
New Details Show Broader NSA Surveillance Reach - WestCoastJustin
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887324108204579022874091732470-lMyQjAxMTAzMDIwMDEyNDAyWj.html
======
zaroth
"For the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, officials say, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and NSA arranged with Qwest Communications
International Inc. to use intercept equipment for a period of less than six
months around the time of the event. It monitored the content of all email and
text communications in the Salt Lake City area."

So that would be clearly illegal mass wiretapping, and we're being told it has
only gotten worse since then. Oh, fantastic! No wonder Qwest's CEO had a
falling out with the NSA that ended with him behind bars!

~~~
sker
But everyone loves to rationalize how he's behind bars by his own wrong doing.
And then people wonder why other CEOs don't stand up to the NSA. What's the
point? If the general population doesn't care, why go to jail for them?

~~~
001sky
Guys, nacchio was a more run-of-the-mill-crook, tho.

Not a spy , etc. so was the guy that ran worldcom. they were (in bed) with the
NSA because of their role as backbone providers (ie, only incidentally). they
both went to jail because they took on too much debt in the telecom boom
laying fiber, not because the NSA framed them. the stupid stuff they did
predates (in nacchio's case) the involvement with the uswest. the poor
economics of qwest--which was trying to hide--was the reason he bought uswest.
us west was a cash cow and able to service his debts.

The NSA dispute post-dates the stock market/telco imposion, and also both his
acquisition of uswest and the start his insider selling, and cirucmstantially
seems like a desperate bid to gain leverage in his criminal case (ie, his
credibility is lacking, as the allegations are self-serving).

 _In 1996, reports appearing in The Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News
revealed that CLECs had lodged complaints with the FCC against US West,
including multiple complaints from Qwest Communications International, Inc.
The complaints alleged US West neglected or seriously delayed release of
"bundled loops" as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, making it
difficult for competitors to provide local telephone service to their
customers. Other competitors began following suit, and charged US West with
monopoly-like or anti-trust type behavior.[citation needed]

During the winter of 1999–2000, US West announced that it had received an
unsolicited purchase offer from Qwest Communications International, Inc. At
the time, US West had been attempting to merge with Global Crossing, but for
months this deal had been stalled through the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC). US West management publicly refused Qwest's offer.
Qwest eventually purchased enough US West stock to enable Qwest to take
control of the Board of Directors in March 2000.

On June 30, 2000, US West, Inc. and Qwest Communications International, Inc.
combined via merger. US West, Inc. was merged into Qwest Communications
International, Inc. with all of US West's direct subsidiaries becoming direct
subsidiaries of Qwest._

[edits for clarity]

~~~
eliasmacpherson
Where are you getting that? Nacchio was convicted for insider trading in 2007.
Unless I am mistaken, your italicised text has nothing to do with that.

~~~
anigbrowl
He was convicted in 2007, but insider trading was alleged to have taken place
much earlier (1999-2002), long before his relationship with the NSA supposedly
went south.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio)

~~~
eliasmacpherson
"Former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio, convicted of insider trading in April 2007,
alleged in appeal documents that the NSA requested that Qwest participate in
its wiretapping program more than six months before September 11, 2001.
Nacchio recalls the meeting as occurring on February 27, 2001. Nacchio further
claims that the NSA cancelled a lucrative contract with Qwest as a result of
Qwest's refusal to participate in the wiretapping program." [1]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwest#Refusal_of_NSA_surveilla...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwest#Refusal_of_NSA_surveillance_requests)

~~~
001sky
Nacchio started selling stock earlier (see op cit) than that meeting. But its
sort of beside the point. The information <he was hiding from the public> was
information that long predated all of this. He was convicted of basically
lying in the earlier SEC reports which is why he had <insider> information. It
was harder to convict him on witholding material information, so they went
after him (and won) for insider trading.

Unfortunately, his allegations about NSA are sort of irrelevant to wether or
not he was guilty or not. His credibilty as a witness is shot not only by his
conflict of interest (ie, he's trying to get out of jail) but also because he
was convicted of a crime of fundamental dishonesty.

I don;t think there is much doubt that his general business tenure as CEO was
sketchy at best in terms of integrity. That doesn;t make the NSA innocent, but
it makes the Nacchio link much less interesting as a discussion piece. Nacchio
is not any kind of hero figure or champion of integrity.

~~~
eliasmacpherson
Thanks for your comment, it explains how your initial comment relates to his
conviction. This article helped too. [1]

The basis of his conviction is that he made a prediction that the court found
to be false, and the court found that he should have known it would be false.

If it's for say, predicting 2001/2002 revenue, he was convicted as lying to
the SEC, it's possible that losing NSA/government contracts contributed.

I don't know the dates and so don't know for which year(s) he was convicted
for making a false prediction. If it was earlier than 2002 it is probably as
you say, run of the mill lying to the SEC.

His allegations are of retaliation, that he was given cruel and unusual
attention because he refused to comply. As regards whether it was retaliation,
his credibility is shot.

I don't doubt that the meetings occurred, that qwest refused and that
contracts were cancelled. In that regard even though he may be a liar, he did
better than the CEO's of the other companies. I am sure if you subject any CEO
to enough scrutiny you can convict them of something. Put it this way, I'd
take a CEO who makes unrealistic predictions about revenue over one that
silently allows warrantless wiretapping.

[1] [http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635163326/Ex-Qwest-CEO-
pl...](http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635163326/Ex-Qwest-CEO-plans-novel-
defense-in-trading-probe.html?pg=all)

~~~
001sky
There's no way losing a couple NSA contacts sends a RBOC generating $4B of
cash a year into a $2 stock and near bankruptcy. The way you do that, is you
merge a massively unprofitable business into a blue chip one and pay the
latter with massively inflated stock (viz: '99 internet bubble). After the
bubble bursts, market wakes up, and the assets are found to be dogs. The $4B
cash is now going to pay down the massive debts the combined entity took to
finance the operating losses of the crappy side of the merger, but there is no
growth in the supposedly high-growth part. The high-growth part was not a
NSA/gov't driven biz plan, though. That would not have made sense or been
credible plan on which to merge or raise capital (before 9/11 in particular).

Much easier explanation. According to the SEC/Jury/SupremeCourt etc.

Hope that helps.

------
001sky
_The system has the capacity to reach roughly 75% of all U.S. Internet traffic
in the hunt for foreign intelligence, including a wide array of communications
by foreigners and Americans. In some cases, it retains the written content of
emails sent between citizens within the U.S. and also filters domestic phone
calls made with Internet technology, these people say._

~~~
frank_boyd
> The system has the capacity to reach roughly 75% of all U.S. Internet
> traffic

And of course, this is a work-in-progress number.

------
vasundhar
I think the news is out and all know the facts and fabricated facts too.

I think its time for the govt., and the president to come out and say "Yes",
We Spy on you for your safety and we assure and ensure you don't get penalised
for wrong reasons and systemic errors.

More than privacy people are scared of the ramifications of the surveillance
by organisations that lost the trust.

~~~
devx
He's not going to do that. He knows it's unconstitutional.

What you're saying is kind of like saying: "Look, torture _works_ , and we're
doing it anyway - therefore let's just do it with medical oversight to ensure
the torture doesn't go as far as organ failure. They will do it for our safety
against the _enemy_ , and with good oversight - so it's all good. It's for our
_safety_!".

They shouldn't be doing it at all. The "oversight" gets corrupted over time,
too, and then what?

~~~
cheald
Infuriatingly, John Yoo makes this exact argument.

[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130817/22391824220/guy-
wh...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130817/22391824220/guy-who-wrote-
legal-memos-defending-us-torture-defends-nsa-because-it-takes-too-long-to-
obey-constitution.shtml)

------
eliasmacpherson
More magical word redefinitions, this time ' _minimize_ ':

Another Snowden document describes the procedures NSA uses to protect American
information that is retained. Any such information is " _minimized_ ," meaning
that it is destroyed. The document highlights several exceptions, including
encrypted communications and information of foreign intelligence significance.

...

Officials acknowledged some purely domestic communications are incidentally
swept into the system. "We don't keep track of numbers of U.S. persons," a
U.S. official says. "What we try to do is _minimize_ any exposure."

You have to question their definition of each word, each time they use it,
because they are probably playing fancy word games.

~~~
peterkelly
One of the greatest abuses being carried out here is of the English language

------
scrrr
I think by now it's very naive to still assume they do it just to stop
terrorism. But the good thing about this whole mess is that a new generation
of people realises that politicians are liars and are not to be trusted, ever.

------
frank_boyd
> The NSA's filtering, carried out with telecom companies, is designed to look
> for communications that either originate or end abroad, or are entirely
> foreign but happen to be passing through the U.S.

This will have a "Great Firewall of China"-Effect:

\- Americans will cut data exchange (and communication) with the outside

\- The rest of the World will cut data exchange (and communication) with
Americans (obviously, this will include the use of IT-related US
products/services)

~~~
anigbrowl
I don't think so. It's not like this is the first spy scandal of this type and
previous ones (Echelon etc.) don't seem to have any long-term effect on
commercial or communications traffic.

~~~
sokoloff
How would you tell? In an environment with such a high rate of growth, would
we detect a lower-than-"control", but still high, growth rate as a change?

------
lifeisstillgood
What's the best resource for what we do / don't know about NSA surveillance /
Snowden affair?

------
Mordor
> We want high-grade ore

Always enjoy listening to criminals giving their pathetic excuses. Communism
was a joke and so, unfortunately, is the Obama administration.

------
nsxwolf
I'm very interested in this 25% they can't reach. Can we route our services
and communications through it?

------
teeja
The person who framed this propaganda piece was skillful enough that I think
s/he could get paid more working for the Louvre.

~~~
grey-area
I'm curious, what about this article makes it a propaganda piece? Who is it
propaganda for?

~~~
teeja
I got my definition of what Propaganda is from Ed Bernays. You might do the
same.

~~~
grey-area
You would do better to lay out the specific points you feel were distorting
the truth. That would be more persuasive than name-calling.

If it's propaganda, I don't feel it's very effective as it reports serious
wrong-doing within the government, and directly contradicts the president
saying the NSA isn't “actually abusing” their powers. That's quite a serious
allegation and not at all supporting the government position, which is that
there's nothing to see here and no abuses have occurred.

I find it more likely it was written by a journalist with some sympathy to the
government position and comfortable in their post at the wsj, who thus doesn't
want to rock the boat too much, rather than one paid to distort the truth in
the service of the government. I can't agree with lots of the conclusions and
feel it is far too soft on the NSA, but it's hardly one-side propaganda
beating the drum for the government.

