Boardroom Spying Debacle at HP

theodp writes "As word spread that HP was dumping Board member George Keyworth for press leaks, Newsweek broke the bigger story: HP Chairwoman Patricia Dunn was so obsessed with finding the leaker that she authorized a team of independent electronic-security experts to spy on the phone records of calls made from HP Directors' home and private cell phones. Not only that, phone records were obtained via pretexting, the controversial practice of obtaining information under false pretenses. After Dunn laid out the surveillance scheme for the Board last May, HP Director Tom Perkins quit on the spot, characterizing Dunn's actions as illegal and unethical. HP is also coming under fire for playing dumb to the SEC about the reasons behind Perkins' resignation. Perkins, who helped launch HP's computer division in the 60's, has asked the FTC, FCC and the Justice Department to investigate."

Comments

An example

[tritonman]

The leader of our country sets an example for the leaders of our corporations

Re:An example

[ScentCone]

The leader of our country sets an example for the leaders of our corporations

I think you're confusing "leader of our country" with every P.I. and divorce lawyer that's been practicing in the US since the turn of the last century. A powerful, private person with some axe to grind or a nasty leak to stop doesn't, and hasn't, needed any inspiration from any sitting president to pay some private spook team to find out what's happening. Doesn't make it all tasty and pleasant, but it also doesn't make a it a good fit for your partisan rantette.

Re:An example

[Captain Splendid]

Why can't you guys just attack his policy

Because doing that gets you labeled as an appeaser and a traitor, which gets old and boring pretty fucking quick. Much more fun (for everyone!) to call him a goat-licking fuckhead.

you just turn him into a martyr

Stop teasing me.

Re:An example

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing to me that people seek to blame everything on George W Bush. Some loony CEO at HP spies on her employees and it's somehow Bush's fault.

Look, as an ex-military, ex-Republican (since 2003, yes I voted for the retard in 2000) guy I'm here to tell ya: Bush is a fuckup. You can spin it anyway you want, but you do not use the NSA to spy on US citizens. You do not intercept domestic phone calls without warrants. He's set a nice example for everybody there. To hell with privacy and the law. There's your tie-in.

And I just can't resist even though it's non-sequitur: You don't start wars on questionable intelligence.

You Bush apologists crack me up. A damned blowjob does not equal a half trillion dollar war. Don't even get me started on "I didn't inhale" as opposed to the lack of response to the cocaine accusation.

The man is an asshole, as are Rumsfeld and Ashcroft. And guess what? The Republican party as a whole (including the Republican "centrists" of which I once counted myself) are going to pay over the next election or two.

Why can't you guys just attack his policy, instead of looking to blame him for everything from the weather to idiot CEO's? His foreign policy is quite debatable, as is Dubai Ports, illegal immigrants taking blue collar jobs from the lower middle class, outsourcing, our trade policy with China, etc, etc. By feeding into the stupidity of blaming Bush for everything you just turn him into a martyr.

Martyr? Maybe in the eyes of the Pat Robertson double-digit IQ brigade, but anybody with a moderate level of critical reasoning ability is going to see him as one of the worst presidents in this country's history.

Re:An example

[couch_potato]

(since 2003, yes I voted for the retard in 2000)

We forgive you. Maybe if he had been elected we could blame you, but he wasn't, so we can't.

You Bush apologists crack me up. A damned blowjob does not equal a half trillion dollar war ... Martyr? Maybe in the eyes of the Pat Robertson double-digit IQ brigade

Those are exactly the uneducated, unable to think for themselves, repressed people who DO think that a blowjob is worse than our children dying in Iraq for a lie.

anybody with a moderate level of critical reasoning ability is going to see him as one of the worst presidents in this country's history.

Unfortunately, there don't seem to be enough of us left anymore. Certainly not enough to make the needed difference. Only with hindsight will history be able to judge GWB, and the verdict will not be favorable.

Cool links.

Re:An example

[eLore]

The parent post is completely relevant and non-partisan. Leaders must lead with integrity and set the bar for the behaviour of those they govern. It's time to start holding *everyone* accountable for breaking privacy laws - those that lose customer information, CEO's, and elected officials.

Re:An example

[Lonewolf666]

And I just can't resist even though it's non-sequitur: You don't start wars on questionable intelligence.

You Bush apologists crack me up. A damned blowjob does not equal a half trillion dollar war. Don't >even get me started on "I didn't inhale" as opposed to the lack of response to the cocaine accusation.

To me it looks even worse. It seems that the Bush government knew the intelligence was spotty but massaged the data to justify the war anyway. Maybe not Bush himself, he may be clueless enough that it was done behind his back.
But I think there are some people in the current administration who deserve to be hanged.

Re:An example

[jackbird]

unbridled attempts to blame Bush for everything that goes wrong - rather than just the things that he's responsible for - only serve to marginalize valid opposition opinions on things like illegal surveillance, deficit spending, the Iraq war, etc.

OK, then, how do you think the:

• Abandonment of the MS antitrust verdict
• Shortlisting of Ken Lay for Treasury
• Double secret energy task force
• Abramoff scandal
• no-bid contracts to Halliburton
• Gutting of the EPA, FDA, FTC, etc.
• appointments of well-connected, unqualified cronies to key positions
• Profligate giveaways of public property to logging, mining, and petroleum concerns
• Unabashed disregard for the rule of law when it counters the administration's interests

has affected impressions of what is and is not acceptable behavior in the boardrooms of America? Who outside the administration is responsible for those things happening?

The real problem is that so many deeply disturbing things are happening at once that it's becoming impossible to keep track.

Re:An example

[jafac]

All he said was you can't blame this stupid corporate scandal on Bush.

While that's true - you can't blame it directly on Bush, there is a huge network of rightwing thinktanks and pundits; Club for Growth, Focus on the Family, Heritage Foundation, Aspen Group, CATO, etc. etc. ad nauseum, who dominate the newsmedia op ed and commentary pages and shows, and to them, Bush is their hero, their figurehead, their demigod. They mindlessly push their ideology using trumped up "facts" and faked "studies", vitriol and personal attacks on various figures on the "left", they re-define terms, present false dillemas, strawmen, and every logical fallacy known to man (and I think they've even invented a few the Greeks didn't know about).

Bush is currently the de facto figurehead of this movement.
This movement's ideology fits perfectly with the actions of HP's board in this "stupid corporate scandal": The ideology that people should only have privacy if they aren't using it. The idea that corporate profits are more important than the rights of individuals. The ideology that the wealthy and powerful are above the law, and are the only people that matter.

No - Bush didn't make these people act this way. This ideology has been around for a very long time, and its recent resurgence in America does pre-date Bush's rise to prominence (whether you call it from Nixon, or Reagan's election, or the congressional takeover in 1994), I think it's entirely appropriate and accurate to "blame this on Bush". If not Bush - then at least the blame lies in "the horse he rode in on."

Re:An example

[danielk1982]

I think it's entirely appropriate and accurate to "blame this on Bush"

This is a stupid statement. The NSA wiretapping was wrong and Bush should probably be impeached for breaking the law, but this has NOTHING to do with the scandal at HP, no matter how many paragraphs you write to try to justify it.

Re:An example

[iocat]

Ok though, just for the record, no one doubted the intelligence at the time. I'm sure some republibot can provide links, but even Bill Clinton said there were WMDs in Iraq. Clinton even established the "regime change" policy. This is in no way a defense of the prosecution of the war, or me saying it was necessarily a good idea, but people on BOTH SIDES of the aisle said there were WMDs in Iraq (and there were -- more than 700 WMD bearing shells have been discovered), so it's hard for me to buy the notion that Bush influenced the intelligence (in a 'bush lied, people died' sense), since it was apparently saying the same thing to Bill Clinton, before GWB was in office.

Re:An example

[JavaLord]

Look, as an ex-military, ex-Republican (since 2003, yes I voted for the retard in 2000) guy I'm here to tell ya: Bush is a fuckup. You can spin it anyway you want

It's unfortunate that you see anyone who expresses an idea you don't like as 'spinning'.

, but you do not use the NSA to spy on US citizens. You do not intercept domestic phone calls without warrants. He's set a nice example for everybody there. To hell with privacy and the law. There's your tie-in.

So, that leads to the CEO of HP spying on her employees? Using this same logic, Clinton is responsible for every guy who cheated on his wife or perjured himself. Since I related it to a political figure you like, do you see the narrow mindness of this thinking? People were cheating on their wives, getting blowjobs, smoking weed, etc long before Clinton was around. George W Bush did not invent the wiretap.

Blaming presidents for things unrelated to them because you dislike their politics ruins rational political debate. This activity is usually out of pure tribalism, where people will not even consider the view of the other side.

And I just can't resist even though it's non-sequitur: You don't start wars on questionable intelligence.

Thanks General. While we are at it, I'll throw one at you. Interventionism leads to terrorism. Neither party will come out and say it, but the truth is the foreign policy of Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 (briefly) is what led to 9/11. The terrorists would not be over here, if we were not over there. The Bush's weren't the only ones looking for dragons to slay overseas. Clinton took us into Kosovo when our national interests were not at stake, and the US citizens were not at risk. He also continued the sanctions against Iraq which Bin Laden mentioned in his Fatwah. Look, you can blame one party if you want but the truth is there isn't much difference anymore.

You Bush apologists crack me up. A damned blowjob does not equal a half trillion dollar war. Don't even get me started on "I didn't inhale" as opposed to the lack of response to the cocaine accusation.

I'm still wondering how you inferred I support the president from my first post. I was simply pointing out that the tone of politics today does not lead to meaningful debate.

The man is an asshole, as are Rumsfeld and Ashcroft.

Thanks for the brillant assessment.

And guess what? The Republican party as a whole (including the Republican "centrists" of which I once counted myself) are going to pay over the next election or two.

Historically speaking, they should lose this fall, and the polls indicate that will happen. I don't like the foreign policy of the neocons, nor do I think they have the best interests of America in mind.

Martyr? Maybe in the eyes of the Pat Robertson double-digit IQ brigade, but anybody with a moderate level of critical reasoning ability is going to see him as one of the worst presidents in this country's history.

You don't get it. He can be the worst president in the countries history, but if people think he's being unjustly attacked they WILL sympathize with him. Not just republicans either. Simply attack him on the issues, when you break down his actual public policy there are few things that conservatives or liberals would support. So much of the debate gets caught up with silly accusations and tribalism that most people don't see the factual reasons for what is wrong.

Also, your insinuation that christians have a double digit IQ is ignorant, would you say the same thing about Jews or Muslims? I'm not religious, but I don't like double standards.

Re:An example

[drinkypoo]

It's amazing to me that people seek to blame everything on George W Bush. Some loony CEO at HP spies on her employees and it's somehow Bush's fault.

No one said it was Bush's fault and it is a sign either of your immaturity or your overdefensiveness (or both) that you would suggest that they did. Immaturity for putting words in people's mouths that they never intended; overdefensiveness because you feel compelled to defend him against an accusation that was never made.

Judging by the media coverage you would think George W Bush made Katrina himself last year, and aimed it at New Orleans.

Judging by a straight, literal read of the news coverage, I could see that Bush was being blamed for not doing enough to help, especially minorities, which provably, statistically, received less help.

One of Powell's men accidently leaks the name of a spy, and everyone blames Bush and Rove, yet there is little chance Powell or any of his 'boys' would take a dive for the neocons.

Uh, how do you know? Are you privileged to know what goes on inside the white house? What's going on inside the councils of people who are in a much greater position of power than yuo are? Somehow, I doubt it.

Powell is highly connected with big oil and in my book he's precisely the same as any of the other assholes who've worked in that building under shrub.

Why can't you guys just attack his policy, instead of looking to blame him for everything from the weather to idiot CEO's?

This is an attack on his policy, but your apparent unfamiliarity with the English language must be inhibiting your interpretation. See, the President's job is ultimately pretty meaningless, he could be replaced with a very small shell script. Especially this one; all he'd have to do is make a bunch of unauthorized accesses. All kidding aside, however, I thought it was a pretty clear indictment against Bush's tendency to ignore privacy rights. It might have been kind of a cheap shot... but I don't feel too charitable to someone who seems to be intent on dismantling all of our freedoms as he comes across them.

His foreign policy is quite debatable, as is Dubai Ports, illegal immigrants taking blue collar jobs from the lower middle class, outsourcing, our trade policy with China, etc, etc.

...illegal wiretaps, illegally keeping people in the armed forces past their retirement date because no one seems to want to sign up for his bullshit war, stepping up attempts to recruit minorities only because they've run out of white people dumb enough to sign up, threats against journalists, "etc etc"

Name one good thing that this administration is doing for any reason other than supporting something bad they're doing, please.

Re:An example

[tylernt]

It's amazing to me that people seek to blame everything on George W Bush.

It's amazing to me that an otherwise interesting /. discussion has, yet again, dissolved into a political flamefest.

Sigh.

And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

having women in power won't necessarily make for a kinder, gentler world.

Re:And this is why

[R2.0]

For many years we have been told that, if women were in positions of power, they would behave differently than men. This assertion was based solely on the premise that women are somehow fundamentally different than men, and that this difference would ensure that female executives and politicians would be somehow "better" then males.

This has proven not to be the case, as evidenced by the behavior of various corporate and political women in power. While true that the Cynthia McKinney's and Carly Fiorina's of the world are not the rule, they do lead to questions of whether women are so fundamentally different after all.

Is Hillary Clinton somehow better than the other senators simply because she is a woman? Is she exempt from being accused of being an opportunistic carpetbagger, merely because she has a set of tits? That is what some would have us believe.

If I can call Sen. Stevens a bastard, I can call Sen. Clinton a bitch.

How did she do that?

[MetalliQaZ]

Can someone please explain to me what authority she had to authorize phone taps on private cell phones? She is not law enforcement. WTF?

-d

Re:How did she do that?

[Skye16]

So, as long as you're in a company bathroom, we can video tape everything you do? After all, it's company property.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm relatively sure the law requires notification whenever a person's reasonable expectation of privacy is to be infringed upon. A telephone call is one of those reasonable expectations. As is sitting on the toilet. I don't know if there's a legal precedent for email, but I do know that you usually sign an agreement stating that the corporation can watch anything/everything you do using their workstations, telephones, email servers, etc, etc. Without it, I would imagine the person being watched would have a fairly good case in court. They may not win, but then again, they may very well win, and pocket a lot of the company's cash in the process.

Whatever happened to the old HP?

[TheWoozle]

HP used to make decent products. Now they make craptacular products and have management that read from Stalin's playbook.

It's a shame, really.

Dunn should be Done

[TopShelf]

Dunn sounds like a melodramatic sociopath bent on her own power trip. It's bad enough to hire outside inspectors to track down a leaker, and to resort to snooping on personal call records, which is truly dirty pool. But once she had her proof, why not confront that director personally, rather than pull a stunt like this in front of the full board? Had she confronted this guy directly, he may have resigned quietly. Instead, she's now thrown the spotlight on her disregard for personal ethics or the respect of her colleagues.

That said, it's pathetic how easy it was for these investigators to get personal phone records on these accounts. You'd think there would be some standards in place, such as only sending the information to addresses already tied to the account, or something. I'm no security expert, but this looks pretty shoddy.

Re:Dunn should be Done

[OldManAndTheC]

But once she had her proof, why not confront that director personally, rather than pull a stunt like this in front of the full board?

Probably because she wanted the full board to witness the ease and efficiency with which her henchmen had tracked down the wrongdoer, to point out to them the futility of opposing her rule. In her mind, after such a brazen display of power, no one would ever dare to leak again! Unless maybe they had a prostate problem.

Doubleplusgood!

[derPlau]

pretexting, the controversial practice of obtaining information under false pretenses

That's an awful lot of words to replace a single, more useful one: "lying".

Re:Doubleplusgood!

[TubeSteak]

That's an awful lot of words to replace a single, more useful one: "lying".

I thought we called that "Social Engineering" here on /.

Trust in the boardroom

[OglinTatas]

Funny, but quoting from The Register article

"The situation is regrettable," Ms. Dunn said in a statement provided to the Wall Street Journal. "But the bottom line is that the board has asserted its commitment to upholding the standards of confidentiality that are critical to its functioning. A board can't serve effectively if there isn't complete trust that what gets discussed stays in the room."

Can the board serve effectively if there isn't complete trust or confidentiality anyway? If the CEO is spying on you at any or at all times?

Re:I don't see why anyone would mind

[Grishnakh]

That's right. In fact, no one should ever mind anyone reading their (e)mail or listening to their phone calls, unless they have something to hide. It should be legal for cops to just come in your house any time they feel like it, just to make sure you're not doing anything you shouldn't be. Random house checks by the cops would help put an end to the evil crimes of pot smoking and non-missionary sex. After all, if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide.

OK, who's the first to volunteer for random house checks?

Re:I don't care... much.

[Hoi Polloi]

Why should have to leave? Let her resign. And their privacy may have been violated (and probably was), they just haven't found out yet or don't have physical proof so they are keeping mum.

The only bright spot of this situation...

[spamchang]

...is Tom Perkins's ethical behavior. I only hope that when I get to be a director, I would have the cajones to resign rather than to serve under or carry out orders from a boss with a history of such behavior. Well, that and the handwriting on the wall (SEC investigation) might have helped influence his decision. But what a way to go!

Re:I don't see why anyone would mind

[KlomDark]

If someone has broken no laws, and has nothing to hide, then they should be doubly pissed that someone invades their privacy.

Re:I don't care... much.

[Anthony Boyd]

Hi Hoi Polloi. You're totally right. I should have been more clear. The board has known what Dunn did since May. So my real thought is not that they all should have resigned, but that they all should have done something. Yes, make her resign. If not that, then public disclosure and shareholder review. Something. But they sat on this for May, June, July, August, and now we're into September, and they've still done nothing. Well, they've finally been caught off guard by being exposed. Maybe that will stir them into action.

I just think these dumb idiots bent over and let her screw them. And when they found out how much they had been violated, they apparently just stayed hunched over, waiting for more. It's pathetic.

This is symptomatic..

[wfberg]

In my mind this is symptomatic of the corporate life in the higher echelons. Basically, these people at the top don't have te requisite life experience, or call it wisdom, or even common sense, to act like adults. Corporate life to these people is nothing more than a replay of high school. They're scheming, pulling pranks, cheating, and generally making stuff up as they go along.

It's not that there aren't established procedures and rules (and laws) of how to monitor employees (even board members). It's that this Ms. Dunn can't be bothered to look it up. Or even ask human resources. Making stuff up as you go along is what passes for "innovative", "bold", "leadership.

She's cut from the same jib as, say, those Enron guys. These are people who see life as a game, and yes, they're winning, if you keep score the way they do. Morally, as human beings, they're of course pieces of shit.

It's not surprising the rest of the board members stayed on board. They're used to treating people like children, and they've not fully grown up themselves, so this sort of irresponsible prank seems logical to them. They're the business equivalents of Bill O'Reilly - great ratings, but ultimately they're just spewing hot air, and their oversimplified black-and-white world is so disconnected from the real world, they wouldn't know it if it bit them in the ass.

But there you have it. Apparently the Chairwoman at HP is willing to go to great, and illegal lengths, to run the company. Will the shareholders say "hey, wait, maybe having someone at the top who's willing to commit felonies isn't such a great idea"? Only time will tell..

Two wrongs make a Right?

[redelm]

It appears that the HP Charwoman believes that leaks are so wrong as to justify conspiracy, fraud and other felonies. That sounds like a control phreak to me. Perhas we should expect nothing less given the corporate selection process.

However, she is easily indictable and her imprisonment will serve as a fine example for others of her ilk who doubtless think likewise.

Re:Yes and no

[Maxo-Texas]

Mostly agree with you.

Given that corporations are essentially immortal sociopaths, I think their structures *select* for sociopaths or people who are comfortable being in a sociopathic structure.

Only "young" corporations do not show these traits.

It is possible to be honest/noble but you won't get campaign contributions from the corporations (so you must be in line with a sociopathic agenda to get funding). The lust for power is very corrupting- even of people who start out good. A lot of idealistic republicans broke their word over term limits because they came to think they were more important than they really were.

Waste of time

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be a requirement for corporate upper management to have to take an APD test.

The reason that would be a waste of time is that most of these people are really, really smart. Maybe not maths geniuses or that kind of smart, but they know exactly how to pull the levers in people to get what they want. Unless the APD test checks for some sort of chemical imbalance (preferably while they are comatose), they will know exactly what to say to the relevant questions in order to make themselves look as un-sociopathic as possible. Hell, most of them will look it up before the test, or pay a psychologist to do it for them.

We are trying to determine if you have any positive emotions towards your fellow man. Do you like children?
Why yes, I love children, I donated $500 to a childrens foundation just this month!
:D

There really isn't an easy answer to this one. Can they do the jobs they are employed to do better than anyone else? If the answer is yes, then they belong in that job. The only thing that can be done is to ensure that if they commit crimes, they are punished to an extent that it will give other sociopaths pause before attempting the same thing. If the RIAA (sociopath city) can sue someone per song in their collection, high level corporate crime should be dealt with on a per-victim basis.

Steal the pension funds of 500 people? Thats 500 counts of theft or fraud, to be run one after another. Even if they only get 6 months per case, thats still 250 years of hard time. That might seem a bit harsh, but as they say, with great power comes great responsibility.