money they paid him (it doesn't matter that the work was done, they were paying him to do it).

Re:Legality?

[Cajun Hell]

The problem is that for most of us non-millionaires, what a real crafty accountant charges is more than what the IRS wants.

If there's anyone who knows how to find a competent-but-also-cheap accountant, it's this guy.

Re:Legality?

[Compaqt]

You don't need to file paperwork with the State Dept. to hire foreign nationals. Maybe if you're trying to bring them over to the US, but not if you're contracting with someone to do work. (It would be the ICE, not State.)

Contracting for services outside the US is considered import of a sort, but there's no specific permission required to do so. You just send the money. The only thing to worry about is the IRS (so you can deduct your expenses).

It's simply not the case that only companies can deduct their expenses. Sole proprietorships can do and deduct their expenses. You don't have to be incorporated to do so. A single person is the same as a sole proprietorship, whether you have employees or not.

Even if you're just a regular joe employee, you can deduct certain expenses which are related to your ability to earn money.

Re:Legality?

[rk]

Does the State Department have any relevance here if there are no ITAR restricted data in play?

Re:Legality?

[PoolOfThought]

This is insightful? I figured you were mostly joking (fun to pick on accountants and lawyers), but then I saw it was modded 'insightful' and that just made me sad. So I don't know if I'm responding to you or the mods, but this concept that the accountant (a private party) getting paid for a [valuable] service is somehow worse for society than the government getting the money to do with as they please is just plain... not... bright. The accountant still pays taxes. The accountant spends their earned money and in doing so stimulates the economy through their spending. All of those people who get the accountant's money... they pay taxes too. They all spend the part of the money that they get to keep with relative efficiency and on things that they found useful. And Uncle Sam gets a share off the top of each transaction along the way... over and over again. Not only that but Uncle Sam doesn't have to support (food stamps and unemployment) all of those people that the accountant funded because they are able to make a living selling things to people who have money to spend... which they wouldn't not have had if the government would have gotten it all. The government is the parasite not the guy actually out working for a living.

Re:Legality?

[Dcnjoe60]

Does the State Department have any relevance here if there are no ITAR restricted data in play?

Depends what he was working on. Working on a new encryption algorithm might not use any data but would still be restricted.

Re:Legality?

[rk]

Well, that case, the encryption algorithm itself is the data. Perhaps "information" would be the better word rather than "data".

Scams? What Scams? He was the MOST effective...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only was he the most effective employee in the company but he was managing a successful software consulting service providing services to several other local companies. He delivered the goods. In fact he was more successful at managing software outsourcing than most large companies are.

Re:Scams? What Scams? He was the MOST effective...

[Anonymous Coward]

He probably was a decent coder because that it's ether random luck or he knew how to spot a decent/good programmer in the wild half a world away.

Re:Scams? What Scams? He was the MOST effective...

[Weezul]

Yes, I'd consider this a fairly good resume for managerial positions : Efficient, check. Benefitted employer, check. Dishonest, check. etc. He should simply continue with his contracting company providing developer services for clients. In fact, it's almost pathological that he chose to sit in an office all day while doing this.

But of course

[Anonymous Coward]

When corporations do it, it's efficient. When an actual human does it, it's a scam. Can this social order please collapse now? It's bankrupt.

Re:But of course

[Anonymous Coward]

If a company misrepresents their product (e.g. made in USA when in fact it's made in China), they will be sued, and lose.

Re:But of course

[FatLittleMonkey]

Nothing? Nothing?!

Sir, he was a Manager!

(He paid other people less than the work was worth, he routinely breached company IT security policy, and he spent all day watching cat videos. He was perfect. Give him fifteen years and he'll be CEO.)

Re:But of course

[Rich0]

If a corporation outsources a job for a fifth of the wage of a local worker, then.... yes, that really is more efficient than having a guy paid four fifths of a wage to do nothing.

If a company outsources work a consumer pays $10 for a widget, and the company keeps $9 as profit and sends $1 to the people doing the work in China.

If the employees subcontract their own work to China on the side, then the consumer pays $10 for a widget, and the company keeps $3 as profit and gives $7 to the employees, who secretly give $1 to the people doing the work in China.

In both cases 90% of the money goes to people doing nothing. The only difference is whether those people are executives and shareholders, or employees. Corporations naturally seek rent, and it is only natural for their employees to do so as well.

Re:But of course

[jkrise]

If a company misrepresents their product (e.g. made in USA when in fact it's made in China),

Two problems:

1. With so many Chinese living and working in the USA, but still not citizens.... with so many Americans living in China as well... do these "Made in the USA" tags have any significance?

2. If misrepresenting is such a big crime, I am sure Verizon is guilty of it several times in their "unlimited" data plans, bandwidth calculations, etc. etc. This incident is such small fry.

Re:But of course

[Dcnjoe60]

When corporations do it, it's efficient. When an actual human does it, it's a scam. Can this social order please collapse now? It's bankrupt.

No, when corporations do it, it sucks, but it saves them money, which they are in the business to make. When an employee does it, it is dishonest. His employer paid him to code and expected him to code.

Would your view be any different if this were a college student who showed up each day for class but paid somebody to do the homework and take the tests for him? Most people would think that such a scenario would be wrong and said student should be punished. Well, this guy accepted money from his employer to do specific work and turned in somebody else's work instead. That does sound like a scam, but not the scam you were referring to.

The ends don't justify the means and just because the code turned out to be good code does not change that.

Re:But of course

[Dcnjoe60]

Nothing? Nothing?!

Sir, he was a Manager!

(He paid other people less than the work was worth, he routinely breached company IT security policy, and he spent all day watching cat videos. He was perfect. Give him fifteen years and he'll be CEO.)

Shouldn't that be "He was purrrfect?"

Re:But of course

[Dcnjoe60]

If a corporation outsources a job for a fifth of the wage of a local worker, then.... yes, that really is more efficient than having a guy paid four fifths of a wage to do nothing.

If a company outsources work a consumer pays $10 for a widget, and the company keeps $9 as profit and sends $1 to the people doing the work in China.

If the employees subcontract their own work to China on the side, then the consumer pays $10 for a widget, and the company keeps $3 as profit and gives $7 to the employees, who secretly give $1 to the people doing the work in China.

In both cases 90% of the money goes to people doing nothing. The only difference is whether those people are executives and shareholders, or employees. Corporations naturally seek rent, and it is only natural for their employees to do so as well.

Actually, that is close, but most corporations require a certain ROI (return on investment) so a product outsourced tends to have a lower consumer cost than if it is not outsourced, because of the difference in labor costs. As consumers we don't often see it, because the decision to outsource occurs in lieu of increasing the price or stopping production if the price is at the top of the demand curve.

But, in your case, if the company is only going to make $3 profit and that profit is less than their ROI, then they will either raise the price or lower the cost (or a combination of the two). Outsourcing usually is the part that leads to lowering the cost. Ironically, labor costs have been increasing quite a bit in SE Asia, so the benefit of outsourcing is diminishing, at least in manufacturing, which has to also take into account the transportation cost of getting goods across the Pacific.

Re:But of course

[chrismcb]

When a regular driver drives 200 MPH it is an arrestable offense. When a race car driver does it on a race track, he his given millions of dollars. Can this social order please collapse now? It's bankrupt....
Personally I don't think the issue is that a "human" did it, but it is HOW he did it. Of course if the business ever finds out, of course they will let the guy go. Why keep paying him, when the corporation could just outsource it.
Look if you were hiring a corporation (say a dry cleaner) to do work, and later you found out the corporation was outsourcing the job for 1/5 what you were paying. What will you do, keep using the corporation, or go to the source yourself?

Re:But of course

[Rich0]

most corporations require a certain ROI (return on investment) so a product outsourced tends to have a lower consumer cost than if it is not

Any large corporation certainly requires a certain ROI, but that ROI has NO impact on either cost or pricing.

A product's cost is however low a company can get it. They'll make it lower even if they're making a killing on profit. There is no incentive to NOT lower costs.

A product's price is whatever the market will bear. If it is lower they'll sell more units at a lower marginal profit, and if it is higher they'll sell fewer units at a greater marginal profit. The price gets set at whatever maximizes the total profit (profit per item times volume).

If the resulting profit vs cost is greater than the ROI, then the product is sold. If the profit vs cost is lower than the ROI than the product is discontinued (unless sold at a loss for strategic reasons).

Now, competition might create pressure to lower prices, and the higher a product is priced relative to its costs the more likely there is to be competition. So, if a product really can be made for $3 and the company is selling it for $10 over the long term competitors will arise until the price gets close to the minimum ROI and then things tend to level off.

But, no company says "gee, that product isn't making an ROI, so let's lower costs or raise prices." Any well-run company is constantly evaluating both cost and price and always optimizing both, whether the product has good ROI or not. If a product is optimally priced, then raising the price LOWERS the total profit (because of a loss of volume).

Re:But of course

[Dcnjoe60]

But, no company says "gee, that product isn't making an ROI, so let's lower costs or raise prices." Any well-run company is constantly evaluating both cost and price and always optimizing both, whether the product has good ROI or not. If a product is optimally priced, then raising the price LOWERS the total profit (because of a loss of volume).

Actually, the company evaluating the cost/price/profit is the common way they make ROI decisions. If product line A isn't producing enough revenue to meet targets (has nothing to do with whether it is profitable or not), they need to either decrease costs or increase price. The fact that increasing the price may lead to lower sales, needs to be taken into the equation, too, but it is all about the return on investment. Likewise, decreasing the cost also comes with strings attached that need to be figured in, so even if it could be produced cheaper at location B, will the tolerances still be good enough? If yes, then a company will move production, regardless if they are meeting revenue goals or not (there is no penalty for exceeding the expected ROI).

Every time you hear the phrase exceeded or didn't meet market expectations, that is ROI. It's just not used the same way to determine if we should replace equipment A with new equipment B, but it is still very much ROI.

Even in pure capitalism, where supply and demand would rule without any outside influence, your last statement about optimally priced product still fails. It is only holds true if the company is content with the profit generate for the effort expended (ROI). If for the same effort, they can produce something else, and that will yield a higher profit, then that is what they will do.

Business decisions, at least sound ones, are always based on ROI, even if different words are used to describe it.

Re:But of course

[Rich0]

I don't think you get pricing theory.

There is exactly one price that maximizes marginal profit. That maximized profit might be positive, or it might be negative, but there is one price that maximizes it.

Companies do everything they can to determine that price, and sell at it.

If they aren't doing that, then they're losing money whether the ROI is positive or negative. If they are doing that, then changing the price will cause them to lose money, whether the ROI is positive or negative.

Suppose you find out that you make the most money if you sell a widget for $4, but it costs $5 to make. What do you do? Unless you can find a way to reduce the costs or increase demand the best solution is to stop making more widgets and keep selling them at $4, even if every one is a loss. Losing $1 is better than losing $5. Now, there are other factors like fixed costs that cause the costs to change over time, and changing demand that can raise the ideal price. So, companies do need to be in it for the long haul - many products are sold at a loss initially.

What is the ROI on a 787 right now? Zero - every sale fails to reduce the huge initial costs. And yet they do not raise the prices. That is because they're being sold at the optimum price, and somebody has estimated that eventually their sunk costs will be paid off if they continue. You can't just charge more money simply because you want to make more money - charging more or charging less than the ideal price results in losing money.

Oh, and I do agree that companies do focus their activities on whatever yields the highest ROI. That said, it would be quite unusual for a company to scrap a product that actually is profitable, even if it is not their most profitable product. Green is green - and nothing says that a company can only have one factory. The opportunity has to be pretty big to ditch something that works. But, opportunity cost is real, so it can happen.

Re:But of course

[Dcnjoe60]

I think we are arguing the same thing but using different terminology. Obviously, a company is going to try and maximize the profit on any product they sell. However, in production decisions, they also look at the ROI. If it costs me $1M to set up a product line for one of two different products, I am going to produce the product that gives me the largest return, not the one that has the largest profit margin per unit sold. If I can sell 1 million units of product A but only net $0.75 per unit, I will still produce it over Product B if Product B can only sell 300,000 units, even if them have a profit margin of $2/unit.

It is the overall return that businesses are interested in and that is why, very often, good products go unproduced, because for the same manufacturing resources, they can make more on producing something else. The assumption that they are going to find the sweet spot between supply and demand is assumed to occur, regardless of the choice, but it is the total units sold that decides the ROI.

As for scrapping products that are actually profitable. Well, ABC does that all the time with their programming. They make money on their prime time lineup, just not enough money, so they cancel and look for something else to fill the slots.

Re:But of course

[Dcnjoe60]

I just wanted to add, that all of this discussion is a vast oversimplifaction because the time value of money needs to be factored in along with other decisions (maybe the Product B from above generates less overall revenue because of fewer sales, but increases service contract revenue, etc.).

I also wanted to add that I thoroughly enjoy the conversation.

Scam?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not really a scam is it? It's just subcontracting.

Re:Hmm

[unix_core]

Maybe the guy in they fired in TFS is actually the guy who takes care of their database server.

Got /.

[bharatm]

VerizonBusiness Link not working got /. Getting the error Error establishing a database connection

Cheap Chinese Crap

[ebonum]

You know all the stuff from China is cheap and poor quality. Bunch of lazy communists over there... "best programmer in the building" Oh wait. Never mind.

Subcontracting

[Gabrill]

What's the problem? Does the employee contract have a clause against subcontracting?

Re:Subcontracting

[sesshomaru]

It sounds like it was an unauthorized access problem. Most companies you aren't allowed to let non-vetted people use their equipment or access their network.

Of course, if he had brought his idea to the company and they had liked it, they'd have said, "Oh, ok, we'll fire you and hire him for a lower salary. Thanks for the idea."

Re:Subcontracting

[limaCAT76]

What's the problem? Does the employee contract have a clause against subcontracting?

That behavior could easily raise flags about improper handling of security procedures, confidentiality and dissemination of trade secrets.

Re:Subcontracting

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the problem? Does the employee contract have a clause against subcontracting?

I guess it has a clause against sharing company secrets with others. It also may have a clause about not letting others use your login (remember, this came to light due to a VPN connection from China).

Re:Subcontracting

[L4t3r4lu5]

Not until a Chinese company starts offering this company's product at 1/5 the price.

Re:Subcontracting

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the problem? Does the employee contract have a clause against subcontracting?

That behavior could easily raise flags about improper handling of security procedures, confidentiality and dissemination of trade secrets.

Sure... but if these are real issues, then write it into the sub-contract!

Re:Subcontracting

[Yaa 101]

Yes, and he should have copied the environment that gave access to his subcontractors and make the copied environment update at his employers environment by scripting.

He was only half smart, his lazyness did him under.

I appaud his idea as he did the same that most corporations do, but he was sloppy doing it.

Re:Subcontracting

[GeekWithAKnife]

What's the problem? Does the employee contract have a clause against subcontracting?

Ever heard of standards?

One such standard is PCI. Credit companies will endorse you as secure if you follow certain standards, insurance companies will back up your money loss claims given compliance with that standard.
You cannot let your own family have access let alone some subcontractor in China.

Sure it worked like magic, but what would you say if it did not? what if a foreign body was stealing trade secrets? what if your data was lost because of this person? you'd have beef with this company, they'd be sued, their insurance would not pay up and it could all go belly up & other people, like you could lose their job because of one smart ass.

That sir is the problem.

Re:Subcontracting

[bill_mcgonigle]

What's the problem? Does the employee contract have a clause against subcontracting?

A primary reason to have an employee instead of a set of contractors is that the employer values the institutional knowledge gained by having employees. There's some hit when one leaves, which is why there are usually many.

Without that, just outsource the whole development staff (but that's often not good for the company). Either way, that's an ownership/board level call, not authority delegated to leaf node employees.

Put more succinctly: the code isn' t the only product of an employee programmer, and this employee was short-changing the employer on the delta.

Re:Subcontracting

[BosstonesOwn]

Apparently with the "pay" he was receiving he was not smart enough to use his home internet service for relaying the chinese traffic to the server.... Guess some times managers don't think it all through,,, give him a job as a vp !

Re:Subcontracting

[Dcnjoe60]

What's the problem? Does the employee contract have a clause against subcontracting?

Probably not. Most likely the guy would be in trouble for fraud, since he was accepting wages but not doing the work those wages were being paid for. The fact that he paid somebody else to do the work doesn't matter.

Re:Subcontracting

[Dcnjoe60]

Yes, and he should have copied the environment that gave access to his subcontractors and make the copied environment update at his employers environment by scripting.

He was only half smart, his lazyness did him under.

I appaud his idea as he did the same that most corporations do, but he was sloppy doing it.

You applaud his idea? Why, He was dishonest and a cheat? If you hired somebody to remodel your house, check his references, chose him as the best candidate based on his experience and quality of work, and came home one day and saw him watching TV and some body else actually doing the work, would you say, my I applaud your idea, great job? Probably not.

Yet, that is exactly what happened in this case. This guy was hired to do a specific job and instead of doing it, got somebody else to do it for him. He then took credit for the other person's work and all the while get accepting your cash for doing the work. That is hardly something to applaud. He was dishonest and a cheat, plain and simple.

Re:Subcontracting

[flonker]

If you hired somebody to remodel your house, check his references, chose him as the best candidate based on his experience and quality of work, and came home one day and saw him watching TV and some body else actually doing the work, would you say, my I applaud your idea, great job? Probably not.

Oddly enough, this is pretty much exactly what a general contractor does. Although they tend to do other things rather than watching TV.

Re:Subcontracting

[Dcnjoe60]

If you hired somebody to remodel your house, check his references, chose him as the best candidate based on his experience and quality of work, and came home one day and saw him watching TV and some body else actually doing the work, would you say, my I applaud your idea, great job? Probably not.

Oddly enough, this is pretty much exactly what a general contractor does. Although they tend to do other things rather than watching TV.

While true, when hiring a general contractor, the business arrangement is that they will hire subcontractors. When hiring an employee or a regular contractor, that is not the case.

Isn't this just how big companies work? no dif?

[fantomas]

1. Large host organisation / government body requires programming done
2. Subcontracting specialist organisation / other company/ freelancer / offers price to satisfy tasks
3. Subcontractor chosen, price agreed, task allocated
4. If task successfully completed than host organisation happy and continues with its bigger work, may call on smaller subcontractor for further work or even employ them on rolling contract

Seems to me like this is just how contracting works. The guy was asked to produce code and he did.

I can see there's a security issue here (unauthorised handing out of VPN) and *potential* legal issue (does his contract say he must do the work? if not then no legal issue perhaps), maybe a tax issue (were tax payments made to subcontractors etc. as should have been).... ...but generally it seems like he was just doing what lots of companies do, subcontracting work out to specialists and claiming a percentage for handling the work and taking the risk on its delivery.

  Not a lot different from how big companies work? and lets face it, big companies would NEVER put data security at risk or look for loopholes to avoid paying tax to the government, would they ? ;-)

When asked how he manages to code so well

[Anonymous Coward]

When asked how he manages to code so well and seemingly spends so little effort on it, he said: time managing.

Turns out what he actually ment was time spent managing.

So, anybody got contact details...

[Anonymous Coward]

...for this contractor who produces clean code, cheaply, on time?

Just for...you know, research purposes.

The order of things

[Anonymous Coward]

The real (and scary) message here is that the best programmer in the building was a chinese working for 1/5th of the usual programmer's income.

Cheap, low quality asian workforce, indeed...

Re:The order of things

[hey!]

Well, my experience with Chinese goods is that they give the customer what he wants. If he wants quality, he gets quality. If he wants a shiny facade over a piece of crap, that's what he gets.

What's important to note here is that the customer is seldom the end-user. It's usually a retailer, which accounts for the present day predominance of polished-turd products detouring in our homes on their way to the landfill. Once a product is sold and out of warranty, the retailer is happy if it needs replacement, and Chinese manufacturers have got planned obsolescence down to a science.

The interesting wrinkle here is that the customer in this case may have had a higher interest in software quality than the corporation he worked for. It was his reputation on the line in the way his employer's reputation was not.

Re:The order of things

[Rich0]

Excellent points. I've seen the same thing at work.

Usually the people promoting the outsourcing of some process aren't the customers of that process. They don't care about good service - they just care about metrics, because that is what they show to their managers. So, the outsourcing company delivers the goods, which are metrics. The final customers are of course unhappy, but whatever metrics are collected are properly gamed so that everybody smells like roses.

The executive who outsources their janitorial service probably has different expectations than when he goes home and hires a maid. Oh, and I'm sure the janitorial service is certain to make sure the executive's trash can gets the royal treatment.

Fired or promoted?

[yet another SanTiago]

Just wondering whether the employee was fired, or promoted to the management.

Google cache

[radio4fan]

google cache of page

Re:Google Cache

[egcagrac0]

Someone should oughta edit the summary and append that URL.

Someone else (Verizon) should make their webserver a little more robust.

Re:Error establishing a database connection

[egcagrac0]

I had no idea websites still got slashdotted.

Re:Error establishing a database connection

[vinayg18]

Or that Slashdot still has the ability to slashdot websites.

Google Cache

[twistedcubic]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EGh4ld_KwXUJ:securityblog.verizonbusiness.com/2013/01/14/case-study-pro-active-log-review-might-be-a-good-idea/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Not news to me

[Anonymous Coward]

We did something like this more than 7 years ago.
"We" being a team of developers in Eastern Europe. Our employers were two brothers who had moved to the US and had found IT jobs. We did their work for them and had time left over for side projects. Our team of 5 people got some fraction or other from their regular salaries and it was still a good wage for us. Things have changed in the last couple of years, but not by that much.

Not scam

[gmuslera]

Was doing his job, and better than anyone else there. And got plenty of free time doing it that way, that is efficiency. If instead of coding letter by letter he took a public domain code (to avoid messing with licenses) that do the same would be a not so different situation, mainly changed the timing related the code.

But also gave to another party (that be the one that did his job is not relevant, that is overseas or in china in particular depend on your own prejudices) internal access to network/code/information without authorization. That is not scam, is a security breach, and shoudl be taken as seriously as all the other security breachs there (i.e. if he was so happy watching lolcats and visiting facebook and ebay probably others could have been doing it, and maybe sharing with the world even more internal/critical information, or downloading malware without being aware and so on)

Scam...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, how is this a scam?
He provided clean code, and made a profit.
Are they jealous they didn't think of it first?
He's just acting as all headhunters do,
earning 10-30 U.S. dollars/hour for basically nothing.
Al least he was able to QA their work.

This is outsourcing.

This is why there should be laws against it, for U.S. corporations.

CAPTCHA = unsolved (I swear, how does /. come up with these)

Re:Scam...?

[tp_xyzzy]

There is at least 2 big problems:
  1) He went outside the scope of his employment contract for outsourcing when he was hired as programmer
  2) He gave keys to company network to some other unauthorized persons

The Onion knew it in 2009

[mseeger]

The Onion already knew about this back in 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaZ57Bn4pQ

Alternative link

[shortscruffydave]

Seeing as the link given isn't working, there's a bit more detail at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/16/developer_oursources_job_china/

Idiot

[Migala77]

I've outsourced all my Facebooking, slashdotting and cat-video-watching, so I can spend more time programming!

This sounds like the best answer to outsourcing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about it.

A company has $100 budget to write a program.

They can employ a US local, who will want $100. Or they can employ a 'consultancy company' (probably multi-national), who will buy the code from a Chinese coder at $10, and charge the company $90, keeping $70 for themselves. Net loss to US - $90.

But in this case the company pays $100, 10$ goes to China and $90 stays in the US.

What's not to like?

I call bullshit.

[tofarr]

This story sets off my bullshit radar. Too many things about it don't make sense: 1.) Why would "Bob" give full access to company resources to subcontractors? Were I to subcontract a job, at the very least I would want to review everything before it was committed - especially if I was taking responsibility for it. 2.) What would happen if a colleague asked "Bob" about his code? Or as regularly happens on all but the smallest of tasks he had to collaborate closely with another fellow developer? There is a level of knowledge that you get from being part of a development process that you don't get otherwise. This sounds to me like an advertisement for outsourcing services.

Re:I call bullshit.

[tofarr]

3.) If you were able to do this and still be considered a good programmer (let alone the "best programmer in the building"), then the standard would have to be terrible.

Re:I call bullshit.

[Larryish]

I was wondering the same thing.

netcat exists for a reason.

Re:I call bullshit.

[Beezlebub33]

If that is the case, why aren't you doing the 'BDA' part as well as the development?

I know that you think that they are slimy, worthless, money-grubbing etc. but you have to ask yourself if you would like to do the work. According to economic theory, if their job is easy and yours is hard (i.e. you are doing the 'real work'), then more people should get into their business and their margin should go way down. And yet it is not happening. Try guru.com instead, and see how you do.

Being a middleman / broker / recruiter is tough. You're trying to match up two parties with divergent interests, both of whom resent you. And yet, somehow the parties haven't figured out how to get rid of you.

Re:I call bullshit.

[buddyglass]

Agreed. "Watching cat videos" seems a bit gratuitous. It's a little too perfect as a stereotypical "goofing off on the internet" type activity. Unless they didn't mean it literally. Also- how was Bob maintaining his jobs at the other businesses in the area? "Working from home" five days a week? Did he never have to go on-site or call in for meetings?

Re:I call bullshit.

[PPH]

You're trying to match up two parties with divergent interests, both of whom resent you. And yet, somehow the parties haven't figured out how to get rid of you.

Because when it comes down to the basics, the only important relationship is between the developer and the customer. All the agencies and HR departments do is to handle the contract overhead. Some of that overhead has value; marketing, for example (but that's where guru.com undercuts the brick and mortar companies). Other overhead is regulatory B.S. Companies like Verizon need a middle man to handle all the labor compliance laws. But in an ideal free market, I'd do the work, Verizon would pay me and I'd be responsible for paying state and federal taxes and other fees. If I didn't, it wouldn't be Verizon's problem. The tax man would come after me.

But that's not the way it works. Hiring someone as a contractor doesn't insulate deep pockets like Verizon from my liabilities. And the government has an interest in keeping me and everyone else as employees of some corporation rather than working as independent contractors. Can't have too many free slaves running around, getting ideas.

Bad quality electrons?

[flyingfsck]

Why is this called a scam? Did the subcontractor use bad quality electrons?

Bellman

[water-vole]

The 18th century Swedish poet Carl Michael Bellman did something similar. The king of the time (Gustav III) liked his songs and gave him a really cushy job as head of the state lottery. Bellman new he would not be able to hold down a job so he employed someone else to actually do the work and he lived from the difference of what he got from the king and what he paid the person doing the work. He spent most of his time in pubs and wrote an enormous number of drinking songs. He is the Swedish equivalent of Robert Burns.

In the words of Steve Jobs

[moniker127]

Good coders copy, great coders outsource.

Brilliant!

[Lumpy]

He should have been less of a moron and set up linux boxes at his home for the china contractors to VPN in through.

Re:Expectations

[egcagrac0]

That being said, I would feel pretty betrayed to find out that the American company I hired was simply outsourcing my request to a foreign entity.

Then be sure to stipulate that in the contract you negotiate.

Monday is going to suck...

[ayahner]

When they realize they canned their "best programmer"

wow

[thoper]

heÂs my new hero!

Of course, this is not unusual

[SmallFurryCreature]

Take music. The CD's are produced in China to lower costs, this is legal. You buy them from China, ILLEGAL PIRACY!

Outsource production, perfectly legal. Buy imports, pay max taxes including taxes on shipping PLUS a customs fee PLUS a fee for the shipping agency ON TOP of the shipment fee for it all... AND STILL it is often cheaper...

The global economy is there to benefit the rich, not the poor.

Re:Of course, this is not unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because the price of making the CD is only a fraction of the cost of producing the CD.

The global economy is not something that was designed. It no more has a purpose than ocean currents do.

Re:Of course, this is not unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

Or take the case of drugs. All insurance comanies source patent-expired generics from India these days and price them at US level. The common antibiotic Augmentin retails probably 25 Indian rupees for a typical 10 day dosage, or half a dollar. I purchased this for my son at a retail price of 28 US dollars last week. The drug is a direct import from Reddy Labs in India. It is efficiency when Walgreens does it, but a safety hazard when I try to order by mail.

Re:Of course, this is not unusual

[geekymachoman]

The "poor" / ordinary people / employees are modern day slave force. With some extra perks (in many cases... they just modern slaves).

You need to take them on a offer (a job) because you need money to live. However, especially in developed countries this is enough only to buy food and basic comfort. Like beer, cigarettes... in some countries not either that (on a daily basis I see cambodian slave workers (from 15 to 60, both male and female) making a building on +40c for 10 usd per day). In developed countries, you have a LOT more, but still IMHO you're nothing but a slave if you work more then 5 hrs.

The philosophy that some employers are trying to jam our throat is work 8hrs, do your stuff 8 hrs, sleep 8hrs. That's not realistic. Find me a guy that do this 10 years and is a fulfilled man with a happy life, and I'll admit I'm wrong. Everybody is trying to progress in a direction they work less/make more because it's foolish to think otherwise, unless you just started working. If you have experience in life, you want to make it easier for yourself because "there are more important things in life then bloody sitting in front of a computer in a cubicle or whatever/wherever".

Everything is propaganda for slave force to work. If there's a possibility of easy money.. it'll be sanctioned/made illegal/whatever.
This guy beat the system. He'll get fucked for it, because the system can't allow that to happen.

Now go to sleep.

Leadership material

[hotcut]

Granted, the guy did a bad thing in letting his VPN access go to a third party - but a smart company would see his potential. He already handles multiple sub-contractors if we choose to call them that, and apparently manages to get them to perform well. Some of the posts here suggests that the company should fire him, and use the Chinese dude themselves - but it is worth remembering that HE was the one finding this Chinese person, and he is the one doing quality control, to an above-average level. Get him an official position as manager for a small overseas team of Chinese developers, and he could be worth a lot more to the company.

When asked

[smittyoneeach]

. . .the outsourcer claimed the scheme was merely an oblique reference to the U.S. government.

Summary fix

[Legion303]

Company gets butthurt when lowly employee dares to do the exact same thing they've been doing for decades. Film at 11.

Re:Error establishing a database connection

[stoolpigeon]

It's front page at reddit right now as well I believe - and HN

So these arguments are bullshit....

[jkrise]

1. Programmers in the US are worth the money corporations spend on them.
2. China and India are full of crappy programmers who can't understand specs, cannot correspond in English, let alone produce quality code.
3. The value of the US currency is a true measure of its worth in global markets.
4. US corporations are killing US jobs despite the fact outsourcing produces lesser quality goods and services.

I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but still...

Re:So these arguments are bullshit....

[ledow]

Only if:

1) Chinese data protection, software licensing, copyright and other laws are similar to, compatible with, and followed by, the Chinese programmers.

Because otherwise all you've done is saved money by breaking the law (i.e. stealing others code, letting others steal your code, giving a foreign entity access to a domestic data without a suitable contract covering what they may do with that data, etc.).

It's "cheaper" for me to hire some guys from the local building site to come to my house, rip out the asbestos and patch up the work. But if it means that the building falls down, that the work has to be redone, that those builders weren't allowed to work in my country at all, that I broke the law by exposing the asbestos in an unregulated fashion, or a myriad other things, it doesn't mean "I save money" or "Builders in my country are over-priced". It just means I didn't do the job as required (i.e. in compliance with the law for a start), and thus THAT'S how I made money, while in actual fact causing the company to spend TEN TIMES THAT to clear up the mess later when it all comes out.

Re:So these arguments are bullshit....

[Manfre]

There are good and bad programmers in every country. The arguments are more about the probability of getting good ones. Assuming the article is real, it doesn't state the amount of time, if any, Bob spent reviewing and cleaning up the sub-contracted work. Truly good programmers that delegate tasks to others check to make sure the end product meets the requirements.

Re:So these arguments are bullshit....

[dwpro]

"But still" what? You roundly and profoundly disassembled the straw man you put forth based on a story that I can't find any details on. Good job.

No details were provided in the guardian article someone above listed and the linked article is hosed, so don't be shocked if this doesn't uproot the status-quo view of outsourcing. Many of us have seen quite the opposite of this story in action.

PHB saiz

[brainscauseminds]

I bet the name of the employee was Wally.

Logical Solution

[Quick Reply]

Sack the guy and hire the chinese consulting firm directly if they are making code that good!

'Bob" is gone.

[andydread]

"Hello this is Joe, Bob's boss. Bob is no longer available to correspond with you on this project. I will be handling all correspondence with you from now on. I will be responsible for sending the payments of the sum that you and Bob agreed to. You can contact me at joe@dev.verizon.com ...."

How is it a scam?

[Anonymous Coward]

The company paid him to produce code. He produced the code. How is that a scam?

Wouldn't be surprised if this was common practice

[marquisdepolis]

Especially in consulting and banking firms, rather than working 80 hours a week ... And outsourcing effectively is a skill. Modularity is not easy to attain.

Another perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's call the Chinese programmer the "Handler", and the U.S. programmer the "Dupe". The story reads a bit differently: the Dupe allowed the Chinese Handler and his/her team to infiltrate several companies, potentially in turn infiltrating more companies (and so on ...).

The Dupe was being paid by the Handler through the discounts s/he received.

The Dupe should be charged under applicable corporate theft or espionage statutes as applicable.

Not dishonest, merely not overly honest

[Anonymous Coward]

he never said that he wasn't subcontracting.

He just never said he was.

Therefore outsourcing doesn't change the price.

[Anonymous Coward]

If mfg CDs is a fraction of the cost, then doing it locally in a more expensive job market won't increase the price of the CD much, will it.

Didn't see that on Dilbert. Wally would be proud!

[BetaDays]

Didn't see that on Dilbert. Wally would be proud!

Employee Outsourced Programming

[willy everlearn]

All these years I have been doing it the hard way.

Genus! Sheer Genius!

willy

speedy/full recovery!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Market & economy have laws that can't be broken"

I can only conclude that you just awoke from a 5-year coma...

glad to hear you're doing better!

Innovative out of the box thinking

[misophist]

Sounds like good ol' Yankee ingenuity to me!

This seems a made up story

[ruir]

To justify more H1Bs

but...what about the american dream?

[snemiro]

This is how govt and friends work....charge big bucks from taxpayers, pocket the difference....

Bravo, sir, Bravo

[gelfling]

I love stories like this.

Why would you not setup a US based tunnel???

[nedlohs]

If your home internet isn't stable/fast enough then dedicated servers or even just a VPS are cheap. A little more effort to setup, but having conections to the company come direct from overseas seems an obvious way to get noticed.

Heck, it might even be tax deductable - though if you are an employee not a contractor that might be harder to manage.

A Double Standard

[Rambo Tribble]

When an employee does it, it's fraud; when a company does it, it's "smart business".

The Dilbert principle

[Joe_Dragon]

The Dilbert principle

He will fit in as a manager.

Espionage lol?

[Gavin Scott]

So I haven't RTFA but the "best programmer in the building" thing, and the fact that it's Verizon, a telecommunications company who would be a prime target for foreign intelligence, makes me think that maybe we're giving the employee too much credit for being a genius here.

Which is more likely, that he sought out and found a good, cheap, reliable programmer, and then went on to expand his scheme into multiple companies, or instead perhaps that someone sought him out, and suggested the scheme to him, and maybe later said "Hey, I have more free time and some friends here, so maybe if you applied for jobs at some other companies that your resume matches we could make you even more money!". But I'm sure he would have been made to feel like it was all his idea as much as possible.

G.

4 Hour Workweek

[fafaforza]

Sounds like someone followed the "4 Hour Workweek" book a little too closely.

And China was outsourcing to Vietnam

[walterbyrd]

Not really, but it would be funny.

UMAD? employer's just jelly.

[Thud457]

This sounds like something Wally from "Dilbert" would do.

Management Skills

[Agent0013]

It sounds like he needs to be promoted to management.

Increasing shareholder value == more executive pay

[Beeftopia]

Executive compensation is tied to share price. The things done to maximize shareholder value are done to enrich executives themselves, not out of some technocratic, altruistic desire to enrich others or adhere to a principle.

Verizon, Want Some Cheese with that Wine?

[LifesABeach]

I've heard nothing but orgasmic charoling of the joys of outsourcing from folks like Verizon's spineless handlers. And now, when they are the reciever of such business practices, they're the ones that are screeming the loudest. "Selfish" doesn't even begin to describe Verizon's/HP's/GE's/Google's business practices; it would take an Artist to be able to accurately communicate their form of pestilence.

Re:Verizon, Want Some Cheese with that Wine?

[One Louder]

"Bob" didn't work for Verizon. Verizon was the telecom provider for the company "Bob" worked for. The company tasked Verizon with discovering the problem, and uncovered "Bob's", scheme.

Re:Verizon, Want Some Cheese with that Wine?

[LifesABeach]

Curious, let's substitue "Bob" with "GE", or "HP", or "Verizon"; the difference is?

Outsourcing and clean/maintainable code

[bmo]

There's outsourcing, and there's outsourcing with getting clean code back and getting it on time. There's a difference. The difference is flying to east-bumfuck-nowhere (Bangalore, Shanghai, Bluefield WV) to have a sit-down/chat to find out who's the one who's contributing crap code and getting the contracting business to put him on someone else's project. This has a tendency to fail and it's why some businesses are bringing coding back home.

He has found a way to get the holy grail - cheap, good, and on-time instead of just picking two.

Yes, he just proved his own job could be outsourced to China, but then he should be promoted to a management position due to this skill.

Either that or he should just hang up his own shingle and compete.

--
BMO

Capitalism at it's finest.

[Nyder]

Dude was almost a genius. He just forgot to have a USA proxy for this worker.

Seriously, you get the big ass bonuses when you do this as a CEO, and he gets, um, actually I don't know, i didn't see it when i skimmed the article.

Re:Error establishing a database connection

[desdinova 216]

especially since no reads the articles

Probably broke his employment contract

[durdur]

Almost all employees (contract or regular) usually have to sign a non-disclosure agreement, among other things. So he broke that for sure. Re export of the RSA token - if it contains encryption software he probably should have gotten export paperwork done for it, but he's not likely to be prosecuted for that.

Untapped productivity within the USA

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

There are a lot of untapped talents willing to work for cheap in the USA, it has to be done by the public sector because the private sectors are unwilling to invest domestically (a.k.a. unpatriotic). Funding massive job programs by minting a couple of quadrillion-dollar-platinum-coin is a good start in reviving the USA.

Re:Increasing shareholder value == more executive

[BonThomme]

executive compensation is tied to your relationships on the compensation committee. nothing more.

Exhibit A: HP

When An Individual Does This, It's Fraud

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

When a corporation does this?

Good stewardship of shareholder investment.

Make the corporation illegal!

Re:When An Individual Does This, It's Fraud

[jythie]

The tools allowed to the powerful are not the same for the weak. It is fraud because a low (relatively) paid individual did it.

It is the same psychology as the anti-union stuff. If a supplier or partner negotiates a contract or demands that the other company stick to its agreement it is good business. If a union negotiates or demands that the company respect the contract they signed, it is socialists thugs ruining capitalism.

As a society, we have some rather embedded ideas about who is allowed to do what, and who should know their place.

Re: When An Individual Does This, It's Fraud

[martin0641]

While you have a point, there is an issue of company proprietary information leaking here. This type of behavior can easily lead to source code being divulged to third parties, so the companies assumption that you are a trusted internal person who had likely signed an NDA is being violated.

Two suggestions

[sootman]

1) Why ship your key fob? Just point a webcam at it. Besides saving on shipping costs, you could quickly revoke access if needed.

2) Learn from your mistakes: set up a proxy inside your house that he can connect to so the VPN logs don't show foreign access.

outsourcing ain't just for Asia anymore

[Prime Mover]

I had a contractor colleague who used to outsource, In The Same Office. Here was his scam:
1) Approach programmer #1 and say, "I'm new here and I want to work within the established company guidelines. How would you organize this?"
2) Approach programmer #2 and say, "I'm thinking of organizing my project like so because that fits in the company guidelines. I'm curious about your thoughts on this first step."
3) ...
4) Profit!

The lazy employee in TFA is a master of labor arbitrage.

Eric B.

3d party responsibility for breach of relationship

[DragonWriter]

When a couple are in a 'relationship' it is an agreement of sorts that does not extend to the world. And if that agreement is breeched, only one of the two parties can be responsible for it.

In the world of bilateral economic relationships (contracts and otherwise), we recognize that a third party can share liability for a breach despite not being a party to the relationship (e.g., tortious interference.) I don't see any reason why we shouldn't recognize shared third-party responsibility, on a moral level, in the case of non-economic relationships where parallel circumstances apply (knowledge of the relationship by the third party, intent of the third party to induce breach, lack of special privilege justifying the third party inducing the breach, and actual success in inducing the breach).

Contractor's incentive

[DragonWriter]

There's outsourcing, and there's outsourcing with getting clean code back and getting it on time. There's a difference.

Oh, I'm sure there is enough profit motive in getting backdoor access into major corporation's networks (especially if you are getting an monetary subsidy through an employee of the target corporation) to subsidize finding a coder (or team of coders) that can actually provide quality work on the workload assigned to a single developer in that corporation.

Yes, he just proved his own job could be outsourced to China

Or, he found a way to become the man on the inside for a ring of corporate spies, and instead of getting paid by the spies he was fronting for, he paid them.

Re:The company got a steal

[DragonWriter]

For the price of a single worker, (if he was a manager, this wouldn't even be considered for news), they get an entire company's worth of coding.

You mean, for the price of a single worker, they got privileged access into the corporate network handed to unknown parties who were willing to spend an entire company's worth of coding effort for very small return in order to secure that access. I wonder why someone would be willing to exchange that kind of effort for that kind of access?

Re:UMAD? employer's just jelly.

[Jerslan]

Wally would be too lazy to find a contracter overseas to do his work for him... He would also not want to get a good review since he always strives for mediocrity (it's not like they're going to fire him, so why put forward any real effort).

Instead, I think Wally would just browse the internet for cat videos and let Dilbert and Alice pick up his slack (like they do).

Re:3d party responsibility for breach of relations

[erroneus]

Are you suggesting that a third party, outside of a relationship can breech said relationship and neither party of the same relationship is responsible?

genious...

[SuperDre]

haha, that's a genious plan, if you really come to think about it, it isn't really a scam.. He's contracted for doing the job, and he get's the job done (on time), how he does it really doesn't matter.. You can compare it to letting your IDE do some work (like refactoring), only in this case he doesn't let the IDE do it for him, he let someonelse do it for him.. It's just like a lot of other sectors where one hires a contractor to do a job, and the contractor hires other people to do the job for him.. damn why haven't I though of this. LOL..

Re:3d party responsibility for breach of relations

[DragonWriter]

Are you suggesting that a third party, outside of a relationship can breech said relationship and neither party of the same relationship is responsible?

What I am saying, explicitly, is that your claim in GGP that only the direct parties to a relationship can have responsibility for a breach (and, at that, only one of them) is incorrect, and that third parties can bear some responsibility. This is separate from the question of whether all breaches must involve a direct party to the relationship bearing some responsibility.

Whether there can ever be a case where only the third party was responsible is a question I wasn't addressing in GP, either explicitly or by implication. I can certainly see an argument for that in cases where there is outright compulsion, rather than mere inducement or cooperation, by a third party to act inconsistently with a commitment that was part of a relationship, though whether that is a breach where only the third party has responsibility for the breach, or not a breach at all, or a breach where despite lack of choice the compelled party has responsibility probably depends on the exact sense of "responsibility" being addressed--as that term can mean multiple different things that don't always rest in the same person--and the precise nature of the relationship at issue.

Ought to be promoted

[johnwerneken]

OMG a coder who is on time, with clean code, at 80% off? GIVE HIM A RAISE, make him a VP!

Cached securityblog.verizonbusiness article

[mcpublic]

In case you are finding that securityblog.verizonbusiness.com is refusing your connections, here is a cached version of the source article: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://securityblog.verizonbusiness.com/2013/01/14/case-study-pro-active-log-review-might-be-a-good-idea/

"critical infrastructure"; PS: It's Verizon

[tlambert]

People who can do outsourcing that well are very rare.

How "well" is that? He pushed a "critical infrastructure" job offshore without a full ISO security audit, putting his employer in the position where they risk losing their ISO certification and get sued into non-existance. The reason his offshoring was cheap and profitable was because he made a very, very bad job of it. He has lost his job, and the only reason he hasn't been sued into bankruptcy is the fact that his employer is sh*t-scared of anyone knowing it was them.

I see this word "critical infrastructure" applied to many things to which it does not apply. Let's break this down:

o The article said that the employer was a "critical infrastructure company", not that the employee was engaged in that as part of his duties
o They did not indicate whether the token allowed access to areas of the internal network where sensitive information resided
o They did not define "critical infrastructure"; it could refer to GE nuclear plants, or a condom factory. Declaration is fact.
o They did not indicate if an employment agreement was violated
o They did not indicate if a non-disclosure agreement was violated

So so far, we have a security blogger bemoaning the risk associated with someone out-sourcing their own job, at a profit. Yeah, this is a theoretical risk, if this were done by someone in such a way that it gave access to information protected via "security through obscurity", or if it effectively allowed an agent into an area that matter, neither of which is evident here, since they were unwilling to name names. So they've identified a potential attack vector, publicized it, and gotten slashdot hits on their blog over it.

The lack of ISO certification, by which it is implied ISO 9000 certification, is a process certification suite, and technically could be handled back at the office by the outsourcing employee. It doesn't matter where the code came from.

Either way, you'd think a "critical infrastructure" company would region-limit the RSA token access via its firewalls on a per-employee basis, and require that they request additional regional access for vacations, business trips, and so on, if they expected to be working outside the allowed region(s) already known to the firewall.

PS: The only company that issues or uses the "DBIR" acronym, according to Google, is Verizon, so we can probably safely call it a "dubiously critical infrastructure company", and we can agree from their open job listings that it attempts to implement ISO 9000 practices in portions of its business, with no disclosure as to how effectively this occurs. The token working from China in the first place is on them, as this is part of their corporate skill set.

Re:3d party responsibility for breach of relations

[erroneus]

The course you describe does much to blame "the world" for the problems which only affect the two in a relationship. It's impractical and unrealistic. If both are dedicated to each other, no amount of interference would matter. Further, it can't happen without a member of a couple breaking the agreement. That should be the extent of the harmed party's concern. Anything beyond that leads to... well, as Yoda would put it, "...to the dark side."

Does every women whose man cheats blame him or "all those other women on the planet?" Most often, it is him. It's reasonable. Why is it not reasonable when the roles are reversed?

Why is this a scam?

[firecode]

If you can find somebody else to do the job for a cheaper rate then it is alright and you can make profit.

That's how to the economy/companies work.

+ It is just ridiculous if you make work contract that you should actually work, all that matter is the results. There is no scam if the other part of the contract gets the results he or she wants.

Pffffft! Amateur!

[Radical Moderate]

He spent days websurfing? I've been doing that for years!

Re:Increasing shareholder value == more executive

[Beeftopia]

"That drop in stock price, too, has cut some of HP's executive pay in the form of restricted stock awards from earlier years, according to the proxy filing. The payment of these awards were tied to the firm's per-share performance against the Standard & Poor's 500 Index over a period of time.

HP changed its compensation program last year, and is now giving stock options that vest if the company's stock price meets or exceeds specific goals or thresholds.

Whitman's base salary was just $1. Her bonus was $1.7 million, while the remainder of her compensation was granted in the form of Hewlett-Packard stock options, stock awards and other income, according to the proxy filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday."

Meg Whitman's Pay Package Tops $15 Million After HP Posts Net Loss In 2012
Reuters | By P.J. Huffstutter Posted: 01/12/2013 11:11 am EST
via Huffington Post

burying the lead

[tyler_larson]

So he found a company in China that could do his work for 3 different companies and produce the best code in the building, all for less than 50,000 dollars per year? The real question, then, is what is the name of this company and what's the phone number?

Epic. Corporate. Troll.

[athenaprime]

This guy pwned the entire shareholder-oriented business system.

He beat them at their own game.

Well played, sir. Well played indeed.

Re:3d party responsibility for breach of relations

[DragonWriter]

The course you describe does much to blame "the world" for the problems which only affect the two in a relationship.

It doesn't blame "the world" for anything. It places responsibility on specific actors in a position to know that a course of action will cause harm, who undertake that course of action intending to cause harm, and who, in fact, cause the intended harm by that course of action.

If both are dedicated to each other, no amount of interference would matter.

Like most things in the real world, "dedication" isn't a binary quality. And responsibility isn't exclusive (or even fixed-sum) -- acknowledging that a third-party can, under certain circusmatnce, have some responsibility in the case of a breach (as we do in the world of economic relationships by way of tortious interference) doesn't reduce the responsibility of the breaching party (as it doesn't in the case of tortious interference).

Further, it can't happen without a member of a couple breaking the agreement. That should be the extent of the harmed party's concern.

Clearly, that opinion is far from universal regarding relationships in general, otherwise we wouldn't have tortious interference.

Does every women whose man cheats blame him or "all those other women on the planet?"

IME, while individual people vary considerably, people (of either sex) in that circumstance tend to be quite likely to not view responsibility as exclusive or limited, and tend to be quite capable of viewing both the offending partner and the specific involved third party (not all the other people on the planet; don't know where this, like your reference to "the world", came from) as responsible, without the responsibility of either one reducing the degree of responsibility of the other.

Why is it not reasonable when the roles are reversed?

No one has been arguing that the responsibility differs based on that.

Re:Increasing shareholder value == more executive

[Rich0]

You'll get no argument from me. The only thing that is outrageous about this incident was that a lowly employee behaved like an executive.

Globalization

[NewYork]

Unlike Capitalism, Globalization is Zero-Sum