Slashdot Mirror
Rich Pretexter, Poor Pretexter
theodp writes "David Kernell used pretexting to gain access to Sarah Palin's e-mail. And now Kernell faces the possibility of a 20-year prison sentence. HP used pretexting to gain access to its Board's phone records. And now HP faces the possibility of supplying phones to the very companies that were victimized in the HP pretexting scandal. So perhaps Kernell should try coughing up $14.5 million to see if that'll make his pretexting problems disappear. Seems to have worked for HP!"
One important component you left out: the greater ability of corporations to influence government -- Disney, Halliburton, GlaxoSmithKline, etc. Other, more "polite", keywords to Google: rent seeking and Public Choice Theory.
If she pretexts to find out whether there's a leak on her board, she's now acting as a corporate officer, and thus the company is liable, not Carly, unless the prosecutor or plaintiff can convince a judge to pierce the corporate veil.
This is just flat out wrong. There is no concept of "piercing the corporate" veil with respect to criminal prosecution. Veil-piercing is a product of civil law. Moreover, it is very common for corporate officers to face criminal prosecution for acts committed to further the corporate interest.
To convict a person of a crime, one must generally prove an illegal act committed with the proper state of mind (called mens rea, and in financial crimes this generally means intent to commit the ac). In many corporate scenarios, the mental state does not exist in a single person - it is spread out across many people - and is therefore very hard to prove. In some cases, this spreading out of responsibility is such that no single person ever had the necessary mental state necessary to support a conviction. Corporate prosecution is a way to punish such acts without abrogating our general principle that we don't punish people who didn't commit a crime. It is in addition to prosecution of persons, not instead of, and thus means that more crimes can be punished under our corporate laws than could be if those laws did not exist.
In sum, if a person commits a crime, the legal requirements for prosecution are the same whether committed to further a private or corporate interest.
As a side matter, Fiorina was not at HP when the investigation happened. Link. More importantly, there was little or no evidence that the chair at the time new about the pretexting before it took place. They hired a private investigator who engaged in pretexting. Although this is legally enough to warrant civil liability, it is not sufficient to support criminal liability.
Google the legal doctrine of "respondeat superior". It will be enlightening.
You managed to avoid the truly major difference in this case; The 20 year sentence is for felony obstruction of justice. The actual hacking of the e-mail account was only filed as a misdemeanor, and has a maximum sentence of 1 year.