Qwest Punished by NSA for Non-Cooperation

nightcats writes "According to a story from the Rocky Mountain news, Qwest has received retaliatory action from the NSA for refusing to cooperate in the Bush administration's domestic data-mining activity (i.e., spying on Americans). 'The [just-released government] documents indicate that likely would have been at the heart of former CEO Joe Nacchio's so-called "classified information" defense at his insider trading trial, had he been allowed to present it. The secret contracts - worth hundreds of millions of dollars - made Nacchio optimistic about Qwest's future, even as his staff was warning him the company might not make its numbers, Nacchio's defense attorneys have maintained. But Nacchio didn't present that argument at trial. '"

Comments

Nonsense

[DerekLyons]

The linked article does not support the sensationalist nonsense presented in the summary.

Re:Nonsense

[clodney]

I admit the summary is inflammatory, but strip away the hyperbole and the implication is there.

Nacchio is claiming that he expected to receive classified government contracts that would have prevented the revenue shortfall, and that therefore he was not guilty of insider trading because he believed the revenue forecasts to be accurate.

Nacchio is clearly not a disinterested party to this, so his assertions have to be examined carefully, but it is at least plausible that after Qwest declined to give the NSA access to their network, NSA decided to give the contract to someone else in retaliation.

I haven't followed the story closely enough to pretend to have an informed opinion on the merits of the argument. Of course, this is /., so I guess that doesn't matter here.

Re:Nonsense

[singingjim1]

SONOFA! I was going to say that and would therefore have had my first positively moderated post! Oh well. Fuck it. Back under the bridge for me.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you bother reading the PDF court filings which are listed on the article page?

It appears that (if Nacchio was telling the truth) the NSA offered projects worth a significant amount of money to Qwest -- then, when Nacchio refused a separate NSA request on the grounds that the request was illegal, the NSA withdrew the other projects.

If this isn't punishing Qwest for non-cooperation, what is?

Re:Nonsense

[mrbluze]

The linked article does not support the sensationalist nonsense presented in the summary. Obviously another feeble attempt to discredit those who wish to discredit Mishter Presidient.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, I thought it was a kdawson article at first.

Re:Nonsense

[gstoddart]

The National Security Agency and other government agencies retaliated against Qwest because the Denver telco refused to go along with a phone spying program, documents released Wednesday suggest.

Well, the opening paragraph of the linked article indicates that they thought it did mean that.

Although, I don't think it's the domestic spying program that's been in the news. The article seems to infer that he had refused to participate in some unnamed program (which predated 9/11) which he said would be "was both inappropriate and illegal".

I think the summary seems valid (as it's largely direct quotes from the article).

It seems to be the article which is drawing the conclusion that there was some secret/illegal program (possibly a precursor to the current one) involving the phone system, and that Nacchio's refusal to go along with it.

If I understand it, they're saying that had he been able to cite these secret contracts with the government as to why he thought they'd do well (but couldn't release the info to shareholders) he might have had a defense against his insider trading clauses -- because he would have been prohibited by law from divulging them.

Now, as to how much you can attribute the actions of the NSA et all to retaliation for not participating in the now infamous domestic spying program -- that seems like speculation in the article. It seems like the summary is merely conflating "a" phone spying program with "the" phone spying program. The poster of the article doesn't seem to have so much sensationalized, as slightly mis-interpreted.

Cheers

Re:Nonsense

[TREE]

It's a copy and paste. What on earth are you talking about? The /. summary *is* the article.

Re:Nonsense

[complexmath]

Nacchio is clearly not a disinterested party to this, so his assertions have to be examined carefully, but it is at least plausible that after Qwest declined to give the NSA access to their network, NSA decided to give the contract to someone else in retaliation.

This was my interpretation as well. Basically, the government was using lucrative contracts as an incentive for cooperation with various other less palatable projects. When Qwest declined to cooperate with those, the government pulled their other contracts and gave them to someone else who was presumably more willing to cooperate. Given this, I think a case could be made for the mis-estimation of future income by Qwest. Depending on where they were in negotiations, etc, it's reasonable to assume that there was grounds for considering these contracts as valid future revenue.

Re:Nonsense

[DerekLyons]

Certainly the implication is there, but the article and the summary presuppose it as a fact. Facts and implications are not the same thing.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the parent post modded 5, Informative when it states the opposite of the verifiable truth?

Check the article yourself if you doubt it. Look at the sidebar "RELATED LINKS" and click on the "CIPA 9" objection. It's a poorly scanned black-and-white document, but you can see a redacted section on the first page. This presumably mentions the NSA's illegal request. After that, you can read, "the agency retaliated for this refusal by denying the Groundbreaker and perhaps other work to Qwest."

Other people replying seem to be confused about the real issue here. The prosecution of Nacchio is not the retaliation being brought to our attention -- it is by "denying the Groundbreaker and perhaps other work to Qwest" that NSA retaliated.

Re:Nonsense

[DerekLyons]

Nope. Just one of those rare individuals with balls to stand up and point out that the emperor has no clothes - and those that swallow uncritically anything that discredits the current administration have no brains.
 
The administration has done enough bad things - but that doesn't stop the brainless ones. They have to make shit up ("Iraq was attacked in retaliation for 9/11, the President said so") and, in this case, ignore the differences between fact and implication and between correlation and causation. The biggest threat to our country isn't the current Administration, it is the brainless sheeple, on both sides of the debate, that blindly swallow whatever they are told and regurgitate it any time anyone puts a quarter in their slot.

Re:Nonsense

[DerekLyons]

No, both the article and summary make the mistake of treating an implication as a fact.

Re:Nonsense

[DerekLyons]

It isn't a copy and paste. Reading comprehension FTW.

Re:Nonsense

[jonfr]

This is a common NSA / Homeland security tactics. If they company doesn't work with them, it dies. Or at least they try to kill it on a quiet note (They do similar things with people, but most of the time, they skip the killings, it gets too much attentions if that happens). This also is in the line of how the Bush administration has been working for the past six or so years.

There actions are in all like the actions of a military type government, not a civil one.

Re:Nonsense

[gstoddart]

No, both the article and summary make the mistake of treating an implication as a fact.

No, the summary correctly says "According to a story from the Rocky Mountain news ...". The poster of the article adroitly sidesteps any personal claim that any of this is actually fact.

Now, as to how much of the things implied in the actual article can actually be considered fact, that's an entirely different matter. Some of the argument seems a little specious and vague to me. They're conclusions drawn by someone who has read a document I've never seen. It's not even really clear on who drew the conclusions.

I'm defending neither the article, nor its conclusions. But, I will say that I don't think that the person who posted the summary made it any more sensationalist than the actual article was, give or take a slight mis-interpretation of which (alleged) illegal spying program was at issue here. The summary merely treats it as fact that the Rocky Mountain news did, in fact, make assertions which are in line with the summary. Having RTFA, I can only determine that the poster didn't draw his own sensationalist conclusion, he slightly botched someone else's sensational conclusions.

All other aspects about the truthiness of the article are outside of the scope of anything I've said or plan to say, since it's all hearsay by the time we read it. :-P

Cheers

Re:Nonsense

[mabhatter654]

It is a fact that he had meetings discussing contracts with the NSA, the details are redacted but the meeting is there. The fact that the judge won't allow the redacted information in the trial is somewhat disturbing as they prove he didn't have intent to defraud investors. Along the same line, the nature of such contracts means that investor notification may not be entirely possible or even legal. If he said he would probably make numbers dependent on pending government work he should be in the clear. Numbers are just that, numbers, they have risk.. greater when working for secret agencies as Quest is an order of magnitude smaller than Verizon or AT&T.

Re:Nonsense

[mabhatter654]

but that retaliation messed up his numbers while he was telling investors big deals were almost done... oops now it went south, the check wasn't in the mail... and he can't talk about it because it's secret. Now he's charged with a crime for not talking about it when the stock did poorly without those contracts. One could almost argue that the prosecutor had cherry picked that time frame knowing he couldn't use the facts to defend himself.

Re:Nonsense

[mrbluze]

the brainless sheeple Agreed. But this article is similar to what was done to the UFO spotters. UFO spotting is much more about finding secret military instillations than finding aliens, but the Pod People are full of spooks pretending to be lunatics. The war debate and so forth is much more about truth than about whether reds or blues are in power, but the disinformation machine seeks to change the agenda.

Re:Nonsense

[terrymr]

I'm curious why the judge didn't allow him the argue this at trial - maybe the NSA visited the judge too.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the opening paragraph of the linked article indicates that they thought it did mean that. The they in this case is a convicted felon, and his criminal legal defense, that have made numerous improbable claims to explain his fraud, including being delusional. Yet another fount of towering credibility to feed the truthers.

Good luck peddling this outside of Air America and MoveOn. Maybe Waxman could fire up another investigation and piss away another year on dreams of impeachment.

Meanwhile, the reality of governance (as opposed to the hysteria of campaign) asserts itself on our ever so productive "Reality Based(tm)" Congressional Leadership and half a decade of wiretapping controversy is quietly put out to pasture. If only reality had some impact on Democratic campaign rhetoric.

Re:Nonsense

[operagost]

I admit the summary is inflammatory, but strip away the hyperbole and the implication is there.

"I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air if they would not have been." - Dan Rather, referring to the forged Killian documents

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it's the seriousness of the charge that matters.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Nacchio is claiming that he expected to receive classified government contracts...

... based on his insider knowledge of said contracts.

I don't think that you could come up with a better example of insider knowledge. Did the people on the street know anything about these classified contracts?

Re:Nonsense

[DerekLyons]

You don't know if the information was redacted prior to the judge seeing it or not. Like so many in this thread you can't tell the difference between an assumption and a fact.

Re:Nonsense

[DerekLyons]

Like so many in this thread - you can't tell the difference between an assumption and a fact. That Qwest was being punished is spin, an assumption. It is not a fact. Correlation is not causation.

Re:Nonsense

[Knara]

The implication seemed to be that somewhere along the like the gubment pulled the "state secrets" card out of their deck, again.

They sure do seem to have a lot of those. Isn't there some sort of tournament rule about having your deck be all one card?

Re:Nonsense

[DerekLyons]

It appears that (if Nacchio was telling the truth) the NSA offered projects worth a significant amount of money to Qwest

And we have no way of knowing if the other big telcomm companies got similiar offers.
 
 

If this isn't punishing Qwest for non-cooperation, what is?

It's an assumption based on the testimony of someone with a pretty big agenda item (avoiding prison). It is not a fact.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you can't tell the difference between making a statement based on taking a source at face value and being a complete jackass.

Re:Nonsense

[visualight]

However, the article does support the allegations made in the summary. Also, when you're talking about physics, or genetic defects then of course correlation is not causation.
But when you're talking about people correlation is often causation. Especially when you're talking about people who've already demonstrated a lack of ethics. In this case I have no doubt that retaliation was the motive for pulling the contracts.

Re:Nonsense

[PopeRatzo]

The linked article does not support the sensationalist nonsense presented in the summary.

Actually, the assertion that Qwest was punished by the Bush Administration for refusing to let their facilities used for illegal wiretapping is certainly supported by the article.

If said wiretapping activities weren't illegal as Qwest (and most Americans) believe, then why is Bush asking Congress to give the telcos immunity from prosecution?

There's absolutely no reason that a warrant couldn't be obtained for each and every instance of wiretapping of a US Citizen without endangering a single American life. Even if they had to add a hundred clerks and attorneys to follow up and get these warrants from FISA judges (they can do so after the fucking fact by the way), it would be worth the few million dollars for the manpower. In fact, it would cost less than a single day of the Iraq War to pay for the entire additional staff for several years.

I think it's worth it to keep the whole thing legal, no? Anyway, the Bush Administration doesn't care about the little extra work it takes to get a warrant (remember, the warrants can be obtained AFTER THE FACT). No, they want to make sure there is no record of what they're doing.

I expect this type of behavior from the administration that brought us Dick Cheney. What disgusts me is that a single Democrat is willing to support it. It just goes to show exactly why the founding fathers did their best to make sure there was some accountability built in to our system. Unfortunately, they couldn't know the extent that greed and thirst for power, along with an unprecedented level of influence from the corporate sector, would corrupt the shallow people who get elected. I can't even say "..that WE elect", because I have about zero trust that the current system of elections has not been completely hijacked. Not after 2000.

In Serbia, in 1998, a group of students calling themselves "OTPOR!" ("resistance") organized to begin peaceful yet disruptive protests against the government of Slobodan Milosevic. With the help of a radio station (B96) and simple tactics like general strikes and symbolic protests (at 8pm, they'd have everyone in Belgrade turn off all the lights in their houses - it was an extremely dramatic display) they were able to bring down a bloody and ruthless dictator. No, they didn't need handguns, just enough truth to convince the still-decent members of the police and military that it was time for a change.

If it didn't mean that there might be a temporary disruption of the flow of iPods and XBox 360's, something like that could happen here in the US. Check with me again after the adjustments of all the sub-prime mortgages reaches a peak in March. Another half a million foreclosures might just do the trick.

Re:Nonsense

[visualight]

"According to a story...indicate that likely would have been..."

"...documents released Wednesday suggest."

Reading comprehension FTW.

Re:Nonsense

[Fnord666]

The linked article does not support the sensationalist nonsense presented in the summary.

You must be new here.

Re:Nonsense

[delong]

it's reasonable to assume that there was grounds for considering these contracts as valid future revenue

Really? Qwest's accountants are considering non-existent contracts as future earnings for financial statements? The SEC will be happy to know that, why don't you suggest that over there?

Re:Nonsense

[delong]

However, the article does support the allegations made in the summary

It only supports the allegations if you make unwarranted assumptions. There's nothing in the article that supports the allegations but the CEO's own allegations.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's an assumption based on the testimony of someone with a pretty big agenda item (avoiding prison). It is not a fact."

That's certainly true; it is not a known fact. Nonetheless, it is not hard at all to believe -- when we know that the NSA has been performing illegal wiretapping with the cooperation (coerced or otherwise) of other carriers.

Furthermore, it's not Nacchio who is hiding the details. It is the federal government. It is not Nacchio who is redacting the information in those documents. This redaction, which is directly related to our ability (as members of the public) to discern the truthfulness of Nacchio's statements, has been performed on behalf of the NSA.

Would you be satisfied if the title were changed to read, "Qwest Allegedly Punished by NSA for Non-Cooperation"? I agree that would be more accurate at this time, but I was under the impression you weren't even acknowledging the full account.

Re:Nonsense

[SpaceLifeForm]

In fact, it could be cover for the fact that since Qwest did
not cooperate, and Redmond is in that territory, that future
events hatched in Redmond will not be linked.

Re:Nonsense

[Attila Dimedici]

The article doesn't actually say that the judge would not allow the redacted information. The article says that the documents "suggest" that the Judge refused to allow him to present the argument that there was retaliation. In addition, the Judge was going to require him to take the stand if he wanted to use the "classified defense". This sounds to me as if the judge was saying that if Nacchio wanted to claim as his defense that he thought things were better than his staff thought because of classified info he had access to that they didn't, Nacchio was going to have to get up on the stand. It reads to me like Nacchio didn't want to get up on the stand because he knew he couldn't defend that claim without perjuring himself.
Do I believe that is really what was going on? I haven't got the foggiest idea, but that reading of the facts is just as probable as retaliation by the government. Either one or both is possible. Neither is demonstrated by the facts presented in the article.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Qwest's accountants are considering non-existent contracts as future earnings for financial statements? The SEC will be happy to know that, why don't you suggest that over there?

How is that strange? Walmart estimates future earnings based on products they haven't sold yet, when there is really no guarantee that they will sell anything. Does that sort of estimate sound scandalous to you? There's a reason they are called "estimates".

Re:Nonsense

[delong]

Walmart sales are based on estimated inventory demand from past performance and current market trends. A unique contract between two parties for services cannot be "estimated". This should be plainly obvious.

Re:Nonsense

[visualight]

That's not true. The redacted documents support the allegations.

Re:Nonsense

[complexmath]

I believe I used the term "assume" explicitly a number of times in my post. I can't say I understand the point in replying to a comment one hasn't even read.

Re:Nonsense

[complexmath]

It sounds like you know more about this aspect of financial reporting than I do. Are you saying that it's illegal for a future earnings report to include income from pending client contracts? And how does this differ from projected sales earnings?

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

"If this isn't punishing Qwest for non-cooperation, what is?"

Well, seeing how the U.S. House of Representatives _is_ set to vote next week on a bill that would revise recently passed surveillance laws, all things may not be as they seem. With the White House reportedly concerned that the bill doesn't protect telecom companies retroactively. Those telecom companies that assisted their government after the largest attack on our homeland may be vulnerable to prosecution.

Telecom companies like Qwest may have an ulterior motive here. If the bill passes as it stands now, Qwest would stand to gain financially from any telecom company which it can prove unfairly profited in complying with NSA's requests. However if the bill is changed to retroactively protect these telecom companies, any hope for Qwest's financial gain through plaintiff siphoning is up the creek. Just saying it's complicated.

Re:Nonsense

[terrymr]

That was what I was thinking too ... it's amazing what you can use that state secrets card for isn't it ?

So If you sue the government - they win because they play the state secrets card.

The government comes after you - they play the state secrets card and win.

Re:Nonsense

[webweave]

It looks like the only telcom that refused to hand over wire tap information without a FISA order is going to jail while at the same time Bush fights for immunity for the telcos that went along with the white house and committed the crimes.

No it's worse, this occurred before 9/11 which makes the white house claim of breaking the law to fight 9/11 terrorism a lie.

It's a good thing Bush has expanded the use of making things secret or else we might have enough evidence to impeach.

Re:Nonsense

[ultranova]

Walmart sales are based on estimated inventory demand from past performance and current market trends. A unique contract between two parties for services cannot be "estimated". This should be plainly obvious.

The chances of getting said contract and the likely impact on future earnings, however, can be estimated. Whether or not this estimate should be taken into account in any public, official, or other announcements of estimated future profits depends on particular laws of the country the corporation in question is located at, and is not obvious to anyone not familiar with the details of said laws.

Or to put it in other worsd: all future projections are guesstimates. Why should expected contracts be excluded from them ?

Re:Nonsense

[Darby]

"I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air if they would not have been." - Dan Rather, referring to the forged Killian documents

And apart from the fact that one document wasn't the official document even though the person who typed the original official document has stated that the words on the document (you know the actual important element) were accurate, he was right. The story was true and nobody has yet stepped up with anything to refute the facts of the matter.

Going ahead with the story was the right thing to do. It would have been better had he figured out that the document wasn't the actual piece of paper that the words were written on, but nobody's disputing that the words were accurate.
It's pathetic that wingnuts like yourself keep harping on this as if it in any invalidated way the story, but it didn't.

Re:Nonsense

[sumdumass]

What occurred before 9/11.

It isn't the bush bashing that gets me, it is all the changing accusations that when they don't work seem to get dates changes and so on in order to inflame people. So seriously, what are you claiming happened before 9/11. And please be nice with some creditably links.

Re:Nonsense

[webweave]

I'm nice. I don't know about the changing accusations but this story looks like more evidence of high crimes to me. Are we following a felony here? This story really blew open in the media over the weekend. (Google news:Nacchio)

"What occurred before 9/11." You ask.

Well, as court documents (heavily redacted but showing enough to prove the time line) in the Nacchio trial state the whitehouse demanded wiretap information without court orders in violation of the FISA act. Nacchio refused and Qwest was passed over for big dollar contracts issued by the Feds. The rub is all this happened six months before 9/11. Why is that a story? Read on.

Perhaps this is a better article then the one linked in this story. From the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202485.html?hpid=topnews
or this one. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/nsa-asked-for-p.html

It says the NSA was demanding wiretaps without court oversight six months before 911.

But on this whitehouse.gov page. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060511-1.html it says
"President Bush: After September the 11th, I vowed to the American people that our government would do everything within the law to protect them against another terrorist attack. As part of this effort, I authorized the National Security Agency to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. In other words, if al Qaeda or their associates are making calls into the United States or out of the United States, we want to know what they're saying." [White House, 5/11/06]

Not convinced? Watch this video
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/10/bush-pushes-for-telco-immunity/
"must grant liability protection to companies who are facing multi-billion-dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend our nation following the 9/11 attacks."

FOLLOWING? How about six months before!

Oh yea, Impeachment. "Bush administration was either incompetent or is guilty of malfeasance" http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_frank_j__071015_bush_administration_.htm OK he's a known Bush basher.

"On December 17th, 2005, President Bush confirmed the existence of a National Security Agency eavesdropping program. That confirmation came one day after a report in the New York Times. The President said at the news conference, "in the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations." Critics argued that Bush became the first sitting president to admit committing a felony, when he circumvented the courts by not getting a subpoena from the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Court, as required by law." http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=7112345&nav=0RY5

This would be Bush bashing; "Bush is a fake cowboy" http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/vicente_fox_cowboy_bush_is_scared_of_horses.php or "Bush is lazy" http://ask.yahoo.com/20031001.html but I won't resort to that kind of low stuff.

First post!

[Anonymous Coward]

woot!

The article wasn't clear exactly....

[iknownuttin]

why he was being charged with insider trading. I was to say he really botched it if he bought, but he sold because of the numbers not being met according to the prosecution.

It sounds like he thought he was going to get the contracts but the NSA stuck it to him for not helping them spy. Now, the conspiracy theorist in me wants to believe that the NSA not only tanked the contracts, but also put the prosecutors on him to really make an example out of him.

While story !=summary, it's onerous

[postbigbang]

If you RTFA, the implications are there. Play ball with the NSA, and life could go better with you. Cross-connect your new fiber infrastructure with the NSA and get nice secret benefits. Don't do it, and watch yourself go down, hard, at the hands of the non-secret branches of government.

Good conspiracy stuff. Kennebunkport and B-52s, anyone?

Re:While story !=summary, it's onerous

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not just the NSA and the USA.

Similar things happen elsewhere all the time. In order to do government contracts you have to play ball by the government rules. If you demonstrate in public that you are not willing to play ball, you are not given contracts.

Re:While story !=summary, it's onerous

[Kenrod]

The implication is coming from a guy trying to save his own ass - alleging something that the govt will not and can not acknowledge or deny. Clever and slimy.

Re:While story !=summary, it's onerous

[Anonymous Coward]

He went down hard because of his insider trading. Of course of the feds had awarded the contracts to him, then everyone on Slashdot would be accusing the feds of collaborating a with a crook.

Re:While story !=summary, it's onerous

[doas777]

is it slimier than tapping everyones phones? I think not. I'm going to inquire about switching my phones to Qwest post haste.

Re:While story !=summary, it's onerous

[postbigbang]

Consider: he knew that he might be up for dark income. He bets against the current wisdom. The insider information cannot be revealed-- it's warranted against exposure. He trades.

Is this two wrongs making a 'right' (e.g. personal profit with knowledge that cannot legally be revealed) or is it good old American profiteering, nice and smarmy and probably legal?

Or is this just another snake eating its tail....

In my judgment, the NSA illegally monitors and coopts the telcos. He bucks the trend, and then it's uh-oh, insider trading (think equal protection clause).

Re:While story !=summary, it's onerous

[paganizer]

I'm pretty sure I can't switch to Qwest. but I'm going to try to find SOME way to give them money; this sort of behavior deserves it.

Re:While story !=summary, it's onerous

[wiredlogic]

Rest assured. The aberrant do-gooders at Quest have already been sacked.

Re:While story !=summary, it's onerous

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Qwest territory -- you can mail me some cash, I assure you I'll rack it up in phone bills 8-).

          The big downside to Qwest.. I have huge respect for them for standing up to the NSA.. but the downside is that they also took the other stance on the Telecom Act. The act says that telephone companies must allow local competition if they wish to compete outside their service area in long distance service. Qwest took the alternate route -- rather than competing for long distance everywhere like the other phone companies, they skipped expanding long distance competition in order to maintain their telecom monopoly within their service area. And they drag their feet insanely on rolling out DSL... 8-(.

huh?

[jdc180]

'The [just-released government] documents indicate that likely would have been at the heart of former CEO Joe Nacchio's so-called "classified information" defense at his insider trading trial, had he been allowed to present it. The secret contracts - worth hundreds of millions of dollars - made Nacchio optimistic about Qwest's future, even as his staff was warning him the company might not make its numbers, Nacchio's defense attorneys have maintained. But Nacchio didn't present that argument at trial. '"

What? That didn't make any sense in the summary, or in TFA. I didn't bring my bad grammar decoder ring to work today, can someone translate?

Re:huh?

[tonyreadsnews]

because the NSA stripped out the impo

Re:huh?

[moderatorrater]

The mother wolf kills the calf, and the blood drips down, feeding the children. It's a very long explanation...

Re:huh?

[einhverfr]

As far as I could tell (the article wasn't really clear), the issue was that he wasn't allowed to make the argument at trial so he didn't.

Re:huh?

[enrevanche]

According to Nacchio, he was expecting to get some secret government contracts which would have allowed Qwest to make its sales projections. This he would not have been lying when, 8 months (or something like that) before the Qwest debacle, he sold (dumped?) a bunch of stock.

He's probably right in that he was prosecuted because he turned up his nose at the NSA. If he hadn't the justice department probably would have looked away from his "little transgressions".

Re:huh?

[gstoddart]

What? That didn't make any sense in the summary, or in TFA. I didn't bring my bad grammar decoder ring to work today, can someone translate?

The assertion is that when he was CEO he had been told by the government he would be getting big, huge contracts. He used that as a basis to express positive earnings potential. When he declined to participate in a program he felt would have been illegal, they pulled those contracts.

They seem to be implying that, had he been allowed to at is insider trading trial, he would have referenced said contracts in his defense. But, he was prevented, possibly by the government or the judge. They refer to a heavily redacted document to support the belief that he wasn't doing anything illegal, but legitimately had a reason to believe the company had good things coming in the future, and therefore wasn't doing illegal insider trading. (ie. There really was a secret program he was being courted to help with, after he refused, they hung him out to dry).

Another implication, is that before 9/11, the White House was looking at implementing a program involving phones, and the NSA, and that the individual in question felt that it would have been illegal. By inference, this is related to the now well-known but not acknowledged (but still illegal) domestic spying program. There's little evidence offered to support this link.

At least, that's my best understanding of it.

Cheers

Re:huh?

[BagMan2]

I also don't know all the details, but fundamentally he sold a ton of stock when he found out that Qwest would not be getting the contracts. The basic definition of insider trading is using information that is not public to gain an advantage in the trading of stock. Sounds like a classic case of insider trading to me...

Bad government = change the government

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of trying to control how the government spies on the people... why not just give the government to the people ?

But, you ask, how will we protect our national interests? Well... get rid of nation-states as well. What good are they anyway?

Re:Bad government = change the government

[iknownuttin]

From your link: Anyone may contribute to any open source government.

That's has been done and the Open Source Governments forked into the states we have now. So, we just a bunch of different distros - that's all.

Re:Bad government = change the government

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. Try contributing to the U.S. Federal government to change, say, the wiretapping laws.

Hey! Why haven't your changes gone through yet?!? Did you make a typo?

Oh, wait. Are you saying that you, as a citizen, do not have the right to change your own government? What happened there? How can that be an open source government? Oh. It isn't at all, now is it?

From TFA:

[Anonymous Coward]

The National Security Agency and other government agencies retaliated against Qwest because the Denver telco refused to go along with a phone spying program, documents released Wednesday suggest.

The documents indicate that likely would have been at the heart of former CEO Joe Nacchio's so-called "classified information" defense at his insider trading trial, had he been allowed to present it.

When you said that, I thought you meant that the Slashdot summary did not agree with the story, but it sure appears to. Did you mean that the story itself does not cite these documents directly or make it clear how they relate to his defense?

Because that I'd grant you.

Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

All qwest denied to NSA was the tie of the names to the lines. If they wanted that info, they had to get a warrent. Qwest was not punished by the feds. In fact, they have been rewarded multiple times (anybody notice the recent multi-billion dollar award to ATT/Qwest/Verizon?)

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

a contract involving phones was given to the ONLY phone company ... i cant imagine

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

It is across the USA, and 5 different groups bid on it. And Qwest was NOT the only phone company. They were all capable phone companies.

Datamining=Spying?!!?

[ArcherB]

Data Mining is spying? I use data mining techniques every single day. It's how I separate the few peanuts of data that I want from an enormous stack of crap. I had no idea that I was spying!

So tell me, how do we get the data I need without manually searching each and every record? (replace "data I need" with terrorist and "every record" with citizen)

Re:Datamining=Spying?!!?

[2short]

Who are you arguing with?

I mean, I couldn't make head nor tails of the summary either, but is your need to troll so strong you must go to meaningless articles, invent a tangentially related position no one has advanced, and incredulously question it?

The first step in getting help is admitting you have a problem.

Re:Datamining=Spying?!!?

[doas777]

Data mining is all about finding patterns in large amounts of data (usually summary statistics). this is not spying in itself. the spying comes in when that data represents information that people are not willing to provide themselves, and must be attained through NSA letters with non-disclosure agreements and no court backing. since that data is used to track individual human's actions, with no notification or consent, that is clearly spying. it's not the tools, it's how you use them. To me, this program is domestic intelligence gathering, and thats spying however you look at it.

Re:Datamining=Spying?!!?

[w3woody]

I think the Supremes ruled that when a computer looks at data, it cannot be spying: spying is when a human looks at data. Sadly the damages the government suffers from spying--that is, from having a human look at data you'd rather have hidden--is that without a warrant they can't use it in court, and if they embarrass you then you can sue for damages.

Reality is, however, there is a hell of a lot of private data floating out there that is being handled by lots and lots of strangers--things that we'd like to pretend are secret but are really not. The most fascinating part about all of these complaints about the NSA spying on us is that they show just how public our private data really is. While we may use the NSA as the boogyman in all of this, there is plenty of information that I'd rather have private (such as how much I paid last year in property taxes on my house) which can be found for free on web sites such as Zillow.com.

Re:Datamining=Spying?!!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people will get so pissed off at government's invasion of privacy that they will become terrorists to fight that government. If they view data mining as spying, regardless of whether it actually is or not, then the data mining is responsible for creating terrorists. So, to reduce the amount of data that you need, simply avoid data mining.

Re:Datamining=Spying?!!?

[homer_ca]

Data mining *your own data* isn't spying. The phone companies data mining the phone records of their own customers isn't spying. The federal government data mining the phone records of tens of millions of US citizens is spying.

Re:Datamining=Spying?!!?

[StikyPad]

Data Mining is spying?

No, obtaining information about people without their knowledge or consent is spying. Data mining is what you do with the information after you've collected it.

So tell me, how do we get the data I need without manually searching each and every record? (replace "data I need" with terrorist and "every record" with citizen)

Maybe you don't.

Your right to find a potential criminal does not outweigh the rights of millions of people to have their personal affairs remain their personal affairs. Yes, an increased vulnerability to crime is the price we pay for increased insulation against an abusive government. But it's also worth noting that increased government powers provide no guarantee against crime, while limiting its powers *is* an effective protection against abuse.

Re:Datamining=Spying?!!?

[delong]

Data mining *your own data* isn't spying. The phone companies data mining the phone records of their own customers isn't spying. The federal government data mining the phone records of tens of millions of US citizens is spying

No. The government can look at pen register information, which is nothing more than data mining call connection information, all it wants and no warrant is required, for example. It isn't spying. So sayeth the Supreme Court. Analyzing national calling patterns is as much spying as the U.S. Census. That is, it isn't.

Re:Datamining=Spying?!!?

[ArcherB]

But it's also worth noting that increased government powers provide no guarantee against crime, while limiting its powers *is* an effective protection against abuse.

One could also say

But it's also worth noting that limiting government powers provide no guarantee against abuse, while increasing its powers *is* an effective protection against crime. An example would be a traffic cop does a better job at enforcing speed limits on the Interstate in a Crown Vic than he would on a bicycle.

The police stand a much better chance of finding a stolen car if they are allowed to run license plates against a database (in other words, datamine)

Police stand a much better chance of serving a warrant they are allowed to ask for proof of identification from the citizen who fits the description.

It is also true that retrieving proof of identification can reduce the chance that the person who ONLY fits the description of the suspect is NOT arrested!

So I guess you can guarantee that increasing government powers can cut down on crime. But you are correct that NOTHING can ever eliminate it completely.

I could go on, but the point is that it's not the tools that should be banned, but the abuse, and the abuse is banned already! True, it may happen, but someone is also going to be killed by construction worker wielding a hammer. Does that mean we should ban construction workers from using hammers?

Re:Datamining=Spying?!!?

[StikyPad]

You seem to be equating tools, techniques, and power. Data mining is a technique, not a tool, and I see nothing wrong with it per se. Collecting the list of all calls made from which to data mine, I would argue, is not fine, regardless of what tools or techniques they use to collect that information. Even "voluntary compliance" quickly turns to "noncompliance is suspect," so I would rule out people volunteering their information as well.

Also power is not directly related to the tools used. A car is more powerful than a bike. But just because an officer is driving a cruiser doesn't mean he has the authority to perform an unwarranted search; it just means he can better perform his existing duties in a manner compliant with the rule of law. Aside from that, driving on a public street is very different from using a private network with a private contract with a private entity.

Don't like a story? Don't comment.

[Futurepower(R)]

Please don't read or comment on articles in which you have no interest.

Re:Don't like a story? Don't comment.

[alan_dershowitz]

The overarching problem is that a particular section on Slashdot consistently creates articles that devolve into flame wars. I can tell you two very good reasons why this is a bad idea: it attracts the wrong kind of poster, people who just like to fight; and second, moderators waste mod points modding down the ensuing flamebait and trolling instead of modding up good content in ANY section. Politics section is a mod points black hole and I believe you can see the effects of this today on the entire site. There are other solutions to alleviate problems like this, but by only seeing the problem as being with individual article quality, discussion about that is disallowed.

Re:Don't like a story? Don't comment.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't read or post comments about people who don't like the story. There's enough 1/f noise already.

Re:Don't like a story? Don't comment.

[Anonymous Coward]

The overarching problem is that a particular section on Slashdot consistently creates articles that devolve into flame wars I'm sorry that our lively discourse offends you. Perhaps you'd rather live in Iran, where memes eat people and people aren't even allowed to open their mouths, lest they accidently ingest a meme.

this is a bad idea: it attracts the wrong kind of poster, people who just like to fight That is such a line of bullshit - where do I begin? First of all, you are [whatever kids these days call people who disagree with them], so you're wrong.

moderators waste mod points modding down the ensuing flamebait and trolling instead of modding up good content in ANY section Look, there's no accounting for taste. One man's spice is another man's burn.

There are other solutions to alleviate problems like this Indeed. You could step up the plate and play ball.

Printy link

[Seakip18]

Here's the print link to the article (resize window to get ridda blue sidebar). Who says you need firefox to cut out the ads? I'm in agreement with the above. This doesn't sound as much like retaliation as it does "You don't scratch mine I don't scratch yours." All that it comes down to is that "the contract didn't materialize." Is that considered retaliation?

Re:Printy link

[Gr8Apes]

Based on government regulations and supposed required bidding processes, it should have been impossible for the NSA to make conditional a set of contracts based on another set of contracts or requests. If that truly was done, there should be heads rolling at the NSA procurement division.

In short, gov contracts are either competitively bid, or they are single sourced. In the former case, if you're the low bidder and will deliver the products, then you "win". They can't give it to someone else without negating one or the other of those two acceptance criteria. In the latter, the fact that it was single-sourced requires documentation as to why the open bid process could not be done. That documentation alone would negate giving the contract to someone else.

Do remember the government is not in the business of scratching backs. (good grief, I almost said that with a straight face...)

Re:Printy link

[terrymr]

Remember the recent contract for fuel tanker planes which was awarded to boeing - withdrawn because of bribery and then awarded to boeing again because it would be unamerican to give it to airbus - the only other bidder.

Domestic spying

[CaptCrunk]

I realize that this is a sensitive issue, but why would it be assumed that this is "spying on Americans"? Given this kind of access, it's possible that it could occur, but given that the American telecom industry tends to have faster communications lines than those in countries known to harbor these groups, it's just as possible that they're monitoring those calls. It's a matter of call routing and the most efficient way to get from point A to point B. Just my $0.02.

Re:Domestic spying

[Boronx]

Because spying on foreigners without a warrant is not illegal, and these guys were doing something illegal (hence the desire by the telecoms to get their actions retroactively legalized, without first telling us what they are)

Re:Domestic spying

[delong]

Because spying on foreigners without a warrant is not illegal, and these guys were doing something illegal

Analyzing data, like calling patterns, in which you have no reasonable expectation of privacy requires no warrant either. Like pen registers, the government does not need a warrant for this type of monitoring.

Telcos need immunity to prevent frivolous strike suits by people like you that think "these guys were doing something illegal."

Re:Domestic spying

[Boronx]

No, they don't. If what they're doing isn't illegal, then they don't need immunity for it. Or to put it another way, giving someone immunity for something that is legal won't do anything to stop frivolous law suits.

BTW, what makes you think that call patterns don't fall under a "reasonable expectation of privacy"? I'm guessing you and those like you who love to give the government the benefit of the doubt are in a distinct minority.

Re:Domestic spying

[The Master Control P]

1. The system in question is for monitoring phone calls, and could be used on either foreign calls (legal) or domestic calls (illegal).
2. If what is being done is not illegal, there would be no need to try and grant the telcom companies retroactive immunity for their non-crimes.
3. Since the Bush administration is trying to push retroactive immunity, what is being done is illegal, i.e. spying on Americans.

Moreover, attempts to hide illegal activity of this type would be consistent with Bush administration cronyism, authoritarianism, and paranoia.

Re:Domestic spying

[delong]

Or to put it another way, giving someone immunity for something that is legal won't do anything to stop frivolous law suits

Immunity allows the defendant telcos to get an immediate dismissal of the suit on a motion to dismiss. One filing, a hearing, and the suit is out the door, saving millions defending frivolous lawsuits.

BTW, what makes you think that call patterns don't fall under a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?

The Supreme Court of the United States says so.

I'm guessing you and those like you who love to give the government the benefit of the doubt are in a distinct minority

I'm guessing that people that know the law, like other attorneys such as myself, don't go for the "it's illegal because I think it is" conclusions of people such as yourself.

Re:Domestic spying

[Boronx]

You are correct. I find that decision disheartening:

"We doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial," Justice Harry Blackmun wrote. He noted the court had said "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties."

That is IMHO an incorrect reading of American's expectations, and the foundation of the quote is dangerous: In the age of digital transmission, the entire phone conversation is turned over to the phone company.

Re:Domestic spying

[Boronx]

I was ignorant of the SC decision, but it was public knowledge. Why would Qwest's lawyers believe the plan to be illegal? What caused the FISA court to balk?

Wait, WHEN did this happen?

[BobMcD]

I obviously need to do some research:

Nacchio planned to demonstrate at trial that he had a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, at NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Md., to discuss a $100 million project. According to the documents, another topic also was discussed at that meeting, one with which Nacchio refused to comply. The NSA wanted to begin its wiretapping program PRIOR to the "unforeseeable" events of September 11th, 2001???

Either I'm out of touch, or this is a tad bit of a smoking gun...

Next up for me is trying to determine when the guys who went along got their start. Either way it doesn't look good.

Interesting stuff.

Re:Wait, WHEN did this happen?

[FleaPlus]

The NSA wanted to begin its wiretapping program PRIOR to the "unforeseeable" events of September 11th, 2001???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

Re:Wait, WHEN did this happen?

[phantomlord]

Slashdot had quite a few stories on Project Echelon too.

(just a small selection)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/10/18/1419245
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/06/04/1915248
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/07/05/1044228
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=98/09/30/1429227
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/11/03/1258257

I seem to remember there being quite the uproar back then...

Re:Wait, WHEN did this happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

[quote]The NSA wanted to begin its wiretapping program PRIOR to the "unforeseeable" events of September 11th, 2001???[/quote]

Yes, of course it did! If you had been paying attention in the 80s there was talk of this. Some of it was tin foil hat conspiracy,
some of it wasn't.

Re:Political Flamebait

[Spy der Mann]

I love how today is "politics trolling" on slashdot.

Blasphemy!!! To the bonfire!!!

Re:Political Flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I have to object to your grouping the /. politics section in with the apple newton and New Coke. New Coke was actually extensivly researched and thought out just executed very poorly and got one of the biggest knee-jerk reactions from the american public ever.

Meanwhile the politics section of /. is indeed just plain stupid, and I really have no opinion of the newton.

Not so fast...

[Penguinisto]

When it comes to Qwest, you may wish to take the information with a block of salt. They've been known to twist things rather heavily before in order to get their way (for a big instance - a quick Google search for "Qwest UTOPIA Utah" should cough up their antics in trying to kill off a muni-funded fiber broadband project just to keep their profits high).

IMHO, Qwest's motives are suspect, and this article with its sensationalist flavor reads almost like it came from Qwest's PR office.

As is usual with opinions, YMMV.

/P

Re:Political Flamebait

[Soporific]

God forbid you filter it out...

~S

Re:Political Flamebait

[tcolberg]

I think it's great that Slashdot has a politics section. Most people, let alone Americans are not informed about the political process on a daily basis. With the internet, people are able to be highly selective about the information that passes in front of them, in some ways making it more difficult to keep people informed or even interested politics. Sure there's "trolling" in the comments, but that's par for the course with any discussion. If Slashdot can put a couple political articles before a few more apathetic internet users per day and get them to debate it, the site has done a great service for both nerds and democracy.

What makes you think that this "War on Terror"

[einhverfr]

began on 2001-09-11?

If you do some research, you will see that a lot of these programs had been ramped up considerably under Clinton (including both extraordinary rendition, and the attacks on free speech). There was also an increasing amount of information that Eschelon was underway at that time. Unfortunately this is not a matter of who is in office, but rather who is informing whoever is in office.

This means: career military top brass, it means career intelligence services (CIA, NSA, etc), and to a lesser extent it means private think tanks.

Re:What makes you think that this "War on Terror"

[BobMcD]

Any pointers you have would be great.

Re:What makes you think that this "War on Terror"

[einhverfr]

"Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act" signed into law by Clinton in 1998. Some law experts have pointed to attempts to use this act to punish acts of pure speech, such as United States v. Al-Hussayen (2004). In that case, the prosecution alleged that merely providing a hyperlink and advocacy of the policies of Hamas constituted material support/expert advice under that 1998 law.

Also see the European Parliament's report on ECHELON, from July of 2001. Note that the investigation that lead to the report began in the year 2000.

The tools of this "war on terror" were being deployed well in advance of 9/11. If we are to give the government the benefit of the doubt, one would suggest it started with the 1993 bombings of US embessies, and a genuine fear that it would escallate. To be more cynical, one might think that it is about certain government agecies trying to maintain their own value after the fall of Communism. Human nature being what it is, both positions are probably true at the same time.

Where are the grammer police when you need them?

[WebHostingGuy]

Ditto, wtf does this say?

So?

[wsanders]

1) Government wants s33kr1t network to spy on alleged troublemakers.

2) AT&T and Verizon cooperate, Quest refuses.

3) Contract goes to AT&T and Verizon, blows off Quest.

4) Duh!

Re:So?

[Threni]

This sort of 'help' has been going on for decades:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_SHAMROCK

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that if his current legal troubles all stem from a simple refusal to help commit a crime, then he's pretty much not guilty on all counts as far as I'm concerned.

Your point #1 is incorrect in one major way: Those being spied on were not alleged troublemakers. If they were, the Feds would have had no trouble obtaining a FISA warrant. This was a blanket wiretap on everyone designed (supposedly) to find alleged troublemakers within the general population--that's a very, very different thing.

I'm sure Qwest didn't "refuse" point-blank. They just said they'd cooperate as soon as they had a warrant. The fact that there wasn't a warrant isn't their fault.

Re:So?

[rtb61]

If anything technically speaking it makes him look even more guilty of insider trading. It is pretty obvious that under the current US administration any actions against the politics of the administration will immediately result in, often quite public, criminal retaliation, if there is one thing this US administration has demonstrated is it's willingness to be completely shameless in it's criminal corruption.

Now of course if he has any evidence of the criminal activities of the NSA in other countries he could of course seek political asylum from what is quite likely to be an extremely harsh and of questionable survivability, prison term.

Re:Way to go!

[InsaneProcessor]

Way to show bias based on rhetoric. Not "spying on Americans" but spying on foreigners contacting Americans. The calls that are being data mined are those originating outside of the U.S. by people or countries that are known terrorist supporters.

Now let's see the nonsense that falls out of this thread now.

Re:Way to go!

[KlomDark]

You're STILL sticking up for that fucking Bush guy even after all these years? What are you, some kind of a retard? Are you a Banana Republican?

Re:Way to go!

[spun]

Who still approves of President Bush? Trust me, hating Bush is not a Slashdot-only phenomenon. The man is a buffoon and a criminal, and everyone knows it. I'm friends with a number of Republicans, and NONE of them still support Bush. Political endorsement by the man is the touch of death, no one wants to be associated with him at all. The only people who still support Bush are mouth-breathing microencephalic inbred uneducated backwoods yokels, and fellow criminals who have profited from his redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich.

Re:Way to go!

[Kajukenbo]

If calls are coming into the US, to Americans, and the NSA is listening to them...
Explain to me how the NSA is not simultaneously spying on the Americans?
Do they only hear the foreign side of the conversation?

Thought so. You got nuthin.

Re:Political Flamebait

[DerekLyons]

God forbid somebody caring what kind of people are attracted to the site, and the results on the level and quality of the discussions resulting.

Re:Political Flamebait

[Ecuador]

What are you talking about? New coke was brilliant. The "Coke Classic" reintroduction turned out to be a historical moment.

Re:Way to go!

[pluther]

Not "spying on Americans" but spying on foreigners contacting Americans. The calls that are being data mined are those originating outside of the U.S. by people or countries that are known terrorist supporters.

No, you're getting two separate programs confused.

The warrantless wiretapping is only for international calls (with origin either inside or outside the United States, but at least one party has to be outside).

The data mining does not include listening to any content of the phone calls, just caller, receiver, time, and duration. This information includes data on purely domestic calls.

Re:Way to go!

[InsaneProcessor]

Real simple here. If you walk onto an airplane, you know you will be scanned and possible searched. You accept that for taking that action. If your receive foreign calls, you could be monitored. You accept that for taking that action. It is the Americans' fault for receiving calls from such people. I accept the risk because I have nothing to hide. No...wait....I don't even receive international calls.

Re:Way to go!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now let's see the nonsense that falls out of this thread now.

What, like your nonsense pretending that if I get a phone call from a foreigner I'm magically transported to some other nation and no longer protected by the same Bill of Rights as everyone else who is not on the phone with a foreigner? Or your nonsense pretending that they're only recording the foreign end of the conversation?

Well, whichever it is, have a soft landing!

No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

This shouldn't be a surprise. Bush has insisted on amnesty for illegal acts AT&T (and others) *may* have done, but won't admit what they have done. Steny Hoyer is leading the charge against this amnesty on the basis that congress has no idea what the administration strong-armed these guys these guys to do.

But Bush won't say what they did. Which means it's bad.

I'm not making this up. Please go to http://washingtonpost.com/ and do a few queries. Or Google.

Re:Way to go!

[SargentDU]

How do you know the calls are to American citizens? There are many legal and illegal aliens here that are likely to receive calls from terrorist areas of foreign nations.

QWEST - not my favorite

[keraneuology]

Once upon a time QWEST absolutely refused to do anything about the unrepentant spammers on their network. I don't care what happens to either QWEST or any of the executives.

very definition of insider trading

[Anonymous Coward]

if he made trades based on relevant information which was not publicly known but which he learned about through his position in the company, then didn't wasn't that a classic definition of insider trading?

Re:Political Flamebait

[Chibi Merrow]

The problem isn't trolling in the comments, it's trolling in the article summaries that's the problem...

Re:Way to go!

[InsaneProcessor]

There is nothing wrong with Bush that a nuke dropped on Iran or Syria wouldn't fix.

Don't bash someone unless you have a person to replace him that can do a better job.

God for Qwest...but what now?

[MobyDisk]

The topic itself is redacted each time it appears in the hundreds of pages of documents, but there is mention of Nacchio believing the request was both inappropriate and illegal, and repeatedly refusing to go along with it.

The NSA contract was awarded in July 2001 to companies other than Qwest. I'm glad Qwest did the right thing. But my next question is, who did those contracts go to, and what illegal thing is THAT company doing right now? Unfortunately, the documents that would indicate this are sealed. There might be the makings of another EFF/ACLU -vs- AT&T case hiding amongst those documents.

Dreams of impeachment

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously another feeble attempt to discredit those who wish to discredit Mishter Presidient. This attempt would need substantial improvement to attain "feeble." Nacchio has been the poster boy of corporate evil for years before he became a convicted felon. Suddenly his claims are credible evidence! Hapless victim of the Bush "regime"!!11!

Enjoy watching this puff of nonsense dissipate harmlessly. Another bit of "truth" appended to the "Reality Based(tm)" litany.

Next up: O.J.; "Bush took my stuff!"

Re:Way to go!

[MacCumhail]

RON PAUL

Alrighty then...

[Anonymous Coward]

I like cake, but I don't like puppies.

Bribe

[virtigex]

It sounds like the guy was offered a bribe by the NSA to do something borderline illegal and he turned it down. Perhaps he didn't realize it was a bribe. Anyway he turned it down and he didn't get the moolah in return. Good for him on this count. However, it sounds like he was trading based on information not available to the public and thus is guilty of insider trading. It does not matter where this information came from. He could be the greatest philanthropist alive, but it does not affect his guilt in this matter.

Re:Bribe

[bigpat]

The governments case was that he was being told by people inside Qwest management that they weren't going to meet stated expectations for the year and then he sold the stock based on that insider information. But if there were potential contracts to build classified networks worth billions of dollars being negotiated and he had a reasonable expectation that Qwest would get those contracts so the company would then meet or exceed expectations, then it wasn't insider trading. Because his expectation was in line with what had been projected publicly. Not being able to talk about those contracts was a major impediment to his defense.

Allegedly he turned down the NSA request in February before he sold the stock in the Spring, but the government contracts didn't get awarded to other companies until about 3 months after he sold the stock. So, unless the NSA directly threatened in that February meeting to pull the other contracts if he didn't play ball with the illegal wiretapping, then he could have just as easily thought that his refusal would not have any effect on those completely unrelated contracts to build classified networks for the us government.

So, this does really change things if it is true and if the government really did prevent this information from being presented at trial.

And In Soviet Russia ....

[darkonc]

The government screws you.

(( Sigh. Some things just never change. ))

Let Joe Out?

[bxwatso]

Hate Bush all you want, but the real story is that this may get Joe off. His real crime wasn't insider trading, but accounting fraud. The Feds declined to indict him on that offense, going for the easier to understand insider trading (which I don't think really exists).

It's too late to indict Joe for anything new, and he may have an appealable issue. If he does no time, then the Feds have really blown it.

BTW, petty government people who retaliate on unrelated fronts for unjustifiable reasons are nothing new. Kennedy, Nixon, and Clinton all have been acused of directing the IRS to audit their enemies (probably other presidents as well).

Re:Let Joe Out?

[JhohannaVH]

Um, DUH. Read the article.. This happened BEFORE 2001!!!! *head desk*

Bush is a vindictive SOB!

[Newer Guy]

I can see this easily happening! Bush ALWAYS wanted to make the USA a police state! 9/11 simply gave him the REASON to! History will not be kind to shrub!

Re:Bush is a vindictive SOB!

[JhohannaVH]

Hey DUMBASS! RTFA for once, you dolt! This happened BEFORE BOOOOOOOOOOOSH. Happened BEFORE 9/11. Happened under CLINTON! Oh, and while you're at it, read the attached PDFs to said article that defines the timelines as being PRIOR to 2001! Jesus... some people.

Let me see if I got this correct

[WillAffleckUW]

One of the few telecoms that didn't break the law and ignored the illegal and unconstitutional NSA requests is being punished, and GWB is threatening to veto any telecom bill that allows the law-breaking unconstitutional actions of the telecoms which spat on our Constitution to go to jail for their CRIMES ...

Ok, it's time to fire the incompetents.

The timeline doesn't match up!

[taskiss]

From the article:

The documents maintain that Nacchio met with top government officials, including President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and then-National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice in 2000 and early 2001 to discuss how to protect the government's communications network.

Bysh wasn't naugurated until Jan 20, 2001.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/inaugural-address.html

The SEC is an independent regulatory agency!

[unassimilatible]

This is such BS. The SEC is a non-political independent regulatory agency outside of the executive branch! Bush couldn't order them to flush a toilet, let alone initiate an investigation.

But hey, it's an anti-Bush allegation, so let's greenlight it!

Re:The SEC is an independent regulatory agency!

[rthille]

Right. From your link:
  Executive branch independent agencies are not part of a fourth branch of government; they are part of the executive branch

And they list the CIA as an example Independent Agency. The President certainly has the authority to order the CIA around.

Re:The SEC is an independent regulatory agency!

[rthille]

And if you clickthru the SEC link on that page you get this:
Christopher Cox is the current chairman of the SEC. He was appointed by President George W. Bush.

Right. Non-political. Sure. Like the Justice Department.

Re:The SEC is an independent regulatory agency!

[adminstring]

I think there is a misunderstanding between various slashdotters as to how exactly QWest was allegedly "punished." As far as I can tell, TFA is not stating that QWest was punished for not cooperating with the NSA by having an SEC investigation launched against it's former CEO. They are stating that QWest was punished for not cooperating with the NSA by losing potential contracts they had lined up with "The National Security Agency and other government agencies" - the SEC is never mentioned as an agency with which QWest might have had a contract which was lost due to their non-cooperation with the NSA.

The SEC did launch an investigation of alleged insider trading against former QWest CEO Joe Nacchio relating to some stock he sold, but I don't believe I've read anything indicating that anyone believes that this investigation is linked to any discussions he had with the NSA. If there is any such evidence that it was, I'd appreciate a hyperlink to it. As far as I can tell, the only way the SEC is involved here is that Nacchio brought up the conversations with the NSA and the alleged lost income from the allegedly scuttled deals as evidence that there were unforseen circumstances which caused QWest to perform worse than he had projected, while defending himself against charges of insider trading filed by the SEC.

Re:The SEC is an independent regulatory agency!

[tchdab1]

If you've kept your eyes open for the past 6 years you will know that this administration has been unprecedented in its work to politicize "non-political" government agencies.
The US Attorneys issue is pretty well-known. Here is a regulatory body that supposedly depends on its objectivism to enforce the law throughout the USA, yet was systematically purged of members who did not prosecute or avoid prosecution when told by political operatives, in many states.

White House political operatives - Rove and his staff - made no secret of conducting dozens of meetings with managers throughout various branches of different government agencies prior to the 2006 election, presenting Powerpoints outlining "how you can help Republicans this fall", in violation of the Hatch Act that specifically prohibits this kind of cronyism.

The Department of the Interior, the guys that manage national parks and public lands, were staffed with new political upper managers whose expressed duties were to oversee decisions from below. Decisions on any logging and development contracts could not be processed without the final word of these asses.

And Fema? Remember Katrina and Fema? Heck of a job.
There's lots more, and it contiues to come out. These guys were driven, and funded - pay attention to the stuff that continues to appear from the plea bargains of Abramov, Wilkes, and their teams of corruptionists.

And so I suspect from this article that it is possible that this Qwest CEO's insider trading prosecution by the SEC may well have been spurred by his decision not to commit his company to break the law as he saw it.

For those of you thinking you've been living in the cradle of Democracy, welcome to the road to Stalinist America.

THINK!

[Anonymous Coward]

Since soooo many of you seem to be disabled I'll try to make this simpler for you. I know I over simplified it but some of you just don't seem to be able to read.

Time line:
1 - Quest (only those with classified clearance) has discussions with NSA re: New 100M+ contracts, Quest representatives believe they will get these contracts
2 - Quest releases projected earnings for the coming year.
3 - Over the next 4 months Quest people WITHOUT classified clearance who DON'T know ANYTHING about the NSA talks worry that they won't make the goal for yearly earnings
4 - Quest CEO liquidates some personal stock
5 - In a subsequent meetings with NSA Quest refuses to participate on ONE smaller side project they consider wrong/illegal/risky
6 - NSA pulls ALL contracts, not just the one Quest refused
7 - Quest fails to meet projected earnings
8 - Quest CEO gets investigated

His claims:
1) Quest made the yearly projections based on the secret contracts
2) Quest would have met it's projections if they had received the secret contracts
3) He sold his stock while believing that Quest would receive the secret contracts
4) Those worried about possible shortfalls did not know about the secret contracts
5) The lucrative secret contracts were pulled due to Quests/His refusal to participate in a small and unrelated project
6) Quests loss of the contracts was a reprisal for refusing to participate in the small unrelated project
7) He was not allowed to defend himself adequately due to the secrecy of the contracts

I admit that I don't know anything about Quest or this guy, but you have to remember that no matter how rampant insider trading and stock option back dating and plain old theft was getting in 2001, Telcos receive a lot of scrutiny. You would have to be crazy to think that it would be as easy to fiddle the numbers in a telco as in any other business.

-dan

suggested tags : liberalrage, slashbush, obsession

[slashkossucks]

This site cracks me up... it has nothing to do with anything other than a few disgruntled people in their basement screaming at their monitors on cue when the next bush story comes down. Its such a sad joke, and the site is marginalized because of it... LOL

Low quality stories cause low quality comments.

[Futurepower(R)]

First, are you this Alan Dershowitz?

You said, "The overarching problem is that ... Slashdot consistently creates articles that devolve into flame wars."

I agree. Partly, I think, the reason is that the low quality of Slashdot articles sometimes leads a discussion in the wrong direction, or a confused direction.

I think the biggest reason is that many Slashdot stories attract people who play video games, but have little interest in other issues. Since it is not possible to moderate a story in which someone wants to comment, people who play video games visit stories in which they have little or no interest.

There are other problems, too, of course.

and since it was not presented at trial

[swschrad]

it can not be presented at appeal.

Joey Nachos is a vanquished robbing tyrant, and his lawyer is an idiot.

Idiot

[unassimilatible]

The link is wrong, typical Wiki. There are two types of regulatory agencies. Executive, and independent. The FTC (the non-political analogue to Justice) and the SEC are independent. The CIA is part of homeland security, part of the executive branch. CIA is not independent and it is not regulatory. The CIA director serves at the pleasure of the president. The SEC chairman does NOT serve at the pleasure of the president. Cox could tell Bush to fark off and Bush couldn't do a thing.

The SEC consists of five presidentially-appointed Commissioners, with staggered five-year terms. One of them is designated by the President as Chairman of the Commission -- the agency's chief executive. By law, no more than three of the Commissioners may belong to the same political party, ensuring non-partisanship. The agency's functional responsibilities are organized into four Divisions and 18 Offices, each of which is headquartered in Washington, DC. The Commission's approximately 3,800 staff are located in Washington and in 11 Regional Offices throughout the country. Source

Gawd some people here are dumb. Pretending to be smart.

Re:Idiot

[rthille]

So, with 5 year terms, bush has had the opportunity to appoint every member of the commission. And while two members must not be republicans like the other three, there are certainly Democrats like Zell Miller who are to the right of many Republicans.

Nothing involving people is apolitical. Everyone brings their viewpoint and interpretation to the job.

I have no idea whether Bush was involved in any of this, but to say that it's impossible is naive.

Even if Bush couldn't fire Cox directly, to say that crossing Bush wouldn't have negative consequences going forward is also naive.

Re:suggested tags : liberalrage, slashbush, obsess

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why bother?

The SEC is NOT an independent regulatory agency!

[freedom_india]

Dude. The SEC is a US Government Agency whose commissioners are appointed by the US President(subject to the senate rubber stamp).

See http://www.sec.gov/about/commissioner.shtml

Much like the FTC, the SEC can and will refuse to investigate or take action on politically sensitive.

Bush could appoint a commissioner who could not only flush his toilet but clean it with a tooth brush and more...

New!

[istartedi]

Now, the people who brought you borderless Libertarianism bring you this exciting new product...

"Data Mining"

[Predictor]

nightcats writes "According to a story from the Rocky Mountain news, Qwest has received retaliatory action from the NSA for refusing to cooperate in the Bush administration's domestic data-mining activity (i.e., spying on Americans). Please get the terminology straight! "Data mining" does not mean "spying". Data mining is a sophisticated process of statistical analysis. The article to which you refer (at RockyMountainNews.com) does not use the term "data mining". Privacy implications arise from the uncontrolled and unmonitored gathering and sharing of private data, not statistical analysis performed afterward.

1997

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you notice in the article when they mentioned the NSA approached them as early as 1997 to do this type of stuff?

Gov't contracts wouldn't have helped

[theof]

Having worked as a contractor for Qwest both before and after the Nacchio era, I believe that this assertion in Nacchio's defense is irrelevant. The supposed government contracts were worth "hundreds of millions of dollars", but at the time of Joe's ouster from Qwest, and it's near bankruptcy, Qwest was 26 BILLION dollars in debt. Even if the government contracts were worth a few billion, it wouldn't have helped Qwest's situation. Joe Nacchio was slimey sales weasel type CEO who put Marketing first, and engineering last, and engaged in fraudulent deals to artificially pump up the bottom line, not unlike MCI/Worldcom. Undoubtedly he's using this "secret contracts" issue as a last ditch effort to stay out of the hoosegow. He and almost all of the senior execs were swept out when the current CEO, Dick Notebaert took charge and realized the scope of the disaster which Nacchio had created through his criminal mismanagement. I know that the current management team also refused to cooperate with the NSA, unlike say Verizon or AT&T. Assuming the story of secret contracts with the NSA to be correct, it's plausible that they didn't get them because the NSA knew of Qwest's perilous financial condition. A lot of people (Investors, Qwest employees, retirees) were seriously hurt or financially destroyed by Mr. Nacchio's misdeeds, and I hope he doesn't weasel out of a well deserved stay at Club Fed.

Re:Gov't contracts wouldn't have helped

[bxwatso]

I hated Joe before hating Joe was cool.

Re:Way to go!

[KlomDark]

Not sure how to parse the meaning of the first sentence without knowing if you are against, or in favor of, dropping a nuke on Iran or Syria.

But I'd say Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul would do a far better job. Al Gore certainly would have done a better job.

Re:If you love the U.S., help prevent corruption.

[sumdumass]

Wow, I was thinking of watching that movie until I read your little essay on it. Now I think I will stay as far away form it as possible.