Major Oops At QWEST... Is The Apology Sincere Or A Cover-Up?

Qwest On Data Retention Laws: Oops

Having worked with QWEST as a vendor for RCN, a broadband cable and bundled services provider, and having QWEST executives on the RCN board, I know something about the corporate culture. While QWEST makes a lot of mistakes in the area of servicing their customers and keeping their side of the Internet backbone up and running, their executives--and especially their lawyer executives--are not known for making mistakes. While I am not a conspiracy theory nut, I can add two plus two and arive at the sum of four. There is something here that QWEST, the federal government, and other telecommunication service providers are not telling us. And we must remember that it was these very same telecom companies that kept collecting a three-dollar a month tax to pay off the Spanish-American War way past the time that the debt was paid... so a record of collusion with the federal government--even if by default rather than a malicious and deliberate intent, already exists.

Broadband provider Qwest Communications International said Wednesday that it made a mistake when one of its lawyers endorsed federal legislation requiring Internet providers to keep records of customers' behavior.

Jennifer Mardosz, Qwest's corporate counsel and chief privacy officer, said in an interview with CNET News.com that she misspoke during a panel discussion organized by the Progress and Freedom Foundation in Aspen, Colo., the day before.

While lawyers are known for lying (not all lawyers, but enough to make the stereotype work because it reveals enough of a truth), they are not known for making such public mistakes. I have yet to meet the lawyer--unless he/she was drug-addicted or involved in criminal activities--that was not hyper-meticulous about what they say and how they represent their client(s). I often kid my lawyer friends that it takes them four days to accept an offer that is 1000% in their favor because they are so intent upon being super-careful in the process. Also, lawyers are not noted for trusting others, which is why most lawyers insist on reviewing the work of other lawyers, even those that are there trusted friends, colleagues and co-workers. If you've ever wondered how a law firm generates so many billable hours, the answer is pretty simple... they review everything that comes across their desk as if it were an attack on their legitimacy and integrity, which requires them to bill for the time to conduct the review.

So I am not inclined to accept Mardosz's word on this matter. She must have known what would be discussed on the panel and fully prepared for the role as a panel member. At least she should have--and if not, she will probably be fired. What happened here was that one of the cats escaped from the bag... and Mardosz was the one that let the string loose at the top of the bag.

"I just completely misspoke there," Mardosz said. During the panel discussion, she said Qwest "absolutely" supports House of Representatives legislation sponsored by Rep. Diana DeGette mandating data retention--a requirement that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said will aid in terrorism and child exploitation investigations.

"I associated (DeGette's) name with the female Colorado legislator that introduced the state legislation," Mardosz said. "That was just a pure and honest mistake that I made."

Mardosz said that instead of embracing data retention legislation, Qwest was skeptical of mandates from Congress. "There is no need for it, because companies are already doing the right thing," she said.

QWEST doesn't make those kind of mistakes. Never mind that lawyers are not prone to these types of mistakes, QWEST doesn't make these types of mistakes. The PR and legal spin that QWEST puts into all of its efforts is tremendous. I am sure that when this cat was let loose, Mardosz was called on the carpet.

On Tuesday she said during the panel discussion: "We support legislation related to data retention." One industry source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press, said Qwest had backed the Colorado legislation earlier this year.

This is more likely the case. Not only does QWEST back the Colorado legislation, it also backs the federal legislative efforts as well. The QWEST board is filled with conservative Republicans that have made a concerted effort with other telecom industry leaders to pry, entice and manipulate legislators in directions consistently favorable to broadband providers, backbone providers, telephony providers, etc. I am willing to bet that the debt of favors that they have amassed along the way has come back to roost. The federal government has called in a few markers behind the scenes and QWEST, like AT&T, Sprint, AOL-Time/Warner and others, are falling into line with the feds so that there string of favorable legislation will continue. The gravy train must be resupplied if the telecoms expect to continue consuming from the trough.

The original version of the Colorado bill required Internet providers to "maintain, for at least 180 days after assignment, a record of the Internet Protocol address" assigned to each customer. Violations could be punished by fines of up to $10,000 per incident. The language was subsequently changed.

Qwest's revised position brings it in line with other telecommunications companies, which say they are already required by law to cooperate with criminal investigations and have been generally skeptical of broad, new mandates. The Denver-based company has a market capitalization of $16.5 billion and says it has 784,000 wireless customers and 1.7 million DSL (digital subscriber line) customers.

But the existing laws do not require the data retention that the feds want, nor does it require release of data without a warrant. The problem is that now that the NSA Spying issues are not being decided in the feds' favor, companies like QWEST are trying to avoid the consumer backlash and placing themselves in a position of saying, "We've always supported privacy rights online." Which is why the retraction of Mardozs's "mistake" is so urgent and important.

DeGette's proposed legislation says any Internet service that "enables users to access content" must permanently retain records that would permit police to identify each user. The records could not be discarded until at least one year after the user's account was closed.

Why does the government--state or federal--want to mandate such long-term data retention for these purposes when it doesn't require such meticulous data retention for customer financial records. Most states require retention of account records for 3, 5 or 7 years, but not for the lifetime of the account. Why is the government more interested in spying on Internet users than protecting consumers? The answer is simple... The government under the current Republican/Ultra-Conservative dominated leadership is more interested in abusing our constitutional rights than in making sure that we are safe and secure, or even treated fairly by big business. We are seeing fascism slowly creep into our way of life in increments... and these folks think it is all but necessary.

Rep. Joe Barton, the influential Republican chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has endorsed the concept of data retention and is expected to introduce a bill after the panel completes a series of hearings on child exploitation.

Let us remember Joe Barton and all the other legislators that want to instill a slow, creeping form of fascism into our society at the next round of elections... Vote for none of the above, someone that has not been a party hack (for either party) or for someone with a clear intent of protecting "We the people..." and the principles of the Constitution.