Slashdot Log In
Boardroom Spying Debacle at HP
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:34 PM
from the corporate-mafia dept.
from the corporate-mafia dept.
theodp writes "As word spread that HP was dumping Board member George Keyworth for press leaks, Newsweek broke the bigger story: HP Chairwoman Patricia Dunn was so obsessed with finding the leaker that she authorized a team of independent electronic-security experts to spy on the phone records of calls made from HP Directors' home and private cell phones. Not only that, phone records were obtained via pretexting, the controversial practice of obtaining information under false pretenses. After Dunn laid out the surveillance scheme for the Board last May, HP Director Tom Perkins quit on the spot, characterizing Dunn's actions as illegal and unethical. HP is also coming under fire for playing dumb to the SEC about the reasons behind Perkins' resignation. Perkins, who helped launch HP's computer division in the 60's, has asked the FTC, FCC and the Justice Department to investigate."
Related Stories
[+]
HP's Dunn as Newsweek Cover Girl 198 comments
theodp writes "In The Boss Who Spied on Her Board, Newsweek likens HP Chairwoman Pattie Dunn's attempts to escape culpability with her I-knew-nothing defense to both a head of state, who wants 'plausible deniability' while ordering an assassination plot, and to Henry II, who had the Archbishop of Canterbury removed by simply muttering 'Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?' in front of his knights."
[+]
The Culture of Evasion 122 comments
theodp writes "In the wake of Patricia Dunn's resignation, Wired's Fred Vogelstein walked away less than impressed with HP CEO's Mark Hurd's spying mea culpa. He says it smacked more of standard corporate ass covering than leadership, especially coming 3 weeks after the scandal broke. His sentiments are echoed in Computerworld's Culture of Evasion, which was written before Hurd mounted an I-knew-nothing-defense. Hurd claims that he bailed out on a meeting that approved the spying, neglected to read the spying report directed to him, and was clueless about the tracer technology employed in the reporter-baiting false e-mail he personally gave thumbs-up to."
[+]
Entertainment: HOWTO Commit Corporate Espionage 97 comments
bart_scriv writes "Worried about who might be spying at your company? Businessweek looks at the latest in espionage gadgets and technology in response to the recent HP boardroom scandal. The article looks at devices designed for counter-espionage, which range from mundane confidential email services to sophisticated camera and listening-device detectors. '...for every method of spying, there's a counteroffensive. One of them is the eavesdropping protection kit, manufactured by Dynasound in Norcross, Ga. To secure a room in an office building, devices are placed on ceiling plenums, floors, HVAC ducts, doors, walls or windows — basically anywhere voices can travel.'"
[+]
H-P's Dunn Enters No Plea, Charges Dismissed 156 comments
GogglesPisano writes "CNN earlier reported that former HP chairwoman Patricia Dunn would plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of fraudulent wire communications stemming from her involvement in last year's corporate eavesdropping scandal. The story was later amended after charges again st Dunn were dropped. The original charges, four felony counts, were reduced to misdemeanors in exchange for a plea bargain. Her three co-defendants are expected to receive 96 hours of community service; in Dunn's case this sentence is likely to be waived due to illness." Update: 03/15 02:21 GMT by KD : The prosecutor in the case issued a correction to the eariler pronouncement that Dunn would plead guilty to a misdemeanor. "At court today, Patricia Dunn did not enter any plea in response to the misdemeanor count, and the court exercised its discretion by dismissing the case against her," the revised statement said.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
An example (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:An example (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're confusing "leader of our country" with every P.I. and divorce lawyer that's been practicing in the US since the turn of the last century. A powerful, private person with some axe to grind or a nasty leak to stop doesn't, and hasn't, needed any inspiration from any sitting president to pay some private spook team to find out what's happening. Doesn't make it all tasty and pleasant, but it also doesn't make a it a good fit for your partisan rantette.
Parent
Re:An example (Score:5, Funny)
Wow. I know that eventally, all Slashdot threads wind up in a Bush-bash. But this is the first case I've seen that goes straight there! (That is, without Bush or the government being the subject of the story.)
Parent
Re:An example (Score:5, Insightful)
Because doing that gets you labeled as an appeaser and a traitor, which gets old and boring pretty fucking quick. Much more fun (for everyone!) to call him a goat-licking fuckhead.
you just turn him into a martyr
Stop teasing me.
Parent
Re:An example (Score:5, Funny)
You sent him a pizza? I want one!
Parent
Re:An example (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, as an ex-military, ex-Republican (since 2003, yes I voted for the retard in 2000) guy I'm here to tell ya: Bush is a fuckup. You can spin it anyway you want, but you do not use the NSA to spy on US citizens. You do not intercept domestic phone calls without warrants. He's set a nice example for everybody there. To hell with privacy and the law. There's your tie-in.
And I just can't resist even though it's non-sequitur: You don't start wars on questionable intelligence.
You Bush apologists crack me up. A damned blowjob does not equal a half trillion dollar war. Don't even get me started on "I didn't inhale" as opposed to the lack of response to the cocaine accusation.
The man is an asshole, as are Rumsfeld and Ashcroft. And guess what? The Republican party as a whole (including the Republican "centrists" of which I once counted myself) are going to pay over the next election or two.
Martyr? Maybe in the eyes of the Pat Robertson double-digit IQ brigade, but anybody with a moderate level of critical reasoning ability is going to see him as one of the worst presidents in this country's history.
Parent
Re:An example (Score:4, Insightful)
We forgive you. Maybe if he had been elected we could blame you, but he wasn't, so we can't.
Those are exactly the uneducated, unable to think for themselves, repressed people who DO think that a blowjob is worse than our children dying in Iraq for a lie.
Unfortunately, there don't seem to be enough of us left anymore. Certainly not enough to make the needed difference. Only with hindsight will history be able to judge GWB, and the verdict will not be favorable.
Cool links. [blogspot.com]
Parent
Re:An example (Score:5, Insightful)
To me it looks even worse. It seems that the Bush government knew the intelligence was spotty but massaged the data to justify the war anyway. Maybe not Bush himself, he may be clueless enough that it was done behind his back.
But I think there are some people in the current administration who deserve to be hanged.
Parent
Re:An example (Score:5, Interesting)
Well my mother had a long talk with a member of the whitehouse transition team back in 2000. And I remember the guy she spoke too complained about how they were obsessed with Iraq even back then. If you look at how they are a bunch of energy company old hands, and you look at how when Saddam rose to power he nationalized a bunch of oil holding you can start to see the big picture.
The transition team fellow also complained that the admisistration was the most paranoid group of people that he had ever had to work with. Everyone was in CYA (cover your ass) mode constantly.
Also on the backstabbing nature of the insiders I can attest that my mother and her boss were repeatedly called before congressional inquires on spurious matters mainly focused around the fact that the government agency they worked for advocated condom use. (She worked at the center for disease control) Her boss was a nobel prize winner for medacine who eventually stepped down due to the constant interuptions of his work and the hassling of his family and friends. (They were also called to these spurrious inquiry session)
It is not that Bush is corrupt, but that a single group has siezed power and allow no dissent nor debate. There is only an emperor and his minions all follow in lockstep.
Parent
Re:An example (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, then, how do you think the:
has affected impressions of what is and is not acceptable behavior in the boardrooms of America? Who outside the administration is responsible for those things happening?
The real problem is that so many deeply disturbing things are happening at once that it's becoming impossible to keep track.
Parent
Re:An example (Score:5, Insightful)
While that's true - you can't blame it directly on Bush, there is a huge network of rightwing thinktanks and pundits; Club for Growth, Focus on the Family, Heritage Foundation, Aspen Group, CATO, etc. etc. ad nauseum, who dominate the newsmedia op ed and commentary pages and shows, and to them, Bush is their hero, their figurehead, their demigod. They mindlessly push their ideology using trumped up "facts" and faked "studies", vitriol and personal attacks on various figures on the "left", they re-define terms, present false dillemas, strawmen, and every logical fallacy known to man (and I think they've even invented a few the Greeks didn't know about).
Bush is currently the de facto figurehead of this movement.
This movement's ideology fits perfectly with the actions of HP's board in this "stupid corporate scandal": The ideology that people should only have privacy if they aren't using it. The idea that corporate profits are more important than the rights of individuals. The ideology that the wealthy and powerful are above the law, and are the only people that matter.
No - Bush didn't make these people act this way. This ideology has been around for a very long time, and its recent resurgence in America does pre-date Bush's rise to prominence (whether you call it from Nixon, or Reagan's election, or the congressional takeover in 1994), I think it's entirely appropriate and accurate to "blame this on Bush". If not Bush - then at least the blame lies in "the horse he rode in on."
Parent
Re:An example (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a stupid statement. The NSA wiretapping was wrong and Bush should probably be impeached for breaking the law, but this has NOTHING to do with the scandal at HP, no matter how many paragraphs you write to try to justify it.
Parent
Re:An example (Score:5, Insightful)
No one said it was Bush's fault and it is a sign either of your immaturity or your overdefensiveness (or both) that you would suggest that they did. Immaturity for putting words in people's mouths that they never intended; overdefensiveness because you feel compelled to defend him against an accusation that was never made.
Judging by a straight, literal read of the news coverage, I could see that Bush was being blamed for not doing enough to help, especially minorities, which provably, statistically, received less help.
Uh, how do you know? Are you privileged to know what goes on inside the white house? What's going on inside the councils of people who are in a much greater position of power than yuo are? Somehow, I doubt it.
Powell is highly connected with big oil and in my book he's precisely the same as any of the other assholes who've worked in that building under shrub.
This is an attack on his policy, but your apparent unfamiliarity with the English language must be inhibiting your interpretation. See, the President's job is ultimately pretty meaningless, he could be replaced with a very small shell script. Especially this one; all he'd have to do is make a bunch of unauthorized accesses. All kidding aside, however, I thought it was a pretty clear indictment against Bush's tendency to ignore privacy rights. It might have been kind of a cheap shot... but I don't feel too charitable to someone who seems to be intent on dismantling all of our freedoms as he comes across them.
Name one good thing that this administration is doing for any reason other than supporting something bad they're doing, please.
Parent
Pre-Texting at a Bank (Score:4, Interesting)
I work at a bank, and we have to take yearly courses on Pre-Text calling, because it's such as issue here.
also here [msn.com] is printer unfriendly with the annoying javascript popup
How did she do that? (Score:4, Insightful)
-d
Re:How did she do that? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Which *MAY* be illegal. (Score:5, Informative)
In California, where HP is headquartered, it is a crime to obtain labor through "fraudulent representation or pretense" is guilty just as if they had stolen services with similar value (California Penal Code 532). By representing themselves as the customers of the phone company whose records were requested, they obtained the labor of customer service staff under false pretense.
It is likewise criminal, in California, to willfully obtain "personal identifying information" (including, among many other thingsother things, name, address, telephone number, place of employment, or social security number) of another and then use that information for any unlawful purpose, including "to obtain, or attempt to obtain, credit, goods, services, or medical information" (Penal Code 530.5, emphasis added), without the consent of the person whose information was used. Here, they used several pieces of personal information concerning the directors targetted to obtain services from people with whom those directors did business, and did so without the directors consent.
So to say there is no law which makes it illegal to use someone else's personal information to enable yourself to impersonate that person to get someone to give you information is, well, not exactly true, even outside of banking information.
Parent
Re:How did she do that? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm no lawyer, but I'm relatively sure the law requires notification whenever a person's reasonable expectation of privacy is to be infringed upon. A telephone call is one of those reasonable expectations. As is sitting on the toilet. I don't know if there's a legal precedent for email, but I do know that you usually sign an agreement stating that the corporation can watch anything/everything you do using their workstations, telephones, email servers, etc, etc. Without it, I would imagine the person being watched would have a fairly good case in court. They may not win, but then again, they may very well win, and pocket a lot of the company's cash in the process.
Parent
Employer agreements (Score:4, Informative)
Keep in mind though, that response is more relevant in the context of an employer-employee relationship. Board of Directors are not "necessarily" employees of the company. Their election by the shareholders binds them to the company, what the company can do with them is limited, and I certainly would think the company could not dictate an agreement to them to do X or Y. The Directors have an obligation to the shareholders, not to the "company."
Parent
Re:How did she do that? (Score:5, Interesting)
(Standard IANAL disclaimer here.)
So, as long as you're in a company bathroom, we can video tape everything you do? After all, it's company property.
Well, bad example (I'll mention why in a minute), but the answer to the spirit of the question is: Yeah, probably.
You may or may not have any right to privacy at work. Most Americans see a definite right to privacy in the Constitution, but they fail to understand that the Constitution is meant as a limit on the power of the government. Specifically, it was meant as a limit on the power of the federal government; not until the Fourteenth Amendment did the US Constitution come to apply to the states as well. If it was a police officer who set up the cameras in the bathroom with no cause, it would almost certainly be illegal.
That said, I believe most case law thus far has come down on the side of "while you're on company property, they can do whatever they want to you." Including, in some cases, opening up your drawers and rifling through your papers; reading your emails; etc. No, they can't watch you in the bathroom--but not as a privacy issue; they couldn't do that because it may very well violate other laws, such as voyeurism. Telephone calls may also be safe, but again, not because of your right to privacy: Depending on the state, it may simply violate wiretap laws.
Some decisions have begun to come down saying that employees do have some expectation of privacy at their places of employment, and I expect that to be the general trend. That said, I believe it's still in the minority. Your employer still has a tremendous latitude in determine how much privacy to give their employees and when it might be time to violate that.
More to the point of the case, however, it appears that they did not actually tap anybody's phone. Rather, they looked at phone records. You can bet that it is perfectly within a company's rights, at least at present, to pull the phone records of any employee for any service the company pays for. If they truly did trick the employees' phone companies into releasing their own personal phone records, then that sounds to be entirely illegal.
So, like I said, the spirit of your initial question seems to be yes: Employers can watch an awful lot of what you do so long as they are not violating any specific laws while they do it. It's the difference between violating a law and violating a right: It does not seem to be the rule (yet) that companies have any obligations to extend you any rights not backed up by law.
Parent
just to put things in perspective... (Score:5, Informative)
This is pretty dramatic.
Smoking Gun (Score:5, Informative)
Dunn should be Done (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, it's pathetic how easy it was for these investigators to get personal phone records on these accounts. You'd think there would be some standards in place, such as only sending the information to addresses already tied to the account, or something. I'm no security expert, but this looks pretty shoddy.
Re:Dunn should be Done (Score:5, Insightful)
But once she had her proof, why not confront that director personally, rather than pull a stunt like this in front of the full board?
Probably because she wanted the full board to witness the ease and efficiency with which her henchmen had tracked down the wrongdoer, to point out to them the futility of opposing her rule. In her mind, after such a brazen display of power, no one would ever dare to leak again! Unless maybe they had a prostate problem.
Parent
Doubleplusgood! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doubleplusgood! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Doubleplusgood! (Score:4, Interesting)
folks that gave up the information were idiots. We might even say what a great
guy the young geek was for pointing out the flaws in a company's security system.
Both are lying.
Parent
I don't care... much. (Score:4, Interesting)
So why care on their behalf? These walking lobotomies need to stand up for themselves.
Re:I don't care... much. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I don't care... much. (Score:5, Insightful)
I just think these dumb idiots bent over and let her screw them. And when they found out how much they had been violated, they apparently just stayed hunched over, waiting for more. It's pathetic.
Parent
Trust in the boardroom (Score:5, Insightful)
"The situation is regrettable," Ms. Dunn said in a statement provided to the Wall Street Journal. "But the bottom line is that the board has asserted its commitment to upholding the standards of confidentiality that are critical to its functioning. A board can't serve effectively if there isn't complete trust that what gets discussed stays in the room."
Can the board serve effectively if there isn't complete trust or confidentiality anyway? If the CEO is spying on you at any or at all times?
Re:Trust in the boardroom (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
BBC Says CA AG will investigate (Score:4, Informative)
'Pretext'? (Score:5, Funny)
If you have to think up a euphemism for what you're doing, it's probably wrong.
Unless it's funny, like 'bumping uglies' or 'dropping the kids off at the pool'
Who wants to be a HP customer now? (Score:5, Interesting)
If they were looking at company issued phones, computers, or other equiptment I would say that is fair game. When they pretend they are you and get information from services providers where you pay the bill they have crossed the line. I was shopping for a new laptop and HP is now out of contention.
The only way this can be corrected is if HP cans Patricia Dunn ASAP. Tom Perkins should be running HP. He actually has a moral compass and stands by what he thinks is right.
The only bright spot of this situation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Used to work for Pattie Dunn - what a change (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Used to work for Pattie Dunn - what a change (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
This is symptomatic.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that there aren't established procedures and rules (and laws) of how to monitor employees (even board members). It's that this Ms. Dunn can't be bothered to look it up. Or even ask human resources. Making stuff up as you go along is what passes for "innovative", "bold", "leadership.
She's cut from the same jib as, say, those Enron guys. These are people who see life as a game, and yes, they're winning, if you keep score the way they do. Morally, as human beings, they're of course pieces of shit.
It's not surprising the rest of the board members stayed on board. They're used to treating people like children, and they've not fully grown up themselves, so this sort of irresponsible prank seems logical to them. They're the business equivalents of Bill O'Reilly - great ratings, but ultimately they're just spewing hot air, and their oversimplified black-and-white world is so disconnected from the real world, they wouldn't know it if it bit them in the ass.
But there you have it. Apparently the Chairwoman at HP is willing to go to great, and illegal lengths, to run the company. Will the shareholders say "hey, wait, maybe having someone at the top who's willing to commit felonies isn't such a great idea"? Only time will tell..
They didn't get mine (Score:5, Interesting)
The sad part is, they will probably get away with all of this. The sadder part is they are looking in the wrong place. As a member of that nebulous group know as 'the press', I can say that people speak out and leak when things are going badly, wrong, and management has their heads stuck up their collective asses. Rather than fixing the problem, they assign blame.
In any case, I should drop my guys a line and have a laugh.
-Charlie
Not at all (Score:5, Interesting)
Not at all. They know who I am, and if they had a shred of evidence that I did anything wrong, they would have sued me long ago. I post everything with my name attached, and with my email on it where applicable. I tried calling HP and talking to them several times, but they did not return my calls. I did leave all my contact info, and have done so numerous times at trade shows. If you don't do anything illegal, you don't have to hide behind anonymity.
That said, I did not do anything wrong, have never signed an NDA with HP, or agreed to anything of the sort. On top of that I scrub my emails religiously and regularly so if they send me paperwork, they will get nothing because I have nothing. That said, I have looked for the names of the people I wanted to talk to, and I don't have them any more. Sad, a quote on the Inq now would have been quite topical. Scrubbing mail is a double edged sword.
Either way, I am not worried at all, what are they going to do call up my ISP and pretend they are me to get my records? That would be flat out illegal, and they would never do such a thing.
-Charlie
Parent
Re:They didn't get mine (Score:5, Informative)
HP has a fundamental problem. The leakers are the symptom, and their inability to catch any significant number of leakers is evidence that the problem is truly endemic and well known by the employees. It's like catching insurgents -- to do it, you need intelligence, and to get intelligence you need cooperation. If the insurgents have grass roots support, you won't get that cooperation, and you're doomed.
Parent
Two wrongs make a Right? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, she is easily indictable and her imprisonment will serve as a fine example for others of her ilk who doubtless think likewise.
Let's hear it for Perkins (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a counter to the examples we so often see of businessmen doing the wrong thing. You don't often hear about people in business doing the right thing, because that seldom makes a juicy story. In business, you have to make ethical decisions all the time. It's nice to see a news story that sheds some light on one of those decisions properly decided.
Re:I don't see why anyone would mind (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, who's the first to volunteer for random house checks?
Parent
It probably won't make any difference. Here's why (Score:5, Interesting)
The world today, at least the western world (though I wouldn't be surprised if other parts too) has a very different minority that's disproportionately represented at the top: the sociopaths. It's not even much of a surprise. In a society and culture where we expect -- and indeed _demand_ -- sociopathic behaviour from corporations and politicians, the ones that make it to the top are those who can promise just that: to behave like a sociopath, and take decisions without letting emotions or empathy get in the way. And there are reasons too, such as their being natural actors and having no loyalty except to themselves. So they can put up an outstanding show for the boss and get a promotion, while you're busy doing actual work.
The thing is, what they do has no resemblance with what Joe Average and Jane Housewife does. Only about 1% of the population scores clean over 30 on an APD (Antisocial Personality Disorder = sociopathy/psychopathy) test. We're talking the creme de la creme, the elite among the elite. (To put it into perspective, the average Joe or Jane have maybe 1 confirmed trait or spurious minor manifestations of 2-3, and even those are often just bad habits or benign when they're not accompanied by others.) They're people who are actually more anti-social (in the medical sense) than the hardened criminals in a prison (who tend to average somewhere in the 20's), yet are smart enough to not end up in prison. You can't really look at what a sociopath does and extrapolate it at what the average man or woman would do, nor viceversa.
They're not only a minority, but they don't even function mentally in the same way as you do. Even if a lot of common people do get caught in an admiration of sociopaths and their methods, in practice they couldn't do the same things. They're just not wired the same way.
I.e., what I'm saying is that you can't look at this case and think she's representative for women as a whole. And conversely, those who think that "having women in power would make for a kinder, gentler world" make the wrong extrapolation in the other direction. They look at some of the average women around them and think, basically, "hey, I bet if she was a CEO/Chairman/President/whatever, it would be a nicer world." Well, maybe it even would, except it won't those who end up in position of power.
Just changing the genre stereotype won't make the world any better, as long as the same kind people are left to run the show. What can change the world is (A) recognizing these people for what they are, and (B) having enough checks and safeguards so they can't run amok and cause major damage.
Parent
Re:And this is why (Score:5, Funny)
having women in power won't necessarily make for a kinder, gentler world.
That's because it's a certain personality type that goes after power, and that type is gender neutral.
Also, if women ran the world, the Earth would be a bombed out nuclear ruin after the first full moon.
Oh, I'm gonna get modded down...
Parent
Re:And this is why (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:And this is why (Score:5, Insightful)
This has proven not to be the case, as evidenced by the behavior of various corporate and political women in power. While true that the Cynthia McKinney's and Carly Fiorina's of the world are not the rule, they do lead to questions of whether women are so fundamentally different after all.
Is Hillary Clinton somehow better than the other senators simply because she is a woman? Is she exempt from being accused of being an opportunistic carpetbagger, merely because she has a set of tits? That is what some would have us believe.
If I can call Sen. Stevens a bastard, I can call Sen. Clinton a bitch.
Parent
Re:Yes and no (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that corporations are essentially immortal sociopaths, I think their structures *select* for sociopaths or people who are comfortable being in a sociopathic structure.
Only "young" corporations do not show these traits.
It is possible to be honest/noble but you won't get campaign contributions from the corporations (so you must be in line with a sociopathic agenda to get funding). The lust for power is very corrupting- even of people who start out good. A lot of idealistic republicans broke their word over term limits because they came to think they were more important than they really were.
Parent