Slashdot Mirror


Reporter's Story — How HP Kept Tabs On Me

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "An outside lawyer working for H-P, John Schultz, yesterday told Wall Street Journal reporter Pui-Wing Tam how H-P's investigators collected information on her for a year, scoping out her trash and compiling a dossier on her phone calls. From Tam's article about her time spent, unwittingly, under surveillance: 'H-P's agents had my photo and reviewed videotaped footage of me, said Mr. Schultz, of the law firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. They conducted "surveillance" by looking for me at certain events to see if I would show up to meet an H-P director. (I didn't.) They also carried out "pre-trash inspections" at my suburban home early this year, Mr. Schultz said. ... But what was surprising were the questions Mr. Schultz left unanswered: How did H-P's agents get my phone numbers in the first place? When did they review videotaped footage of me? Did their gumshoes park their cars outside my house at night? And what the heck is pre-trash inspection?'"

53 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. Stalking by cdn-programmer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does this qualify as stalking? Perhaps corporate stalking?

    1. Re:Stalking by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

      only if the hp thugs leave things like burnt teddie bears or roses dripping blood on her doorstep, hide in the bushes and masturbate, call her and hang up all the time, steal her unwashed underwear and wear them on their faces, and write her long, rambling emotional emails that don't make much sense

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    2. Re:Stalking by CorSci81 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh, that's called stalking? I thought it was just how you let someone know you liked them. Guess /. was a bad place to learn my dating skills.

    3. Re:Stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Guess /. was a bad place to learn my dating skills.

      You know, there really needs to be some sympathy here. It can get lonely in the bushes.

    4. Re:Stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      What makes you think that the HP thugs didn't do all those things?

      I'd be careful walking around those bushes. Never know what you might step in.

    5. Re:Stalking by NoStrings · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just remember:

      Nothing says "I love you" like a restraining order.

      /Not speaking from personal experience.

    6. Re:Stalking by lobiusmoop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This whole scandal seems to go against the original HP Way ethos of having "trust and respect for individuals" that used to be a guiding principle in the company (albeit a long time ago now). It's not the same HP it used to be.

      --
      "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    7. Re:Stalking by mabhatter654 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why should a high profile press reporter have any more "privacy" than Britney Spears? After all, look how much stuff the tabloids get to publish legally! Don't think it's not legal... there just isn't any money in tracking random reporters like they do hollywood stars.. unless a big corp is bankrolling it. Think of the "hidden cameras" and "riveting exposes" you see on the boob tube and supermarket news racks.. YES, they can do that to you too! Don't like people randomly reading your emails to teenage boys? Don't like that bad day you had and hopped in the car wihtout the carseat? How about that skinny dip you didn't think anybody knew about? not so funny any more is it.. to bad it's part of the game every body pays to watch.

    8. Re:Stalking by modest+apricot · · Score: 4, Funny

      conference calls.

  2. incomplete disclosure by strspn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I read the article in the Journal this morning. What really pissed me off was the way that all the really uncomfortable details from powerpoint slides that HP had already turned over to Congress were excluded from the materials provided to Ms. Tam in person. For example, the fact that they not only pulled her phone records, but those of everyone she had been calling and taking calls from on her cellphone. This was while she was planning a sister's wedding.

  3. sshhhhh by User+956 · · Score: 3, Funny

    An outside lawyer working for H-P, John Schultz, yesterday told Wall Street Journal reporter Pui-Wing Tam how H-P's investigators collected information on her for a year, scoping out her trash and compiling a dossier on her phone calls.

    shhhhh! you're giving AT&T and the NSA ideas!

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  4. Only the beginning... by 10100111001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the power of corporations continues to grow unchecked, we could come upon a time when some corporations monitor their employees 24 hours a day, in there homes, at play, wherever, and to do anything outside of the company rules would mean termination. It would be in the company's best interest to do so.

    Sort of like how they can do drug testing now.

    1. Re:Only the beginning... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 3, Funny

      If the power of corporations continues to grow unchecked, we could come upon a time when some corporations monitor their employees 24 hours a day, in there homes, at play, wherever, and to do anything outside of the company rules would mean termination. It would be in the company's best interest to do so.

      If my power continues to grow unchecked, I could be KING OF THE ENTIRE WORLD.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    2. Re:Only the beginning... by MadUndergrad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, but then who watches the watchers?

    3. Re:Only the beginning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "You watch too many movies."

      You obviously have never had a heart to heart talk with someone that works in HR or a corporate investigator.

      These sorts of things happen more often than most sheeple...oosp! I mean people...think. 99.99% of the time they just don't come to the surface.

      Sure physical surveillance is costly, but there are large corps and services that are constantly scanning public records, private records, and running spiders on the web to mine data about their employees and the employees of their competition. Don't fool yourself. Nothing is secret any more.

      X-CIA/NSA employees have to do something to earn a living once they are out :-)

      P.S. And remember to always read those information release forms you sign when starting a new job.

    4. Re:Only the beginning... by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not the power of the business that is "unchecked". After all, business assets can easily be seized or destroyed. Disrupting routine business can quickly become very expensive for a business especially one ruled by the market like many publically traded corporations. The need for a lot of infrastructure both inside and outside the business generally makes businesses vulnerable.

      Instead what is happening is that the cost of some means of employee testing and monitor are becoming cheap for the benefits they provide. Drug testing is pretty clear profit for most businesses. You don't want someone with a big drug habit in a position of trust over money or something that they can sell for money.

      Employee monitoring outside of the workplace, especially secret monitoring is expensive and frankly not productive. After all, what sort of employee will consent to that kind of thing? How would that affect morale? I can see legitimate if paranoid special cases where monitoring might be worthwhile, but in those situations they should be writing a pretty big check anyway.
    5. Re:Only the beginning... by ZWithaPGGB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This, along with all the other reasons trotted out daily in Dilbert, is why the large corporations can't invent anything. The best and brightest won't work for them. The "Search for Talent" was the cover sotry on last week's Economist. Too bad the corporate drones don't get that their risk averseness, in all things, is why they can't hire and retain the best and the brightest. Wait, I'm an entrepreneur, that means I get the smart ones that HP doesn't! Yippeeee!!!!

      Foosball, blimps, bring your dog to work, and LAN parties for the gamers aren't frivolity, they help productivity, in my experience. Costs a lot less than hiring private eyes to just keep your employees HAPPY!!!

    6. Re:Only the beginning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just grow a pair of testicles and when you see the same stranger staring at you through a pair of binoculars for the fifth time shoot the fucker.

    7. Re:Only the beginning... by oohshiny · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't want someone with a big drug habit in a position of trust over money or something that they can sell for money.

      I wouldn't give a damn if they did their job well and were paid well enough to afford their drug habit. Furthermore, we could lower the "paid well enough to afford their habit" threshold by legalizing drugs.

      Employee monitoring outside of the workplace, especially secret monitoring is expensive and frankly not productive. After all, what sort of employee will consent to that kind of thing? How would that affect morale?

      I think the point is that powerful corporations may not have to ask your consent, and how it affects morale won't matter because everybody will be doing it.

    8. Re:Only the beginning... by Robber+Baron · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "If the power of corporations continues to grow unchecked, we could come upon a time when some corporations monitor their employees 24 hours a day, in there homes, at play, wherever, and to do anything outside of the company rules would mean termination. It would be in the company's best interest to do so."
      ...until we decide enough is enough and borrow Madame Guillotine from the French.
      --

      You're using her as bait, Master!

  5. How many laws broken?? by necro2607 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    heh. "The scandal, which became public last month, has spurred the departures of three executives and three H-P directors"

    Departures..? What about criminal charges??!

    "According to the California attorney general, H-P's investigators also used the last four digits of my Social Security number to impersonate me in order to obtain my phone records, a technique known as "pretexting.""

    OK, if I'm not mistaken it's completely illegal to impersonate someone, and also, are phone records not considered "private" information? In such a case there's not only impersonation but right-to-privacy laws that have been treaded upon...

    1. Re:How many laws broken?? by arthurpaliden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes it is illegal, but they are rich, they can get away with it. Remember OJ.

    2. Re:How many laws broken?? by Brobock · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OK, if I'm not mistaken it's completely illegal to impersonate someone, and also, are phone records not considered "private" information?

      What you speak of is "social engineering" and yes it is illegal, however let us not forget that they didn't social engineer, they were "pretexting." I never even heard that word used so many times until this scandal. I am so sick of how changing words can be the difference between criminal and non-criminal. This is flat out lying. But you won't hear any media use that word... it wouldn't be PC.

    3. Re:How many laws broken?? by dbIII · · Score: 5, Funny
      If I read your diary without your permission you can't have me arrested. Jesus.

      Back a second time eh? If I catch you reading it I'll have you crucified! Pilate.

    4. Re:How many laws broken?? by dbcad7 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think what he is saying is that privacy is not a law. There are laws to protect you from some invasions of things like medical records. But the laws broken to obtain such information is not "invasion of privacy" but things like treaspassing, theft, and fraud...That's my take on it anyway.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    5. Re:How many laws broken?? by oohshiny · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Human societies had your attitudes for a few thousand years. Then modern democratic government came along, and with that came a recognized right to privacy; that means that only specific public institutions have a right to invade your privace, and only in specific circumstances. Personally, I'd prefer not to give up on our democratic achievements and go back to the Middle Ages.

  6. Re:People fail to realize.. by Kamineko · · Score: 2

    You're fired.

  7. Re:Err... by emc · · Score: 5, Informative

    The /. summary fails to mention the fact that the whole reason this person was being "snooped" upon is because HP was trying to figure out who was leaking information to the press.
    This is true, but what affect does that really have on the fact that the privacy of this person was violated because of some maniacal CEO felt slighted.

    If the people that did this (including the private investigators) don't rot in jail, we need to worry about our own privacy... not only would it be OK for the government to violate our privacy, but that would open the doors to corporations doing the same thing.

    IMHO this is just as disconcerting, if not more so than what AT&T and the NSA are doing...

  8. Re:Err... by DavidRawling · · Score: 3, Insightful

    <sarcasm>Yes, because illegal and immoral activities are perfectly fine when you're trying to find out whether someone is talking to the press about company secrets. Surely by now you know that company privacy is FAR more important than personal privacy.</sarcasm>

    The story was about the lengths that investigators went to, and the types of "attack" made, and the types of information gathered on this person; the summary appears to support that.

    BTW I notice that in the interests of your privacy you haven't given out your personal address, phone number (home and mobile/cell), email address, mother's maiden name, social security number, educational and employment history and phone records for the last 12 months. Maybe you should go ahead and post those up on your website.

    Wait ... you expected privacy? WTF?

  9. Re:Err... by necro2607 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think it's reasonable to expect the summary to be written in such a manner that people who are not familiar with the "background" at least get even a slight synopsis of prior events as a refresher or introduction - this is a pretty standard deal for journalism of any type.

  10. Hacking, anyone? by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Bryan Wagner of Littleton, Colo., allegedly used the last four digits of my Social Security number and my home phone number to set up an AT&T online account for my local phone service.
    How is this different from the "social engineering" that Kevin Mitnick did? He phoned people and used pretexting to gain access to computer systems. Interesting that when someone rich and powerful does it, it is called "pretexting", yet, when an ordinary person does it, it is called "hacking".
    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Hacking, anyone? by asuffield · · Score: 3, Interesting
      How is this different from the "social engineering" that Kevin Mitnick did?


      It isn't - but people do this all the time. Mitnick's only crime was being poor in a courtroom - he couldn't afford the legal staff needed to disprove the government's largely specious claims of damages (they arbitrarily slapped an figure of some tens of millions on a handful of standard instrusion cleanups - we all know that intrusion cleanup is a pain, but even for a large company or government organisation it's measured in the thousands, not millions).

      The government lost most of the rest of their case against him. His sentencing was primarily based on the damages claim. Mitnick may not have been the best guy around, but he didn't really deserve anything more than a community service sentence.
  11. Re:Err... by necro2607 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I did not say this somehow justified what HP did - it definitely does not. However, from reading just the summary, I was confused as hell as to WHY this person was being snooped upon, you know? What happened? Was she releasing secret information? Was she a former employee that was snooped upon during employment at HP? It's a pretty relevant & key piece of information to just entirely leave out.

  12. Re:Pre-trash inspection by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually someone can come along and inspect your trash, but in some places it becomes the property of the garbage company when you put it out on the curb and messing with it is messing with the trash company's property. Of course, in practice, they are never ever going to tell the cops they can't have your trash. To make a long story short, if you're doing something illegal, disposing of the evidence in your own trash can is fucking stupid, and any time you throw away any papers you should automatically assume that someone else will be reading them - so confetti-shred them (cross-cut) or burn them when you're done. Only large governmental agencies can afford to reassemble confetti into documents. If you burn them, make sure they've burned to the point they disintegrate - the FBI has had great success at reconstructing documents which look like they've been burned to the point of being unreadable using polymers and X-rays.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. I'm calling you on it by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Name one instance of illegal tatics used by a reporter leading to a Pulitzer Prize.

    --
    Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    1. Re:I'm calling you on it by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean other than every journalist who has refused to give up a source when ordered by a judge? Or the journalists who publish classified information?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  14. Re:Err... by Leto-II · · Score: 3, Informative
    My source of news is Slashdot, my friends, and the 5 little "Technology" news headlines in my Yahoo Mail inbox, so, there you have it.


    Your claim that one of your news sources is Slashdot, but you haven't heard the background for this story?

    Interesting.
    --
    Do not anger the worm.
  15. Re:Pre-trash inspection by jcr · · Score: 2, Informative

    I find that shredded documents make excellent tinder for the fireplace..

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  16. Re:Why doesn't google buy H-P? by theendlessnow · · Score: 2, Funny
    Well... I'm really not supposed to say anything... but they DID buy HP.

    Shhh! Please don't spread this around

  17. who watches them? by Gonoff · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We do.

    Any surveillance operation needs computer experts. These "people" just need to find IT workers with low enough principles. Unfortunately money seems to make principles take a back seat.

    Maybe we need an "Association of Principled Technologists". If we made it important enough, maybe it might encourage people away from the less wholesome facets of our trade.

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    1. Re:who watches them? by nuzak · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Maybe we need an "Association of Principled Technologists".

      Seek and ye shall find

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
  18. Um, no. by Darlantan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is one of those points where we don't need more legislation, we need people to educate themselves and pick up the responsibility for their own actions. It's not the government's problem if you don't shred sensitive documents, and it shouldn't be. It's not like there is a shortage of cheap paper shredding machines -- you have hands, they can do the job if you're really cheap. If I toss papers with information on my bank account out without shredding, I don't expect them to be any more secure than leaving my ATM card sitting on the sidewalk.

    Laws aren't going to fix things here, they just give us a method of reacting. The old saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." still applies. Suck it up and take some responsibility for yourself, stop shovelling it off on the government.

    --
    Fill in your four or five-letter word of wisdom here _ _ _ _ _.
  19. One way HP can justify this. by GrueMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    These are the same tacktics that Bush is pushing for. HP can argue that they were using government sanctioned methods to fight corporate espionage and financial terrorism, because that is exactly what Bush wants to be able to do to every citizen in the United States. Maybe they jumped the gun a litte, but this is exactly what Bush's anti-terrorism policies allow (Patriot Act, etc). Don't believe me? Read the bills sent to congress. Thoroughly. Of course, I only like HP for their printers. Never did like working for them, even though it was brief.

  20. Examples Of Pretrash by cmholm · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Pretrash inspections" of her home could include (in increasing order of invasion): 1) digging through the trash can before hauling it out to the curb, 2) rifling the mailbox, and 3) breaking and entering. Short of crawling into her bed, I think that about covers it.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
    1. Re:Examples Of Pretrash by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Funny

      I believe that a "pre-trash" inspection is when someone goes through all your possessions looking for evidence of {something} before you've decided that said possessions are actually trash. In other words, they sneak into your your house, go through your all your stuff, and if that doesn't work then they look through your dumpster.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  21. Re:Taking out the trash by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 4, Funny

    clearly, you need to start leaving an EULA on your trash: "By reading this, you agree to an exclusive binding legal contract with [name] as to the nature of all dealing with this trash. This trash is not discarded property. This trash remains the property of [name] until such time as those individuals designated for its collection for immediate disposal remove it. At such time, ownership of this trash will transfer to the designated collecters (or their employing agency) for the explicit purpose of immediate disposal. Those found tampering with this trash will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This contract shall be construed as being formed under the law of the State of California unless otherwise prohibited by local law of competent juristiction."
    That should stop the snoopers!

    --
    FGD 135
  22. Re:Pre-trash inspection by mooncaine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I read once [maybe here?] that there's at least one other significant population of spies who can "afford" to reassemble confetti into documents: meth addicts hoping to score info they can use to make money, like your credit card statements. Apparently some meth users were caught doing exactly this. The story goes that they have plenty of time [awake for hours on end], the energy, the willingess to commit the crime, and a tendency toward compulsive, repetitive acts [when under the influence]. Because they smoked up all the money they already had, and because you can spot them in the Jiffy Mart by the twitching, itching, scrawniness and rotted teeth, they have the *incentive* to spend hours hidden away, piecing your shredded bank statements together.

  23. Re:Taking out the trash by camperdave · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought it was considered private property until the sanitation workers dumped it into the truck. I'm sure I saw that on CSI or some similar TV show somewhere. Mind you, I am fairly sure that legal situations appearing on television shows do not constitute prior rulings, and presumably these rules vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  24. If you were gay and lived in the Bible belt by Travoltus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    would you want your private sex life outed to the religious nuts who would burn a cross on your yard?

    Well?

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  25. Re:Err... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the Papparazzi do that kind of stuff all the time, the big papers love to print juicy details gleaned from stolen photos, picked up extentsion phones, and the like... some how they think they're above being the TARGETS of such tactics. What HP did is mostly no different than Hard Copy or Dateline does to seedy car dealers and big company greasy CEOs. This reporter got her stories because she was willing to be a tool in a backstabbing match... funny how it comes back around to get you... if the papers don't like corporations cracking down on who talks to reporters, they need to tell the reporters to stop taking "tainted" sources as stories. I've wanted press accountability like this for a while... I bet it's realy worth that big scoop now that her records are out there for all of congress to see!!

  26. Re:Taking out the trash by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Funny

    This trash remains the property of [name] until such time as those individuals designated for its collection for immediate disposal remove it.

          No no no!!! IANAL -but-:

          [name] grants the designated trash collection company license to remove the trash from the residence and dispose of it in the accustomed landfill, however this trash remains the property of [name] until such time as it is degraded and unrecognizable as the original form in whole or in part...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  27. I wouldn't bet on it by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Employee monitoring outside of the workplace, especially secret monitoring is expensive and frankly not productive. After all, what sort of employee will consent to that kind of thing? How would that affect morale? I can see legitimate if paranoid special cases where monitoring might be worthwhile, but in those situations they should be writing a pretty big check anyway.

    1. Some forms of monitoring are actually dirt cheap.

    To start with the obvious, spyware is pretty ubiquitous at some companies, and that includes company laptops. So then people take them home and use them too for IM, slashdot, VOIP, updating their "anonymous" blog, and whatnot, and you can see where that is going.

    E.g., someone posted a while ago, in a thread about tele-commuting, about how he knew an employee wasn't really working at home because he looked on XBox live all the time and after a couple of weeks the employee had 5 achievements in Oblivion. (Never mind that Oblivion is a game which can be finished in a weekend if you just follow the main story, or in a week without telecommuting even if you do every single side-quest. And 5 achievements aren't really that much.) That's a form of surveillance.

    Google can also be used as a cheap form of surveillance, because most people don't really try to be anonymous. Or can be identified by details they provide.

    Cell phones can also be tracked, as proven by a recent article, but I didn't bookmark it. Basically a journalist used such a tracking service on his girlfriend's phone. It asked for confirmation once at the start, and from there it was basically in stealth mode. In that case it was with her knowledge, for research purposes, but you can see how that can happen without knowledge too, if you have access to a "logged-in" phone for a couple of minutes. Company cell phones are a prime example: they can be subscribed to tracking before you even get the damn thing.

    2. The line of reasoning that something won't happen because it's not making any money (or preventing losses) for the company is flawed too, and assuming that humans on the whole only do perfectly rational stuff supported by solid logic and numbers. That's false. Humans do a lot more for emotional reasons than for anything even vaguely resembling cold logic supported by facts.

    Some PHBs (A) have nothing better to do with their time (even doing lunch and painting powerpoint foils only takes so much time), and (B) are complete control freaks. They don't do it because it actually helps the company in any form or shape, but just to feel in control of something they actually don't really know how to manage.

    Even HP's case, if you look at it, is really no more than some control-freak exercise. If you look at the "leaks" they were investigating, the grand acts of treason to the press so to speak, the mind boggles. One executive had unauthorizedly told the press that he's tired after a long board meeting. Or that HP hopes to sell more of their Opteron servers in the future. (Well, of course. Is their any company who actually hopes to sell less and lose market share?) It's benign, uninformative and bloody useless small talk, not any actual company secrets.

    But someone was chuffed that a director dared talk to the press at all, even such uninformative small-talk, without their royal seal of approval. I.e., a control freak. That's really how that espionage and stalking affair got started.

    3. Even when logic and facts are involved, a lot more often than not, the goals are PR, looking good, etc, not "is it making the company money." You can see it from company policies and politics to PHB's more concerned with maintaining an illusion to their superiors than with managing what they're supposed to manage. Whole man-years get spent on just seeming to do something about a problem, instead of just fixing it.

    Or to take your example with drug testing, the thing is: people aren't testing only investors and board members. You know, people who could actua

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  28. Re:Pre-trash inspection by cr0sh · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I want to note that if you do this, make sure to use little of the shred material at one shot, or have a screened chimney cap in place on your chimney. The reason for this is because you can get a very hot and quick roaring fire going with shredded paper, and if your draft is good, a lot of smoke, sparks and burning paper might leave your chimney still burning (or smoldering, at minimum). Still, shredded paper is a great firestarter.


    Also, if you have the time and don't mind a little mess, take the shreds, put them in a metal pail and mix with some kerosene, until you have a "mush". Pour the mush into a metal form (like a pipe with a cap), and have a tamper to squeeze out the excess kerosene. Place the resulting "brick" or "log" on a metal rack (with a drip tray underneath) to "dry". Once dry, wrap in a bit of newspaper (if you will use fairly immediately) or in wax paper (if you plan to use it after a period of time). You will be left with a nice, hot burning "log" of paper, not too much unlike the "logs" you can buy at the store. Store outside on a metal rack, uncovered (but not directly exposed to the elements).

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon