6 ms·

Joseph Nacchio, the CEO of Qwest, was jailed for not complying with the illegal requests of the surveillance state: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-o

Joseph Nacchio, the CEO of Qwest, was jailed for not complying with the illegal requests of the surveillance state: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-joseph-nacchio-and-the-nsa-2013-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-joseph-nacchio-... https://www.denverpost.com/2014/03/27/former-qwest-ceo-nacchio-claims-on-tv-his-jail-time-was-nsa-payback/ https://www.denverpost.com/2014/03/27/former-qwest-ceo-nacch... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio And let's not forget the number of people put the jail without the government disclosing the use of stingrays to the defense attorneys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_use_in_United_States_law_enforcement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_use_in_United_States_... https://theintercept.com/2020/07/31/protests-surveillance-stingrays-dirtboxes-phone-tracking/ https://theintercept.com/2020/07/31/protests-surveillance-st...

LogonType10 5y ago
>jailed for not complying with the illegal requests of the surveillance state From the wiki page: >On March 15, 2005, Nacchio and six other former Qwest executives were sued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. They were accused of a $3 billion financial fraud between 1999 and 2002 and of benefiting from an inflated stock price.
- gowld 5y ago
  > In its case, the government stated that Nacchio continued to tell Wall Street that Qwest would be able to achieve aggressive revenue targets long after he knew that they could not be achieved. Interesting that Nacchio was prosecuted for this but almost no one else is.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    The very same article states that he was found to have produced false accounting records and talked up the company's outlook despite knowing it was losing business and selling his own shares. He got caught on the insider trading. There's nothing noteworthy here.
    - londons_explore 5y ago
      It was well known why Google got rid of their "don't be evil" tagline... except now nowhere on the internet seems to have a record of the exact reason either... These kinds of stories get 'forgotten' very quickly.
      - spywaregorilla 5y ago
        what on earth is this trying to imply? That google bleached the internet? Google got rid of the don't be evil tagline because it didn't fit with their corporate mission anymore, which was objectively more boring and more profit driven.
        ranger_danger 5y ago
        they're probably implying it was a sort of warrant canary or that they did not comply with overreaching government wiretap requests (the assumption being that now they do).
        spywaregorilla 5y ago
        I find that to be a pretty charming belief. It's probably correlated timeline wise with when such things did change on that, but I highly doubt it was the reason for the mission statement change.
    - ikiris 5y ago
      It was well known in telecom at the time this was due to the nsa situation. Don't always take things at face value.
      - dapids 5y ago
        > Don't always take things at face value. You are literally presenting an opinion at face value ...
        5y ago
- swarnie 5y ago
  Who signs your cheques, out of interest?
qwertyuiop_ 5y ago
“Donald Trump is really dumb to take on the intelligence agencies. Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC
- snuser 5y ago
  he was right i wouldn't want to mess with the people behind covid and 9/11 either
  - pregnant2times 5y ago
    Us southern boys will take em out
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  Imagine the founders' reaction if they heard a prominent senator saying that, not with regret, but exultantly, as though he relished the idea. I can't bring myself to accept that this was what they intended to launch into the world.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Washington sent an army to squash the Whiskey Rebellion, and John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law. They were quite happy to go after threats to their power.
    - krrrh 5y ago
      It depends a lot on how you define “their”. In both those cases you could also argue that the president was still establishing the supremacy of a democratically elected republican government as the process for achieving change rather than perpetual revolution. It’s different then having elected officials undermined by permanent bureaucracies. I’m not defending the sedition act, but it’s quite important that it was implemented during a quasi-war and was still barely passed. There’s also a reason that two hundred years later it’s constantly held up as a paragon of bad law and there’s no way it would pass judicial review at any point since then (it didn’t at the time either, because it expired 2 years after it was passed and before judicial review was established).
5faulker 5y ago
US's running some sick show behind the scene...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

LogonType10 5y ago

>jailed for not complying with the illegal requests of the surveillance state From the wiki page: >On March 15, 2005, Nacchio and six other former Qwest executives were sued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. They were accused of a $3 billion financial fraud between 1999 and 2002 and of benefiting from an inflated stock price.

gowld 5y ago
> In its case, the government stated that Nacchio continued to tell Wall Street that Qwest would be able to achieve aggressive revenue targets long after he knew that they could not be achieved. Interesting that Nacchio was prosecuted for this but almost no one else is.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  The very same article states that he was found to have produced false accounting records and talked up the company's outlook despite knowing it was losing business and selling his own shares. He got caught on the insider trading. There's nothing noteworthy here.
  - londons_explore 5y ago
    It was well known why Google got rid of their "don't be evil" tagline... except now nowhere on the internet seems to have a record of the exact reason either... These kinds of stories get 'forgotten' very quickly.
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      what on earth is this trying to imply? That google bleached the internet? Google got rid of the don't be evil tagline because it didn't fit with their corporate mission anymore, which was objectively more boring and more profit driven.
      - ranger_danger 5y ago
        they're probably implying it was a sort of warrant canary or that they did not comply with overreaching government wiretap requests (the assumption being that now they do).
        spywaregorilla 5y ago
        I find that to be a pretty charming belief. It's probably correlated timeline wise with when such things did change on that, but I highly doubt it was the reason for the mission statement change.
  - ikiris 5y ago
    It was well known in telecom at the time this was due to the nsa situation. Don't always take things at face value.
    - dapids 5y ago
      > Don't always take things at face value. You are literally presenting an opinion at face value ...
      - 5y ago
swarnie 5y ago
Who signs your cheques, out of interest?

qwertyuiop_ 5y ago

“Donald Trump is really dumb to take on the intelligence agencies. Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC

snuser 5y ago
he was right i wouldn't want to mess with the people behind covid and 9/11 either
- pregnant2times 5y ago
  Us southern boys will take em out
JasonFruit 5y ago
Imagine the founders' reaction if they heard a prominent senator saying that, not with regret, but exultantly, as though he relished the idea. I can't bring myself to accept that this was what they intended to launch into the world.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Washington sent an army to squash the Whiskey Rebellion, and John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law. They were quite happy to go after threats to their power.
  - krrrh 5y ago
    It depends a lot on how you define “their”. In both those cases you could also argue that the president was still establishing the supremacy of a democratically elected republican government as the process for achieving change rather than perpetual revolution. It’s different then having elected officials undermined by permanent bureaucracies. I’m not defending the sedition act, but it’s quite important that it was implemented during a quasi-war and was still barely passed. There’s also a reason that two hundred years later it’s constantly held up as a paragon of bad law and there’s no way it would pass judicial review at any point since then (it didn’t at the time either, because it expired 2 years after it was passed and before judicial review was established).

5faulker 5y ago

US's running some sick show behind the scene...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]