According to this article from the NY Times (note: requires registration), Qwest turned down requests to hand over records:
Good on Qwest and Mr. Nacchio! If someone wants to pit the remaining companies who happily turned over records, be my guest.
We’ve got threads about the disclosure of records, so let’s not rehash that specific debate.
In this case, Qwest has not taking a principled stand, I would argue, but necessarily making decisions in its own best interest. Coincidentally, its own interests may in this specific case better serve the interests of the American people than the decisions of other companies who passed the information on to the government. I would argue that they do; but in this case, Qwest felt that it was being asked by the government to do something that its lawyers thought was actually illegal.
As George Washington long ago argues that nations are incapable of true altruism–that nations will only ever act out of their own (enlightened or not) interest, it seems possibly true by corollary that any large organization will behave similarly. I suspect that if a company thinks it is in its own best interest to turn over innocent people to the government, it will do so…
How often, and in what specific examples, have corporations or large companies demonstrated clearly altruistic decision-making? Please, let’s not descend into a reductio ad absurdum argument whereby no human being is capable of true altruism. Let’s discuss some clear potential examples!
I don’t think you can really avoid your last cavaet. In an effort to find the ‘true altruism’ you need to critically analyze the actions, and no matter what, every time it will come down to ‘at the very least it was good PR’ - which winds up countering altruism.
Sometimes the right thing to do is also the profitable thing to do. Though I’m not sure how much business Qwest attracted with their stance or how much business the other companies will now lose given that this information is much more public.
Also, I believe that Qwest’s stand was much more altruistic than a marketing ploy. Unless I’m mistaken, there have been no adds from Qwest saying, “We won’t sell you out like those other guys!”
So yeah, I’m going with *mostly altruistic * until clear evidence to the contrary is presented.
Erm… Their lawyers made the decision. It was out of concern they would be breaking the law that they refused, not because they valued their customers’ privacy. They were afraid they’d be in violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 or something. Now if basing decisions on the law is altruistic, then by all means…
Yes, that was my point. Their lawyers told them providing the requests would be potentially illegal.
I still think it’s an impressive stance–to realize that the rule of law supercedes the present administration’s policies–and is a stance that isn’t as widely recognized as it should be. But altruistic…thinking primarily of the good for the American people…no.
So your argument is that Verizon lawyers and Southern Bell lawyers are not nearly as sharp or aware of the Telecommunications Act of 1996?
If the gov’t came to me for information that I didn’t want to disclose based on some (say moral) grounds, I’d sure as hell try to come up with a better excuse than, “Cuz I’m a moral objector!”. I’d want to have a legal argument to back me up as well.
No that wasn’t my argument. There were other factors here, the primary one being money and legislation. The NSA paid AT&T and Verizon for this access. Also take a good look at the telecommunications legislation that been discussed over the past 6 months. Everything that’s potentially come to vote has been beneficial to the big telecoms (the approval of the huge mergers, national franchising for IP TV, requiring E911 services for VOIP [e911 is run by the telcos], the removal of net-neutrality legeslation from bills, etc)
So doesn’t that build a stronger case for the fact that Qwest acted in the interest of privacy while the other companies acted in the interest of their bottom line, customer privacy be damned.
Sure its possible, but I think it’s more complicated than that. Qwest is the red-headed stepchild of the babybells. They’re nowhere near as influential or as engrained as AT&T and Verizon. I think its just as likely that AT&T and Verizon (similar to the current administration) view themselves as above the law, or atleast above this law. Afterall, they just want to help stop the terrorists.
I raead that when Qwest lawyers saw it they believed the company was laible to getting sued. That has proven true. It wasn’t altruistic. But i applaud that they kinda stood up to the government.