Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Why Qwest Hung Up On NSA
cbsnews.com — "When he learned that no such authority had been granted and that there was a disinclination on the part of the authorities to use any legal process, including the Special Court which had been established to handle such matters, Mr. Nacchio concluded that these requests violated the privacy requirements of the Telecommications Act..."
supernova17- 880 diggs
- digg it
- gebels, on 10/12/2007, -14/+11Stop worrying about everyone else and protect yourself. Use encryption if you can, maybe not yet for phone calls, but at least for all your email. Did you know that all email is easily accessible while stored in plain text on email servers?
There are a number of secure email service, but I can recommend CryptoHeaven as it is very easy to use. http://www.cryptoheaven.com
Here is activation code that will let you use the service for free: "freeacct1gb".
Remember, if you don't protect yourself, nobody else will.- bwd01, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Or just use PGP. http://www.pgp.com/downloads/desktoptrial.php
- burke, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5looks like that *could* be spam, but I'm gonna let it pass. Good comment. I concur with bwdo1 though, everyone should check out Thunderbird+Enigmail (uses GPG -- Gnu PGP equivalent.)
- CharlesDingus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I am a huge advocate of enigmail thunderbird/gnupg but getting my friends and associates to use it is a huge deal. Even those people who are technically savvy to go through all the steps involved in installing it, setting up keys, and using it correctly balk at the idea, and those that do have it still send me all their email over plaintext unless we need to talk about something "sensitive"
Unless you use it to encrypt everything, what's the point? I ask people if they would feel comfortable sending all their mail on postcards, but it's not a big deal for them. It's not about getting away with something, it's about the principles of privacy. - LCmidas, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Link to Enigmail, the Thunderbird extension for OpenPGP encryption:
https://addons.mozilla.org/thunderbird/71/ - knightblade2oo4, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1If the president of qwest goes by Joe, his name is Joe Nocchio.
lol - ssanders, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2My only problem with PGP is that the people I talk to aren't too computer savvy... and don't they need to enter a code or something to read my emails?
- MacGeekGuy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Whatever, man. We're the UNITED states. We're in this together or not at all. We can't fight this battle one by one... that helps... but we also have to stick together. This is not the liberty and security we were promised - this is how every tyrannical government gets started. We need to nip it in the bud NOW or pay the consequences later. Have peopled learned nothing from history?
- spadin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It's hard for people to use public/private key encryption because almost everyone else that you email doesn't know what it is. The only thing you do then is confuse them because you are sending them a 'weird' attachment (your key) and then they think you are sending them a virus. (idiots! i tell you) anyway, you also have to make sure you have an SSL connection to your mail server so people can't get your plaintext email while you are on a wireless network.
- strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -10/+18Before we cast Nacchio as some sort of saint.... he's currently under investigation for over $200 million in insider trading.
It's also quite funny, in my opinion, that the records that they refused to give to the government are regularly sold to marketers.- volcompimp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23We're talking about forwarding data/voice not just records. Don't you think it's more than a coincidense that he's under investigation for all of this after telling the NSA to eat a dick?
- Doak, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8[strictnein 32]
Of course he's being "investigated". It's real easy for the government to frame folks these days.
I know how easy it is to be framed by local cops/thugs, so I imagine it is way easier to do by the commies running the U.S.A., as they have way more money than Bill Gates.
I bet you are a government attorney,a plant, or a stooge.
- filovirus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I agree, the NSA's demands for records is the main issue, and good for Qwest for standing tall. On the otherhand, Nacchio cooked the books to buy US West and sold his stock before the little guy. For that, he deserves a prison cell.
- strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"We're talking about forwarding data/voice not just records"
Erhhh... no, we're not. - toddbu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8For those of you Qwest customers that are happy that they told the government to screw off, I suggest that you call Qwest's compliment line at 866-285-0983 and thank them. They need to know that their customers support them. I called customer service yesterday and they gave me that number.
- DannyPage, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30Its like Watergate everyday with this administration.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Unlike the public pardoning of Nixon, I assume that Bush will secretly pardon everyone in his administration, including himself, before he leaves office. Mark my words, when you don't hear about those pardons on Fox News, you'll know what's going on...
- ISVDamocles, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@Urusai: ......What? I... I can't tell whether you're joking or not. When you *don't* hear about the pardons on Fox News? I don't hear them all the time! Does that mean he's already pardoned himself? Probably, but not officially, or officially unofficially, as you imply...
- salsaman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5The Nixon comparison has to do with the current president's COMPLETE abuse of power. This is not a partisan issue anymore.
End the "War on Freedom"-- impeach Bush.
http://www.*****.com/ - knightblade2oo4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2erm... no it isn't.
Actually this is nothing like watergate. at all. I see where you're coming from though.
- Jamminpotato, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2is this article crashing anyone else's firefox?
- SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -18/+4Oh? Can you be specific which scandal convicted an adminstration official thus far?
- SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3Thats right ...no one can come up with an answer to my question but yet my comment are being buried by you pathetic liberals ...typical.
- Doak, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3 The reason you seem to be buried, from the information I and others have amassed of your profile, is that you are a troll, a non-voter, and a closet liberal. Just like our present leader.
- SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5You have responded to my post with no answers and yet you called me a troll ...right. Trolls make baseless assertions like "Its like Watergate everyday with this administration" without any semblance of facts. I am simply pointing this out and you called me a troll?
- fluoro, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6It's sort of hard to convict people with so much misinformation coming out, with the NSA refusing clearance to investigations, and with so much of the government all being from the same political party.
I mean look, Karl Rove was caught lying before a federal grand jury twice. Has he been convicted? Does the public even care anymore? The administration is very good about coming up with something new to grab everyone's attention when stuff starts going bad for them, and when the public's attention is taken away then Congress ceases to need to pretend to care anymore. - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5"Oh? Can you be specific which scandal convicted an adminstration official thus far?"
The same thing went though my head when I read these comments.
However, this is Digg, and annoying political flamewars like the one you seem fond of starting don't belong here. So, I modded you down, and any other partisan political comments like yours, whether I agreed with them or not. - Leebert, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4> I mean look, Karl Rove was caught lying before a federal grand jury twice. Has he been convicted? Does the public even care anymore?
I thought we had firmly established the answer to that as "no" from the previous administration. - SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2"However, this is Digg, and annoying political flamewars like the one you seem fond of starting don't belong here. So, I modded you down, and any other partisan political comments like yours, whether I agreed with them or not."
LOL ...this is the 3643th post about the NSA in three days and all of them turned out to be polical flamewars have they not? I suppose you think the statement "Its like Watergate everyday with this administration" not politically charged? You guys make me laugh!
FYI I marked this article as lame because its political in nature like the 3642 other NSA stories on DIGG. - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"I suppose you think the statement "Its like Watergate everyday with this administration" not politically charged?"
Ugh, it's horribly embarrasing that you are on the same side of the political specturm as me.
Not only did I mention that I agreed with your parent post, but I also said I modded down all partisan political comments. Yet you did not understand anything I wrote, and instead played yourself as the victim. Let me say this plainly. You are an annoying partisan who stars flamewars. The comment you cited is also partisan. I modded both down.
However, your comments are much, much more annoying. Not only do you say that this story should be marked Lame for being political, you go against what you preached by having flooded countless threads with political comments. How hypocritical can you be? Even worse, you did not even understand when someone like myself actually *agreed* with you on a point.
Like I said, I'm embarrased to know we share similar opinions on some political views. - SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Helix ...like you are being so truthful now...give me a break. Make no mistake ...this is a political story. Being political and commenting on a politically charged story IS NOT hypocritical. What ...am I suppose to not post on stories I marked as lame? I am a hypocrite IF I post the same story on DIGG that I marked as lame ...understand? Its ironic I commented on a statement that was politically charged and you turned around and harrassed me instead of the person who started it all. Your comments thus rung false to me.
- tommythetomcat, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Sounds to me from the article that Qwest had an axe to grind with the government.
"Qwest has been accused of massive fraud by the government and restating $3 billion in revenue. Former executives have been accused of wrongdoing, including Nacchio, who faces 42 counts of insider trading accusing him of illegally selling $101 million in company stock after privately learning Qwest might not meet its financial goals."
I'm sure it really had nothing to do with protecting customers. - skrowl, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5What's funny is that legally, you have NO privacy rights to the PHONE COMPANY'S records of your usage of their server. You don't own the records, the phone company does.
Further, if you think the NSA getting calling records is such a big infringement of your rights you should look at what Bill Clinton's admiinstration did. Google for "Carnivore FBI" or "Echelon NSA" and see for yourselves. Not only did the Clinton administration get your phone records, they also recorded the calls.
I don't know why the media seeks to demonize this administration for trying to fight terrorism. Oh wait, yes I do... It's an election year. Putting politics before public safety is scary.- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Could be that Clinton did it legally, instead of circumventing the bogus court made up to rubber-stamp these kind of illegal activities.
- SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6The FISA court was created in 1978 when Carter was in office. FYI, history does not start when Bush took office ...better brush up on it before you post some lame response.
- 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@skrowl -> What's funny is that legally, you have NO privacy rights to the PHONE COMPANY'S records of your usage of their server. You don't own the records, the phone company does.
They might own the records, but I think it is very reasonable to expect that your business with the company is between you and it, not between you, it, and the rest of the world. One buys the service because of what it enables them to do, not so that they can have the details of its use examined, profiled, sold, or disseminated by any other means. - Doak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9[skrowl 21]
"Carnivore FBI" or "Echelon NSA""
Both of which were programs that his father, george senior, started while he was still head of the CIA.
http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo01022003.html - SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Doak ...the internet/wiki/google are good tools. Actually use it before you make a fool of yourself ...like tonight. Carnivore originated during the Clinton Adminstration and Echelon started at the beginning of the Cold War to spy on the Russians.
FYI ...links to conspiratorial leftist sites do not count.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(FBI)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I liked Clinton and despise Bush, but why must this have anything to do with politics? Governments have been trying to spy on their citizens since the beginning of time. Our founding fathers thought this was a BAD idea, and the Bill of Rights reflects their opinion. I happen to agree with them and think our fourth amendment rights are critical. I was against Carnivore--if you can comprehend somebody who doesn't support their party blindly. I was against Gore when he was pushing for a law that would require all encryption devices to have a built in backdoor. I'm even more against the current administration, because in my opinion we've lost more freedoms in the past five years than anytime in recent history.
Our government now spies on us routinely; feels free to use that information against us (ie Plamegate); denies American citizens their right to a trial; sneaks a national ID card into law (required for travel: "show me your papers"); tries to exempt Homeland Security from any judicial checks and balances; moves protesters to remote "free speech zones"; and generally seems to think it can do whatever it wants. If you disagree you're unamerican and against the war on terror. Forgive me if I don't think we can protect America by abandoning the liberties that make us what we are.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin
- Mekun, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Nacchio is a crook, so lets not put a halo on him yet. My wife works for qwest and lots of people lost their retirement because of him. He sold all his stocks when he was not supposed to, and crippled qwest under him.I hope Nacchio gets life in prison. On another note nice to see qwest standing up to the nsa.
- briansmith, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Firstly, AFAICT Nacchio has not been convicted, so it is wrong to call him a crook already. Even if he is guilty of that crime, I think it is really dangerous to label people a "crook" or a "saint" based on single actions.
Secondly, it is interesting that, even if Nacchio was responsible for Qwest losing lots of money, he might end up in the end turning a net profit for them, if the NSA wiretapping lawsuits against the other baby bells are successful.
Thirdly, this article has a very interesting implication: None of the companies involved in the NSA wiretapping were legally required to participate in the wiretapping program. Qwest refused, and they were not punished. Because of this, those who complied cannot use "we were forced to comply under threat of legal duress" as a defense. That is going to be very important if and when the privacy lawsuits against the phone companies hit. - Doak, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5[Mekun]
Bush is a crook, too. The difference is he sent young men and women to their deaths for a few dollars of oil, as Nacchio "may have" done something shady. He didn't send young men and women to certain death, though. - Mekun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Ya i can call him a crook. Did you lose out on over 300,000.00 in retirement. Nacchio is a crook he walked away with over 200 mil. and people lost all they worked for. Don't give me your politically correct crap or arm chair lawyer rhetoric.
- briansmith, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Firstly, AFAICT Nacchio has not been convicted, so it is wrong to call him a crook already. Even if he is guilty of that crime, I think it is really dangerous to label people a "crook" or a "saint" based on single actions.
- PathDaemon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13This is my most/least favorite line:
"According to USA Today, the NSA told Qwest that not sharing the phone records could...affect its chances at landing classified contracts with the government..."- SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6So it makes sense the government reward companies who are hostile to their requests? You should think before you type.
- PathDaemon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10No, it's more like a bribe. The government suggests that it was planning to give Qwest contracts, but may not if Qwest doesn't comply with certain demands. If the requests were completely legal, the NSA could easily force compliance instead threatening.
- TheQT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@SyDigg
No, they should treat all the companies equal because the government shouldn't be able to blackmail companies for information that shouldn't be getting. - fluoro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The fact that the NSA was resorting to this sort of bribery rather than going through the proper legal channels and courts is very revealing. It seems that we are not the only ones who think what they were doing was perhaps not entirely legal. :)
- annonimality, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ SyDIGG
I think it makes sense that the federal government should abide by constitutional law, and not use intimidation and extortion to coerce private companies into breaking those laws.
- hotdrop, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4So the question is who used the infromation against who? Did the fedral investigation start because he refused the NSA or did he expose this info to get back at the govermet thats pressing chages against him
- Nitro2985, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Any average Joe should realize from watching CSI, Law and Order, or any law related show that there are two ways of going about getting legal permission to search someones records or property.
1: You ask them. If they give you permission, then it's fine to look through their stuff.
2: Get a search warrant, going through a judge with some evidence of wrongdoing.
In this case, they didn't ask a Judge, this is true. What they did do is ask the owners of the records if they could send them over. The phone companies agreed. This is no more an illegal search than a police officer asking you if he can look through your house and you saying yes would be.
I really don't see the issue with the government here. If you have a problem with this transaction, talk about the phone companies, not the administration or the government as a whole. It's just silly to think that the government shouldn't be able to search some place IF THE OWNERS GIVE THEIR PERMISSION.- briansmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3But, if people want to collect damages against their phone companies, then they will likely have to fight the government first. Either the State Secrets privilege needs to be declared unconstitutional, or the courts need to assert that the State Secrets privilege does not apply to these cases. Otherwise, the government is likely to kill all their lawsuits before they even get started.
- Nitro2985, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Should these people even be suing in the first place? Regardless of the means by which it might be defeated by the government, the fact that people aren't willing to sue the company because it sells their records to other advertisers should be evidence enough that they are just gold-mining, and not suing over any real concern for their privacy.
Even then, we haven't seen how the government would react to civil suits between the customers and the company itself. That's a significantly different situation than an investigation into the NSA itself. - Doak, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4[ Nitro2985]
So, in your interpetation, if someone asks a website to give out your personal info and credit card numbers, since the website is owner of the records, it's alright for the webmaster to give them to anyone?
I bet you are at least 28, and have been thoroughly brainwashed.
What a ***** idiot.
Do all of America a favor, and move to cuba, or commit suicide.
Weakling. - briansmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Nitro, if the companies that participated are not punished for their involvement, they will only be more likely to participate in the future. If they are punished now, the fear of punishment may help pursuade them to avoid participation in similar programs in the future.
It is true that, if the lawsuits are successful, the people who win will likely make a lot of money that doesn't really belong to them. But, the main point is to punish those companies that participated. I don't even see it as being totally unfair that lawyers would get most of the money, because without those lawyers, there would be no way to win the case, and they are taking personal risks in moving these lawsuits forward. - adodikan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5In this case your analogy doesn't apply. Due to privacy laws, the judge they were supposed to ask was FISA. The government is trying to play this off by saying they didnt record conversations, just 'data.' Problem is, that data is still protected by privacy laws and therefore have been violated. Once this all gets into court it will be obvious. I see two courses of action:
1. "National security/state secrets" - which is means that either our personal calls are now considered state secrets or there are tens of millions of terroists in this country that have to be tracked.
2. Arguing sementics - whereby they would have to convince us that data is not protected by privacy laws. And if that is successful, all bets are off = Back doors in everything and wiretaps all around.
The telcos may be the owners of the records but legally they could not give out the information without the customers consent or FISA permission. Which is exactly the conclusion the Qwest legal team came to. A company actually using lawyers to _not_ ***** over their customers. Imagine that. If only our government would do the same. - fluoro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6But Qwest said "no". What is the NSA's response? It wasn't "pretty please", and it wasn't a trip to the proper court to get it done legally. It was, "if you don't give this to us then you may not get future government contracts."
- Nitro2985, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@Doak
“So, in your interpetation, if someone asks a website to give out your personal info and credit card numbers, since the website is owner of the records, it's alright for the webmaster to give them to anyone?”
Supposing the existence of no other relevant laws in this subject, yes, it would be consistent with the search and seizure law to allow such things. Luckily, the law has not been created in this manner. There are laws on the books preventing companies from selling or giving away your credit card numbers to other companies, individuals, or to the government without certain preconditions. Though I will not claim to know what exactly those preconditions are. They might be such things as a search warrant, they might not.
Unlike this situation, telecoms are able to sell your phone number along with other records to other companies, as is your bank, ect. They can also give it away if they so choose. Were this not the case, every time they did sell such records, they could be sued or charged with a crime. Yet, one cannot do this.
What are your terms on your wager that I’m over 28 AND brainwashed? I’m eager to collect.
@briansmith
“Nitro, if the companies that participated are not punished for their involvement, they will only be more likely to participate in the future. If they are punished now, the fear of punishment may help pursuade them to avoid participation in similar programs in the future.”
I’m not going to argue as to whether the company should or should not have given out the data. This is not the primary argument, and it is one for an ethics debate, not a law debate. Perhaps later when this would be more appropriate I will consider this problem.
@adodikan
Perhaps you would be so kind as to show me the law which requires phone companies to first be ordered by a court to hand over their phone records or ask permission from the customers in question before actually sending them to the government. A quote or link would surely provide proof beyond which one might reasonably take contention with.
- jimbo92107, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1If you can't get people to use a spell checker, how do you expect to persuade them to use email encryption?
The only way to implement this stuff is to build it into popular email programs, then force people to use it. Otherwise, forget it.- arfox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Well, you would tell people about it and then they would learn how to use it, if they really thought they needed too. Why force people to use it?
- stark23x, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8U.S. Code Title 18, Chapter 121, Section 2709
§ 2709. Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records
(a) Duty to provide.--A wire or electronic communication service provider shall comply with a request for subscriber information and toll billing records information, or electronic communication transactional records in its custody or possession made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Required certification.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may--
(1) request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
(2) request the name, address, and length of service of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(c) Prohibition of certain disclosure.--No wire or electronic communication service provider, or officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall disclose to any person that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or records under this section.
(d) Dissemination by bureau.--The Federal Bureau of Investigation may disseminate information and records obtained under this section only as provided in guidelines approved by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence collection and foreign counterintelligence investigations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and, with respect to dissemination to an agency of the United States, only if such information is clearly relevant to the authorized responsibilities of such agency.
(e) Requirement that certain congressional bodies be informed.--On a semiannual basis the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, concerning all requests made under subsection (b) of this section.
What does all that mean?
IT'S NOT ILLEGAL. Furthermore, Quest may be breaking the law. Stop playing armchair lawyer without reading the actual laws involved, people.- stark23x, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4And here come the Digg Lefty Squad, burying anything that challenges their sense of outrage. God forbid we use the actual law in a discussion about hwat is or isn't illegal.
- kaemaril, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Uh ... I see a lot of references to the FBI. Not so many for the NSA.
Also, this act is in reference to A specific person, not EVERY person. For evidence of this?
> (1) request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity
> (2) request the name, address, and length of service of a person or entity
> provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States
So, unless the NSA talked the FBI into asking for millions of requests ... - Nitro2985, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@kaemaril
If you read closer, you will find that the law listed here only pertains to how the FBI must make out requests for information from the company. Since this is not the FBI making requests for information, it isn't bound by the rules set forth in this law.
Let us keep in mind, this doesn't say that the NSA has carte blanche freedom in asking for information, or even how it might be required to ask for information. It doesn't say that the FBI is the only agency which can request information from the phone companies. It doesn't actually say anything on that subject. To be perfectly honest, I doesn't see what the law posted here has to do with the question at hand. - Nitro2985, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1To ammend my previous statement somewhat, it does permit phone companies to give out information without a warrant or permission from the customers. In this respect it is relvent to what adodikan mentioned earlier when he said that they must have permission or a warrant to give out this sort of information.
- kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Read it again. It's about individuals, not a copy of the CO's hard drives. And it all requires review and a valid investigation. We all know already that this (in relation to qwest) is about requesting everything.
With emphasis....
from section 1:
"IF the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information sought is RELEVANT to an AUTHORIZED INVESTIGATION to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person IS NOT conducted solely upon the basis of activities PROTECTED by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States"
from section 2:
"IF the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information sought is RELEVANT to an AUTHORIZED INVESTIGATION"
And lastly, we have a requirement that IF applied would demand millions of man hours:
"(e) Requirement that certain congressional bodies be informed.--On a semiannual basis the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, concerning ALL REQUESTS made under subsection (b) of this section."
Subsection B including 1 and 2, of course. That's a lot of individual investigations
according to my math if this includes all customers.
Pay attention to the actual WORDS. What they were requesting of qwest had nothing to do with U.S. Code Title 18, Chapter 121, Section 2709. If it did, they would have forced qwest to comply rather than act like mobsters.
- Doak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2[ Nitro2985]
Sheesh, how many accounts on digg do you have?- Nitro2985, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1One, why?
- jimbo92107, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I went to the mall today and switched my mobile provider to T-Mobile, one of the few companies that told the NSA where they could stick their illegal spying on American phone calls.
I challenge everybody here to dump their Cingular or AT&T accounts at the earliest opportunity. Hey, you should see all the cool new phones out there! - thespace, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Sounds like Qwest is on its last leg in my book. I think the more interesting tidbit is the CEO robbing his stakeholders. Ya....switch to Qwest, get robbed. niiice.
- siouxmoux, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It time for the other Telco to follow Quest Communication.
- HisTumness, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Hey, the description of this article just made me realize what NSA truly stands for - "No Such Authority"
- deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Naccio is a hero for standing up to 'Break the law, in secret, or else.'.
And if you think any other telecom company is any better than Qwest in the ripping off stakeholders dept., you need to rub your eyes and refocus. - locojones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Favorite quote:
-- "Everything that the agency has done has been lawful." --
Oh, except that it violates, at the minimum, the 4th Amendment, the FISA Law, and the Electronic Stored Communications Act.
-- "It's been briefed to the appropriate members of Congress," Hayden told reporters outside a Senate office. --
As if relaying your illegal activities to the Legislative branch somehow immunizes you from liability from the JUDICIAL branch, yeah, you know, the one charged in the Constitution with determining the legality of laws and actions in this country.
-- "The only purpose of the agency's activities is to preserve the security and the liberty of the American people." --
Yes, by monitoring phone logs instead of, oh say, protecting the ports, or the Canadian border, or even understanding the fundamental reasons why the puny number of radicals in this world hate America and doing something to change that view. - Hubbell, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0Interesting that with the ruling to give the telecoms immunity we also find out about some MAJOR vulnerabilities in DNS and debian's OpenSSL. This is not a coincidence.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by