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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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

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: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: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...

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