Slashdot Mirror
Calif. AG Files Felony Charges In HP Probe
PreacherTom writes, "Former Hewlett-Packard Chair Patricia Dunn, along with 'ethics chief' Kevin Hunsaker and others, was indicted yesterday on four felony counts by the California Attorney General. The charges, including wire fraud and conspiracy, carry a maximum penalty of 12 years in prison and $30,000 in fines. The indictments follow on the heels of an HP investigation of internal leaks that conducted "bugged" emails to C-Net reporter Dawn Kawamoto, illicitly obtained hundreds of phone numbers, and spied on HP board members." One of the indictments was for a private investigator retained by HP. The article has links to the complaints and warrants.
Manuel the drug dealer screws up the lives of a few people on his route, people who made the choice to get involved with his drugs in the first place. Patricia the ex-Chairman had the opportunity to screw up the thousands of lives involved with her megacorp, people who just want to get a day's work done and didn't sign up for the "let's screw with people's personal lives" game she seems to have been playing.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
That doesn't justify jail time.
Jail is supposedly for the rehabilitation of criminals too violent to be safe in society.
If the state were actually interested in justice, people who do things like this would simply be forced to pay significant financial restitution to those they screw over. At least make these people do something positive with their time, rather than filling another space in our already overcrowded prisons and pumping more money into the state's coffers.
Really, why does the california government deserve $30k?
She deserved it as much as them.
Excellent. For many corporate executive types such as Dunn and her ilk, the consequences for illegal acts are very abstract - at the very worst a resignation, cushioned by a golden parachute of stock options, pensions and benefits. It needs to be forcefully demonstrated to these people that if you commit a crime, you are by definition a criminal, and will be treated as such.
Frankly, if I had to choose between being punched in the face by a crackhead who wants my wallet, or watching a few thousand people lose everything they had to corporate crime, I'll take the punch. Both scenarios can be traced to the actions of one or two people deciding to do something naughty. Which is "worse?"
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
A CEO authorizes spying and she gets charged with a felony and a full blown investigation.
A CEO President is spying on innocent Americans as long as he says he thinks they're terrorists, and what happens? His sheep in congress pass a law to make it legal for him.
I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning as much as anyone. But come on, congress, senate, show some damn backbone like your colleagues did when they stood up to Nixon.
$8.95/mo web hosting
So, if they are convicted...does that mean that pretexting is no longer "possibly" illegal, but is now a felony?
In the sense that a conviction would clarify the situation for any who have doubts, yes.
It's useful to consider that the ambiguity only arises when one tries to play games with semantics and rules rather than the 'gestalt'
Pretexting is, in fact, very much like any identity theft. That is, a pretexter gathers sufficient personal information to impersonate someone in order to get a company to do something they would normally only do for that person. That something may be transfer money from that person's account or send detailed billing information for that person's account. Either way, it is fraud. Notably, that is exactly what Dunn is charged with.
Jail should be a last resort. It makes no use of the person or their time, and does nothing to "rehabilitate" anyone.
Those enron executives still have vast knowledge on a variety of subjects, useful skills, and other things. It would have been significantly better use of their time to, say, have them go on speaking circuits at business ethics meetings, or universities, and send the vast majority of money they get from these events to the victims of their actions.
I'm not trying to argue the severity of their crimes relative to others. I'm saying using jail for anything but violent criminals is an absolute waste of resources.
The term pretexting is really, really ridiculous.
When a pimply faced cracker does the same thing (call up people in order to gain illegal access to a system) it's called social engineering and fuck-as-hell illegal. When BigCorp does the same thing it's called "pretexting" and is considered a grey area.
Somehow this has a rancid stench of the application of newspeak in order to justify double standards.
Fucking hypocrites!
(I don't specifically mean your post, with which I disagree. I just wanted to get this off my system)
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
It could also be argued that jail is punishment. Fines and jail time are common in these cases. There is also the school of thought that jailing people like this, may give the next CEO pause, if he tries the same thing.
Save a Life. Donate Blood. Please.
I've found this to consistently be true:
In any decision a corporation makes, it will choose the most unethical path found acceptable to it's least ethical leader.
Some corporations have many leaders, and no strong central leader. I've found dealing with them to be miserable. For any decision to be made, it only needs to be acceptable to any one of their many leaders, thus, the whole corporation is able to justify acting like a raving-mad power-crazed lunatic. No single individual is highly unethical, just the corporation as a whole.
A board of directors typically has no strong leader, choosing instead a more democratic structure. This can lead to highly unethical behavior, as with the HP board.
I think the reason things work this way is simple. In any decision that might benefit the company, it's easier to simply stand-down and not make waves while somebody else carries out the unethical act. It's harder and more risk prone to stand in the way and demand ethical behavior. After all, corporations are about profits, and you'd be standing in the way of profits. Chances are far higher that you'll get run over than it is that people will say, "Yeah, your right. We were acting unethically, and we were wrong."
That said, I've found the vast majority of corporate board members to be amazingly ethical. After all, investors trust these guys with their money. But, it only takes one or two bad apples...
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
For these people, $30k is wallet change.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
I'm drifting off topic a bit, but your average mugger isn't a murderer, they just want to rob you and split. Any weapons are for intimidation, to force you into quickly giving up what's in your pockets. At worst you just lose your cash and cards, but even the most savvy mugger won't have much of a shot at your 401K or your kids' college funds. At best, you can possibly defend yourself, or get away. So, I feel you generally have more of a fighting chance in an encounter with a violent criminal on the street than you do against a board of directors pushing a few buttons in an illegal manner.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
"Jail is supposedly for the rehabilitation of criminals too violent to be safe in society."
No. Jail is supposed to punish criminals. Few criminals cause as much harm as the corporate buccaneers that destroy the wealth of others.
Physical harm is not the only kind of harm.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
How about if drugs were legal and could be purchased at normal prices (cocaine, $35 oz) and the only people injured were the users, as it should be.
That person shot in the head was killed by the war on drugs.
Exactly. Legalize them, regulate them, and tax the hell out of them.
1. Decreased costs to the justice system [many fewer prosecutions of illegal drugs]
2. Decreased crime [ancillary crimes related to the obtaining of illegal drugs]
3. Decreased costs for the penal system [much smaller jail population]
4. Increased government revenue [taxes on drugs]
5. Decreased tax burden on the rest of us as a result of 1-4 [OK, I give. Like that would ever happen]
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.