HP CEO Allowed 'Sting' on CNet reporter

Mark writes "The Washington Post, reporting on Hewlett-Packard's Chairman Patricia Dunn and alleged spying on other HP board members, has obtained e-mails that implicate the CEO, Mark Hurd, who approved an elaborate 'sting' operation on a CNet reporter." From the article: HP's leak investigation involved planting false documents, following HP board members and journalists, watching their homes, and obtaining calling records for hundreds of phone numbers belonging to HP directors, journalists and their spouses, according to a consultant's report and the e-mails."

Comments

Well Executed Plan

[Black-Man]

Dunn was/is a lame duck on the board. She has cancer and had no intentions of remaining as the chairman next year. Therefore, she knew what had to be done to stiffle the critics, i.e. friends of the Hewlett family. She succeeded in getting both of them off the board and now all is left is damage control with her taking the "fall". Gotta give her credit.

Re:Don't put the blame on Hurd.

[gEvil (beta)]

Just further proof that you can't trust anything with the name "Hurd" attached to it... : p

Absolutely put the blame on Hurd.

[Anonymous Coward]

When you are a manager, particularly an officer of the company, and you approve something like an investigation, you know it's going to be sensitive and that if it's not done properly, it's going to hurt the company.

If you don't inquire into the details of what you've approved, it's either because you are: a) foolish, or b) don't want to be accountable.

If a CEO directs something sensitive to happen, it's their responsibility to be aware of what it is and how it happens.

Re:Reversal of watergate

[gEvil (beta)]

If this happens, though, use of "gate" as a suffix is strictly forbidden, because that's just silly.

I think they've been following that rule for a while now. Notice how there's been no "investigate" for a long time...

Hmm

[Rethcir]

The reporter was sending out an SOS to the world, because not every little thing the CEO did was magic.

How could this happen!?

[ChefAndCoder]

What kind of a country could we live in where this type of spying, duplicity, and invasion of privacy would be seen as acceptable by HP's executives!?

Oh . . . wait . . .

You're joking, right?

[tkrotchko]

"I'm having some difficulty seeing precisely where it is illegal."

Let me call up your cell phone company, claim I'm you (because I've managed to get your SSN), and then get all your call records.

Then, I'll send you a trojan horse to your computer so I can record your keystrokes to see who and and what you're mailing.

Are you okay with everything so far? Does that seem all legal and above-board?

Re:So what?

[sizzzzlerz]

If I worked for HP and depended on their stock options for (a good portion of) my retirement, I wouldn't be the slight bit muffed by management doing whatever it takes to stop leaks that may end up hurting the company through the loss of valuable trade secrets, technology, etc. That's the board's job - to raise the stock.

Ok, for the sake of argument, let's assume that you would stop short of approving the murder of the leaker(s). Just how far, short of that, would you still feel good about: knee-capping, breaking the bones in one's hand with a hammer, kidnapping a family member, burning down their house, torturing their cat, etc.?

Remember, you are protecting trade secrets here and the value of your HP stock is at stake.

I hope you think this is absurd but your comment is stupid. It is not the board's job to break the law and it is not within their purview to do anything necessary to protect the stock.