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

[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

[0xdeadbeef]

You will probably hear a knock at your door any minute now...

You sent him a pizza? I want one!

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

[OakDragon]

Wow. I know that eventally, all Slashdot threads wind up in a Bush-bash. But this is the first case I've seen that goes straight there! (That is, without Bush or the government being the subject of the story.)

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

[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

[zstlaw]

Well my mother had a long talk with a member of the whitehouse transition team back in 2000. And I remember the guy she spoke too complained about how they were obsessed with Iraq even back then. If you look at how they are a bunch of energy company old hands, and you look at how when Saddam rose to power he nationalized a bunch of oil holding you can start to see the big picture.

The transition team fellow also complained that the admisistration was the most paranoid group of people that he had ever had to work with. Everyone was in CYA (cover your ass) mode constantly.

Also on the backstabbing nature of the insiders I can attest that my mother and her boss were repeatedly called before congressional inquires on spurious matters mainly focused around the fact that the government agency they worked for advocated condom use. (She worked at the center for disease control) Her boss was a nobel prize winner for medacine who eventually stepped down due to the constant interuptions of his work and the hassling of his family and friends. (They were also called to these spurrious inquiry session)

It is not that Bush is corrupt, but that a single group has siezed power and allow no dissent nor debate. There is only an emperor and his minions all follow in lockstep.

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?

[eclipz]

They did not actually tap the phones. According to TFA:

It was classic data-mining: Dunn's consultants weren't actually listening in on the calls--all they had to do was look for a pattern of contacts.

They did obtain the records under false pretenses though, which is illegal.

Re:How did she do that?

[Dhalka226]

(Standard IANAL disclaimer here.)

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

Well, bad example (I'll mention why in a minute), but the answer to the spirit of the question is: Yeah, probably.

You may or may not have any right to privacy at work. Most Americans see a definite right to privacy in the Constitution, but they fail to understand that the Constitution is meant as a limit on the power of the government. Specifically, it was meant as a limit on the power of the federal government; not until the Fourteenth Amendment did the US Constitution come to apply to the states as well. If it was a police officer who set up the cameras in the bathroom with no cause, it would almost certainly be illegal.

That said, I believe most case law thus far has come down on the side of "while you're on company property, they can do whatever they want to you." Including, in some cases, opening up your drawers and rifling through your papers; reading your emails; etc. No, they can't watch you in the bathroom--but not as a privacy issue; they couldn't do that because it may very well violate other laws, such as voyeurism. Telephone calls may also be safe, but again, not because of your right to privacy: Depending on the state, it may simply violate wiretap laws.

Some decisions have begun to come down saying that employees do have some expectation of privacy at their places of employment, and I expect that to be the general trend. That said, I believe it's still in the minority. Your employer still has a tremendous latitude in determine how much privacy to give their employees and when it might be time to violate that.

More to the point of the case, however, it appears that they did not actually tap anybody's phone. Rather, they looked at phone records. You can bet that it is perfectly within a company's rights, at least at present, to pull the phone records of any employee for any service the company pays for. If they truly did trick the employees' phone companies into releasing their own personal phone records, then that sounds to be entirely illegal.

So, like I said, the spirit of your initial question seems to be yes: Employers can watch an awful lot of what you do so long as they are not violating any specific laws while they do it. It's the difference between violating a law and violating a right: It does not seem to be the rule (yet) that companies have any obligations to extend you any rights not backed up by law.

just to put things in perspective...

[eshefer]

Tom Perkins, as in Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers.

This is pretty dramatic.

Smoking Gun

[treeves]

. . . has documents here: Hewlett-Packard Targeted Board In Leak Probe

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".

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:Trust in the boardroom

[wiml]

I like how the board "[upheld] the standards of confidentiality" by ... violating the confidentiality of the board members' personal lives. Yay for double standards!

'Pretext'?

[displaced80]

Funny. I'd call it 'lying'.

If you have to think up a euphemism for what you're doing, it's probably wrong.

Unless it's funny, like 'bumping uglies' or 'dropping the kids off at the pool'

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?

Who wants to be a HP customer now?

[MooseTick]

If Patricia Dunn spies on her employees like this, how can I trust her enough to be a customer of HP?

If they were looking at company issued phones, computers, or other equiptment I would say that is fair game. When they pretend they are you and get information from services providers where you pay the bill they have crossed the line. I was shopping for a new laptop and HP is now out of contention.

The only way this can be corrected is if HP cans Patricia Dunn ASAP. Tom Perkins should be running HP. He actually has a moral compass and stands by what he thinks is right.

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.

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 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.

It probably won't make any difference. Here's why

[Moraelin]

More like it won't make any difference, though not for the obvious extrapolation that everyone will make at that phrase. It's that regardless of which gender you favour, there'll be a certain _kind_ of person who makes it to the top. It's not whether most men are better or most women are better, it's that those who end up at the top will _not_ actually be representative of the majority of men or women anyway.

The world today, at least the western world (though I wouldn't be surprised if other parts too) has a very different minority that's disproportionately represented at the top: the sociopaths. It's not even much of a surprise. In a society and culture where we expect -- and indeed _demand_ -- sociopathic behaviour from corporations and politicians, the ones that make it to the top are those who can promise just that: to behave like a sociopath, and take decisions without letting emotions or empathy get in the way. And there are reasons too, such as their being natural actors and having no loyalty except to themselves. So they can put up an outstanding show for the boss and get a promotion, while you're busy doing actual work.

The thing is, what they do has no resemblance with what Joe Average and Jane Housewife does. Only about 1% of the population scores clean over 30 on an APD (Antisocial Personality Disorder = sociopathy/psychopathy) test. We're talking the creme de la creme, the elite among the elite. (To put it into perspective, the average Joe or Jane have maybe 1 confirmed trait or spurious minor manifestations of 2-3, and even those are often just bad habits or benign when they're not accompanied by others.) They're people who are actually more anti-social (in the medical sense) than the hardened criminals in a prison (who tend to average somewhere in the 20's), yet are smart enough to not end up in prison. You can't really look at what a sociopath does and extrapolate it at what the average man or woman would do, nor viceversa.

They're not only a minority, but they don't even function mentally in the same way as you do. Even if a lot of common people do get caught in an admiration of sociopaths and their methods, in practice they couldn't do the same things. They're just not wired the same way.

I.e., what I'm saying is that you can't look at this case and think she's representative for women as a whole. And conversely, those who think that "having women in power would make for a kinder, gentler world" make the wrong extrapolation in the other direction. They look at some of the average women around them and think, basically, "hey, I bet if she was a CEO/Chairman/President/whatever, it would be a nicer world." Well, maybe it even would, except it won't those who end up in position of power.

Just changing the genre stereotype won't make the world any better, as long as the same kind people are left to run the show. What can change the world is (A) recognizing these people for what they are, and (B) having enough checks and safeguards so they can't run amok and cause major damage.

Re:And this is why

[Quiet_Desperation]

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

That's because it's a certain personality type that goes after power, and that type is gender neutral.

Also, if women ran the world, the Earth would be a bombed out nuclear ruin after the first full moon.

Oh, I'm gonna get modded down...

Used to work for Pattie Dunn - what a change

[OutOnARock]

As a former employee of Pattie Dunn when she worked at Wells Fargo Nikko Investment Advisors which became Barclays Global Investors, I always found Pattie to be a person who really cared about her employees and their personal lives. She was always approachable, listened to your concerns no matter how high or low you were in her chain of command, and without sounding too sexist, had a great smile, a charming personality, and was the easiest on the eyes boss I've ever had. I can only imagine what HP has put her through to cause such a change in her attitudes. On the other hand, perhaps this is an example of what has happened to America in general. "Truly a sight to behold. The man, beaten. The once great champ, now a study in moppishness. No longer the victory hungry stallion we've raced so many times before. But a pathetic, washed-up aged ex-champion. " (obscure Better Off Dead quote :) )

Re:Used to work for Pattie Dunn - what a change

[DragonWriter]

As a former employee of Pattie Dunn when she worked at Wells Fargo Nikko Investment Advisors which became Barclays Global Investors, I always found Pattie to be a person who really cared about her employees and their personal lives.

Apparently, she still cares very much about their personal lives.

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..

They didn't get mine

[Groo Wanderer]

Coming from someone who was ripping HP up and down at the time for their moronic behavior, I can say three things with authority. First, I had sources on that level. Second, they didn't get my sources, not even close. Several witchhunters resigned and/or were canned while looking for Inq sources, but as far as I am aware, they did not find a single one, teh fewls. Third, my sources are a lot smarter than Mr Keyworth or Ms Dunn.

The sad part is, they will probably get away with all of this. The sadder part is they are looking in the wrong place. As a member of that nebulous group know as 'the press', I can say that people speak out and leak when things are going badly, wrong, and management has their heads stuck up their collective asses. Rather than fixing the problem, they assign blame.

In any case, I should drop my guys a line and have a laugh.

              -Charlie

Re:They didn't get mine

[Chris Burke]

Charlie is an author for The Inquirer, which has been the main source for leaks from HP since Carly started fucking things up. Including leaks about witchhunts for previous leakers, ampling demonstrating that the witchhunts weren't working. Charlie keeps his sources secret, HP has no way to compel him to release them, and all this is known by anyone who reads The Inquirer which is where the leaks show up. If he had posted anonymously, I would have ignored him. As it is, I've read many previous leaks on The Inq (including the sad/hilarious case of HP purchasing a new corporate jet in the midst of layoff season), and know what he is saying is probably true.

HP has a fundamental problem. The leakers are the symptom, and their inability to catch any significant number of leakers is evidence that the problem is truly endemic and well known by the employees. It's like catching insurgents -- to do it, you need intelligence, and to get intelligence you need cooperation. If the insurgents have grass roots support, you won't get that cooperation, and you're doomed.

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:Which *MAY* be illegal.

[DragonWriter]

There's no law that makes it a crime to get someone to give you information (unless it's banking information).

In California, where HP is headquartered, it is a crime to obtain labor through "fraudulent representation or pretense" is guilty just as if they had stolen services with similar value (California Penal Code 532). By representing themselves as the customers of the phone company whose records were requested, they obtained the labor of customer service staff under false pretense.

It is likewise criminal, in California, to willfully obtain "personal identifying information" (including, among many other thingsother things, name, address, telephone number, place of employment, or social security number) of another and then use that information for any unlawful purpose, including "to obtain, or attempt to obtain, credit, goods, services, or medical information" (Penal Code 530.5, emphasis added), without the consent of the person whose information was used. Here, they used several pieces of personal information concerning the directors targetted to obtain services from people with whom those directors did business, and did so without the directors consent.

So to say there is no law which makes it illegal to use someone else's personal information to enable yourself to impersonate that person to get someone to give you information is, well, not exactly true, even outside of banking information.

Re:And this is why

[tutori]

Oh, I'm gonna get modded down...

Well, maybe if there were women on /.

Not at all

[Groo Wanderer]

"Dude, don't you hate it when you forget to check "Post Anonymously" box?"

Not at all. They know who I am, and if they had a shred of evidence that I did anything wrong, they would have sued me long ago. I post everything with my name attached, and with my email on it where applicable. I tried calling HP and talking to them several times, but they did not return my calls. I did leave all my contact info, and have done so numerous times at trade shows. If you don't do anything illegal, you don't have to hide behind anonymity.

That said, I did not do anything wrong, have never signed an NDA with HP, or agreed to anything of the sort. On top of that I scrub my emails religiously and regularly so if they send me paperwork, they will get nothing because I have nothing. That said, I have looked for the names of the people I wanted to talk to, and I don't have them any more. Sad, a quote on the Inq now would have been quite topical. Scrubbing mail is a double edged sword.

Either way, I am not worried at all, what are they going to do call up my ISP and pretend they are me to get my records? That would be flat out illegal, and they would never do such a thing.

            -Charlie

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.

Let's hear it for Perkins

[Infonaut]

Here's a counter to the examples we so often see of businessmen doing the wrong thing. You don't often hear about people in business doing the right thing, because that seldom makes a juicy story. In business, you have to make ethical decisions all the time. It's nice to see a news story that sheds some light on one of those decisions properly decided.