CNET Reporters Intend to Sue HP Over Surveillance

theodp writes "The NY Times reports that three CNET journalists whose records, as well as those of their relatives, were scrutinized by pretexting investigators working for HP intend to sue the company for invasion of privacy. HP, who paid $14.5M to settle a lawsuit filed by the CA attorney general in connection with the spying, reportedly offered each reporter $10,000, roughly enough to cover legal bills. The CNET reporters have been banned from covering HP or its see-no-evil CEO, who BTW was rewarded with $20.33M in 2006 despite skipping his reading assignments."

Comments

DONT CALL IT PRETEXTING!

[Vegeta99]

Christ. Is it that hard to say "fraudulent, lying investigators" instead of buying into their bullshit and using that weasel word "pretexting"?

Cripes!

[rbochan]

I really wish people would stop with all this "pretexting" bullshit. Call it what it is:
Fraud.

Re:Cripes!

[Rob T Firefly]

I thought pretexting was a subcategory of fraud anyway. This old chestnut always sounds to me like "enough of this 'beef' bullshit, call it 'meat!'"

Re:Cripes!

[honkycat]

It is, but it sounds much more sanitary and pleasant, almost as though it's a legitimate business method. Fraud is plain, simple, and clear about the illegal nature of the activity it describes. Being specific with language is great, but in this case, I think it masks the meaning for people who are not familiar with the term.

$10,000?!?!?

[elrous0]

If they couldn't offer more than that, they shouldn't have offered anything at all. That's actually very insulting. If the reporters were THINKING about suing before, such a pathetic offer certainly sealed the deal.

Re:$10,000?!?!?

[Buran]

"I think the reporters are probably looking to cash in while they can."

I disagree. I think they're fairly expecting to be compensated for the embarrassment and offense and dirtiness they must feel for being treated like criminals for just doing their jobs. And I'd certainly expect to be handsomely compensated by a huge corporation that can certainly afford to pay the money when that corporation decided it could just ignore the law and violate my privacy.

Am I a greedy bitch? No, I don't think so. I think that doing something ethically, legally, and morally wrong is, well, wrong. If you do something wrong, you should put it right. HP pretended it had done nothing wrong, then it offered a pittance that told the reporters exactly how little HP thought of them and exactly how HP thought it had done nothing wrong. If you do something wrong and can't step up and say "We screwed up" and do it right (and apologies are worth nothing these days, just like "going into rehab" is a joke now) then you should be forced to make it right.

HP did this to itself and it failed to put it right on its own so now HP has to pay.

RICO charges?

[RagnarokGod]

is this not an occasion where RICO charges could be laid - calling from Canad so I am not necessarily familiar with the US laws and legal system, but some knowledgable /. er should be able to jump in here with a reasonably edumakated guess as to whether or not RICO could or should be brought into play here ... we've all been around the block, and we all nudge nudge wink wink know how things are, but corporations MUST be brought to heel, as well as politicians from time to time ... as well as law enforcemen agencies ... we the people have a duty and obligation to ourselves and our public servants "keep them honest", and have them keep honest our corprations who live behind a shroud and veil ... of obscurity and private enterprise ...

Re:Feels strange

[multisync]

let's see: one bunch of people who invade people's privacy for money suing another bunch of people who invaded that first bunch of people's privacy for money for money.

I'm sure if you put a little effort in to it you could recognize the difference between reporting on the activities of the board of directors of a publicly traded company vs. calling a business claiming to be someone you are not for the purpose of extracting information you are not legally entitled to possess from that business.

Hint: one of those activities is illegal.