This came up last week, too. Joseph Nacchio sold millions of dollars of Qwest stock after gaining access to information about weak future sales and, according to other Qwest insiders including the company CFO, being warned specifically about the future value of his shares. Nacchio also wasn't the only Qwest exec to get taken down in the probe, and, obviously, Qwest wasn't the only company to be probed and ultimately prosecuted during the same time frame.
I found this bit from the article interesting:<p><i>In July the FISA court ruled that the NSA violated the Fourth Amendment's restriction against unreasonable searches and seizures "on at least one occasion."</i><p>And yet I've read so many assurances from the legal eagles here on HN that since the relevant service providers already had these records, there was no way the Fourth Amendment applied. After all, it's just about your papers in your house! Because 18th Century!<p>Yeah, I knew that was bullshit, but it's nice to learn that even the craven, supine FISA court agrees. Try again guys!
this story has been floating around for a week or so now.<p>i remember when the qwest insider trading scandal first broke back in 2001 - it fit with the times - bernie ebbers, worldcom etc - corrupt telecom executives.<p>it is quite disturbing to think that a CEO might have been targeted in this way for refusal to cooperate with the NSA.<p>so much so, that i have a hard time believing that this is actually the case. lots of people in jail have elaborate theories for why they are innocent.<p>the market topped in 2000. spring of 2001 the market was already in serious trouble. nacchio would undoubtedly have known about earnings shortfalls that would occur as part of the implosion of the telecom bubble. the company had a number of accounting irregularities and was engaged in phony broadband deals with enron. qwest would not have escaped the market troubles with an NSA deal.<p>let's keep some perspective here people.
This article is rather short on details. Here are a few more articles for the interested.<p><a href="http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_7230967?source=commented" rel="nofollow">http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_7230967?source=comment...</a><p><a href="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm" rel="nofollow">http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-ns...</a><p><a href="http://www.denverpost.com/nacchio/ci_11786798" rel="nofollow">http://www.denverpost.com/nacchio/ci_11786798</a>
...after "being convicted of insider trading in April 2007 for selling $52 million of stock in the spring of 2001 as the telecommunications carrier appeared to be deteriorating."
It's probable Nacchio was trading stock illegally. It's also not surprising the feds would use whatever leverage they could to obtain compliance. Cops recruit snitches all the time using similar tactics.<p>The difference is that snitches exist to inform police of criminal activity, not to spy (or enable spying) on their customers.