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.
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
Let me get this straight: pretexting is currently a legal "gray area," and you're talking about people getting raped.
I'm confused. Apparently, you've taken your time to rail against government regulation by attempting to make a highly strained analogy between two entirely unrelated subjects, and the second idea you offer to prove your point - ie, that hate crime laws are only in place so that the ebil gubmint can circumvent the Constitution and place people in double jeopardy - isn't even widely held or supported.
Look. What Dunn did was either 1) illegal, or 2) should be. This isn't a question of Congressional pandering. Let me remind you that the current administration and congress hold the belief that big business = better economy. Nothing wrong with that, but it's of worth to note since you seem to additionally imply that Congress is ready to beat up on any corporation it sees, which isn't true.
Pretexting, the main legal question here, should be illegal if it's not. From what I can make of your rather bizarre argument, you seem to claim otherwise. You're wrong.
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
She's Dunn.
It never gets old, does it?
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
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
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.