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

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: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: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: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.