Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
HP Businesses Privacy The Internet Your Rights Online

HP CEO's Browsing History Used Against Him 230

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the privacy-mode-ftw dept.
theodp writes "Anything you browse can and will be used against you. An investigation of ousted HP CEO Mark Hurd's surfing history reportedly convinced the HP Board that Hurd had had a personal relationship with sexual harassment accuser Jodie Fisher, even if not sexual. Just the latest example of how HP 'work[s] together to create a culture of inclusion built on trust, respect and dignity for all.' The WSJ reported a person close to the investigation said Hurd had looked at clips from racy films featuring Ms. Fisher, a former actress, while someone 'familiar with Mr. Hurd's thinking' said he merely did a Google search of 10 minutes or so. One wonders how many more 'personal relationships' with Ms. Fisher the browser histories of HP's 304,000 worldwide employees might reveal. BTW, nice to see that Hurd has made it to HP's ex-CEO-Hall-of-Fame page."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HP CEO's Browsing History Used Against Him

Comments Filter:
  • by Pojut (1027544) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @08:00AM (#33274640) Homepage

    bangedup.com

    cracked.com

    www.yzzerdd.com

    naughtyceoassistants.com

    google search: how to sexually harrass someone and not get caught

  • HA HA (Score:4, Funny)

    by JamesP (688957) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @08:01AM (#33274650)

    Next time be really nice to IT

    Or request your own internet connection, not going through proxies or anything

    But better still, don't be a moron and look at anything NSFW (at least not intentionally) while at work

    Funny story, my last company's proxy would prevent us from apt-get upgrade. Why? libsexy /o\

    • Re:HA HA (Score:4, Insightful)

      by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @08:05AM (#33274704)

      But better still, don't be a moron and look at anything NSFW (at least not intentionally) while at work

      Honestly, I wonder about people who do such things. Not just at work, but also in public places. I was on Amtrak once, and I sat next to someone who had a pornographic picture as his desktop background. In plain sight, on a train filled with other people, and no attempt was made to hide it.

      I have no problem with porn, or looking for "racy" clips of your former-actress-coworker, but I would think that people would want to be a bit more private about these sorts of things. Surely the CEO of HP has a home where he can privately look at whatever he wants.

      • Re:HA HA (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @08:15AM (#33274796)
        Maybe he doesn't see anything wrong with it and doesn't care about your opinion?
      • by Rolgar (556636)

        I don't get the idiots that would use the traceable network to get their porn. I don't think there are too many companies that track data accessed from the optical drive (4 GB) or an SD card reader (64 GB), or screen capture software to view what employees are working on. These people could easily carry the data to their machine by hand, access in a form that probably isn't tracked, keep it on their person to prevent it accidentally being discovered, and as long as they are discrete about making sure nobody

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Your workplace typically has far, far more bandwidth than your home, and a decent proxy server, and often has better computer screens and video cards than people who pay for home hardware can afford. That can provide a much better porn experience. And many porn sites do not easily support downloading the content, prefering to stream it live: technically sophisticated users can usually save it, but that's often considerable extra work.

          I've actually gotten censured for having porn on the screen, even though i

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            This guy is the CEO of a gigantic multinational corporation. FY 2009, he apparently took home 24million and change. I'm guessing that he could have afforded a nice laptop and a decent cellular broadband connection....
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            >>>Not only be innocent, but be able to prove it if you do anything that can be misinterpreted.

            That's assuming they give you a chance. In my experience most managers fire the employee (or contractor) and have him escorted out of the building without any opportunity to access the logs on their computer (and thereby prove innocence). You are tried, judged, and presumed guilty automatically.

          • Strange, it's been my experience that work hardware is exactly the opposite. And while the work place *may* have a better connection than you do at home ( not a guarantee in the age of Verizon FIOS and cable speeds ), their proxy usually ruins the experience entirely, by it's very nature.

            The home computer experience is often much better than work, and you have the benefit of not getting in trouble for indulging in your albino midget fantasies.

          • My home network can do 100Kb/s up, which is plenty fast for tiny proxy.

            I also have a $4.99/month VPS that is on a very fast line that I run ssh -D and tiny proxy on.

          • by Bert64 (520050)

            Depends where you work.. HP i'm sure has a lot more bandwidth than anyone does at home, and being high enough in the company Hurd probably has whatever their latest and highest end workstation is... On the other hand, he earned enough and was the CEO of a huge technology company so most likely he had a similar workstation at home plus all the bandwidth he'd need...

            Other people who are lower down in such companies however, tend to have much older or lower end equipment...

            And most companies that aren't huge l

      • Our society is moving inexorably toward greater acceptance of sexuality in the public square. Thankfully. There is no good reason to get all upset about some skin and thrusting. Porn consumption is acting as a catalyst toward a natural acceptance of sexuality as a positive thing rather than some shameful thing that needs to be hidden at all costs. I think most of urban gen Y and younger are just waiting until they're in the majority and then it will be time for Sexual Revolution Part Deux: Electric Boogaloo
      • How does your morals matter?

        How is someone looking at NSFW content worse than someone reading /. ? Does it somehow mean that the person is working even less because it's also amoral to you?
        Maybe ./ is not so bad because to many of us it can be work related at least a little. But my argument still stands. Either you are allowed to browse the 'net for non-strictly work content or not, content should not matter.

        • I'm pretty sure the folks in IT will have seen any /. content ... and probably the porn too ... by the time you get caught doing this at work. At least you'll have something in common to talk about while trying to come up with a lame "I thought I was going to see a golf video" lie ;-)
        • by nedlohs (1335013) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @10:51AM (#33276612)

          Because non-sociopaths actually consider other people occasionaly.

          The chances of someone being offended by seeing slashdot on your computer screen is pretty small, small enough to take the chance. And society as a whole would consider them to be the problem if they are offended.

          The chances of someone being offended by seeing pornography on your computer screen is a bit larger, large enough to try and avoid the situation. And society as a whole would consider you to be the problem when someone is offended.

          In the workplace there's the added joys of getting sued for sexual harassment because of the "hostile environment" created by having pornography on your screen for all your fellow workers to see.

          Sure if your screen is completely private that isn't a problem though I'm sure that fact that someone shouldn't have been on that side of the desk in your office isn't going to save you from losing a sexual harrassment case. And if someone does find out about it they risk having any sexual harrassment liabilities be for the entire company and not just you if they don't try and do something about it.

          Slacking off for a minute or 10 isn't something most companies care that much about (particularly amongst salaried productive staff - an assembly line worker is a different situation), putting the company at risk in a multi-million dollar sexual harassment lawsuit and even more damage in public image is something most companies care about.

          There are reasons the label is NSFW.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Ah, I see. Morality is what the majority says it is. A great way to justify slavery and chauvinism, just walk back the timeline a bit until you get the moral majority agree with.

            Sexual harassment unfortunately has succumbed to the 'I have a right not to be offended' school of thought(crime). There are most certainly legitimate cases of sexual harassment, but I think that the first test of legitimacy needs to be direction/intent. Is the act directed a person? No? Well then it had better be a pretty egregi
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by nedlohs (1335013)

              It's got nothing to do with morality.

              It's got to with legality and not wanting to offend people unecessarily. For sociopaths and assholes the first should matter, for the rest of us the second does.

              I don't yell loudly on the train. I turn my phone ringer off at the cinema. I don't talk on my phone in the cinema. I leave the table to answer my phone at a group meal. I turn the television volume down when other people are sleeping in the house. And I don't look at pornography at work. These are all the same c

      • by Shotgun (30919)

        Surely the CEO of HP has a home where he can privately look at whatever he wants.

        That home is also where he most likely keeps his wife who can make his life hell, or take half his shit when she leaves.

        Work is much safer.

        • by SQLGuru (980662)

          My wife fully supports my "habits," as I do hers.....if his wife doesn't like it, then I'd argue he married the wrong woman.

          • If he needs to look at porn, I'd argue he'd married the wrong woman :P

            • And I'd argue that while the candy may very well come in a million different wrappers, it's still the same old candy underneath. : )

              I'm not sure what my post is advocating, so I'll leave that for the readers moral guidance unit to interpret.

      • Re:HA HA (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bmajik (96670) <matt@mattevans.org> on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @01:23PM (#33278818) Homepage Journal

        The other day i was sitting at a stop light, and i looked over at the pickup next to me, and hanging from the rear-view mirror was a picture of a naked woman with enormous breasts.

        And i thought "hrm.. wonder what the guy who drives this truck looks like?"

        And i noticed a man driving, and a woman sitting in the passenger seat, i.e., a couple.

        My thoughts wondered about the dynamics of that situation. Was that a woman who lived in an oppressive relationship, where her sense of self, and her idea of self-worth, and her opinion, were all suppressed? Was she desperately looking for a way out? Was this the best she could do?

        Or, did she just not care about such things at all? Has she gotten over the fact that men are visual animals with a natural lust for the physical form? Does she simply accept him at his nature, and realize that it isn't a reflection of her or what he thinks of her?

        I would wager that 80% of the over-the-road trucks in the USA have a 2D naked woman somewhere in the cab. It's as much of being a trucker as the CB radio.

        For some reason, its more acceptable in a trucker cab, because that is "more private" than the glass box of a pickup cab, and that is "more private" than a laptop screen (to some people).

        But modern work/life dynamics (and trucking regulation -- thanks DOT) are such that the trucker is in his office less than the information worker is in his (i.e. their computer screen is on...)

        But i also think there is a just-below-the-water insidiousness in these judgements. I see a naked woman in a pickup, and i shift my gaze to see what the person _looks like_ who's driving the truck. I have some kind of inbuilt bias about what kind of person lets me see that they have naked pictures.

        I expect most slashdotters are like this -- we've been tought that naked pictures is something to "get caught with", and that someone who might display them publicly has something wrong with them, and as such, when we see them in public life, we wonder what kind of wrong-person is responsible.

        There is this idea that truckers can have naked pictures in their offices, and that CEOs can't.

        Why are CEOs held to a higher "moral" or "ethical" standard than truckers? Aren't both of them just people?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by dov_0 (1438253)
      Sounds like Simon [ntk.net] didn't like him.
    • by corbettw (214229)

      Step 1) Buy a 3G USB dongle.
      Step 2) Disconnect your ethernet cable, insert dongle.
      Step 3) Surf porn without risking your career.

      Is that really that freakin' hard for the CEO of a major computer manufacturer to figure out???

      • by JamesP (688957)

        Is that really that freakin' hard for the CEO of a major computer manufacturer to figure out???

        I've worked at a computer company. Making middle-managers understand the concept of pressing Fn + F2 together (it was a laptop) required a Powerpoint presentation (I WISH I was kidding)

        So don't even get me started on the 3G thing. But still, he could have asked someone to do it for him

    • On that note, a rich guy like him couldn't afford an independent cell modem? I have one.

      OTH, he probably felt he was doing nothing wrong until he got caught.

      I suspect there is a lot more under non-disclosure agreements than came out== that and a 40 mil paycheck if he didn't fight it.

      • Re:HA HA (Score:5, Insightful)

        by h4rm0ny (722443) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @11:19AM (#33277014) Journal

        OTH, he probably felt he was doing nothing wrong until he got caught.

        When you're working at that level (CEO at a company as big as that), then your work and personal time tend to blur. In fact, ignore "tend to" you lose all separation. People call you up with work problems all the time, you're never disconnected from your email, you spend so much time with your PA that they're as much family member as colleague. And don't even mention the travelling. So you're hardly likely to carry two laptops everywhere you go or swap from one to the other constantly.

        It's easy for people here to say "shouldn't have done this through work account" but in reality it's not so simple. And the argument of misusing the company's resources is valid, but the salary and expenses (legitimate expenses) of someone in that position are so high that it would seem absurd to such a person to say they were stealing from the company. They could (and do) repay the debt by working an extra five minutes that they're supposes to. Well, except that these sorts of jobs don't come with "forty hours per week" on the contract, but the point stands. CEO of a company isn't a job, it's a lifestyle.

  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @08:04AM (#33274678)
    Anyone remember their previous board spying scandal [wikipedia.org]? Must be a REAL fun place to work.
    • And to think, if they simply didn't do this bullshit, they could have afforded to keep people on (including my sister who now works elsewhere).
    • by mjwalshe (1680392)
      looks like the internal security hasn't learnt the leason and is leaking like a sieve if they are leaking ifo about sensative investigations like this time for a new HR Director and director of ethics me thinks.
      • by PPH (736903)

        Perhaps the leak was intentional. There may be elements within the company that are attempting to drive the corporate culture in a more 'conservative' direction.

        If so, HP is dying. Time to sell the stock, find alternate suppliers and cut your losses.

  • by happy_place (632005) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @08:08AM (#33274730) Homepage
    HP died with Lew Platt. Carly Fiorina was a trainwreck. The HP Way is gone and done, and has been since the first layoffs just prior to 9/11.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo (153816)

      HP died with Lew Platt. Carly Fiorina was a trainwreck. The HP Way is gone and done, and has been since the first layoffs just prior to 9/11.

      Amen to that, although the skeptical would assume that Fiorina was a sign and not a catalyst. HP is over and anyone buying products from them today is buying punishment for their bad decisions first and foremost. HP support has become a complete nightmare and like Sun, they have been buying products and firing the people who understand them as quickly as possible.

  • I have a feeling there is going to be a spike in searches for Jodie Fisher for a few days.
  • The linked page of former HP CEOs [hp.com] is one of the most pathetic web pages I've ever seen from a company of the stature of HP. The horrible, unflattering thumbnail-sized photos. The description of their careers, which basically amounts to "this person lived for a period of time and worked for HP." What the hell kind of company puts this material on their website?

    • hp.com [hp.com] for one
    • The linked page of former HP CEOs [hp.com] is one of the most pathetic web pages I've ever seen from a company of the stature of HP. The horrible, unflattering thumbnail-sized photos. The description of their careers, which basically amounts to "this person lived for a period of time and worked for HP." What the hell kind of company puts this material on their website?

      If you click on them, you get some details on their tenure at HP. Interestingly, Hurd's is a 404.

      • by TheLink (130905)
        Since it's not a 410 maybe there's hope for him then. Perhaps they'll replace it with 406, 417 or 301.
  • No Sympathy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @08:18AM (#33274820)
    While the summary is full of sympathy for Hurd, implying that he was the wronged party in this situation (boggles the mind...), I have absolutely no sympathy for him. Ignoring the fact that he got a rather sizable golden handshake which would enable most people to retire in luxury, he was stupid. When you're in a management position, especially a senior management position (such as the CEO...), you have an obligation to not cross personal boundaries. Members of senior management should know better. It's inappropriate and it's the sort of thing that leads to trouble. Shockingly, it lead to trouble.

    No sympathy. I have no clue if he was a good CEO or not, but he was a stupid one, that's for certain.
    • by Shotgun (30919)

      you have an obligation to not cross personal boundaries. Members of senior management should know better. It's inappropriate and it's the sort of thing that leads to trouble.

      Really? How do you think he got to senior management? You don't think the upper echelons of management hinges on hard work and know how, do you? Please consider the need to be able to play golf in order to thrive in that environment.

  • by hessian (467078) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @08:18AM (#33274828) Homepage Journal

    This article summarizes it well but I'd have to quote more than "fair use" allows:

    http://gawker.com/5609386/heres-the-real-reason-hp-ceo-mark-hurd-was-fired [gawker.com]

    tl;dr Hurd was a goofus and tried to get intimate with a subordinate but backed off when it went nowhere, and probably did nothing illegal or immoral to Jodie Fischer or HP; the board just wanted to avoid publicity.

    • Hurd was a goofus and tried to get intimate with a subordinate but backed off when it went nowhere, and probably did nothing illegal or immoral to Jodie Fischer or HP; the board just wanted to avoid publicity.

      Well, I would hope that someone with his salary and responsibility would be more of a "Gallant" and less of a "Goofus."

      Yeah, I read "Highlights" back then in the 70's in the doctor's office waiting room.

    • by elrous0 (869638) *
      Is suspect the *real* reason isn't known (and maybe never will be). The board obviously wanted him gone, and not just because of some silly harassment suit that could have been easily handled. The evidence pointed to a mutual relationship, and that would have made it easy to fight and cheap to pay off (if they had been inclined). The sexual harassment thing was likely just a convenient pretense for a board that had been wanting to let him go for whatever other reason(s) for some time.
    • The board just wanted to avoid publicity? They sure fucked that one up.

    • by Urkki (668283)

      the board just wanted to avoid publicity.

      ...and succeeded!

      Oh, wait...

  • That's why I have an OpenVPN tcp tunnel to my home server and browser history and cache are automatically cleared.

  • This me, committing to try to avoid buying HP for some time to come. These kind of tactics are immature, reckless, and generally indicative of people who are not fit to be making informed decisions.

    Those decisions are likewise reflected in the HP product line.

    Unfortunately, that pretty much leaves nobody with likely reliable equipment.

  • HP's board used a technique usually only employed by private dicks, called "pretexting", to round up all the private cell numbers of board numbers, so they could figure out who leaked a HP story to CNET. This was in '06:

    http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2006/09/71730 [wired.com]

    This company makes Intel look like shangra-la. Working for HP, even at the top levels, is akin to working for Uncle Joe Stalin in '43. They're gonna know who you are and where you live, who you talk to and if you like giving it ho
  • by BenEnglishAtHome (449670) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @08:57AM (#33275222)

    There's plenty of confusion about the basic definition of sexual harrassment. I've been a POSH (Prevention of Sexual Harrassment) trainer at my employer and I can tell you from hard experience - most people have no idea.

    In broad strokes, then, here's what you need to know.

    Most people think in terms of a "reasonable person" criteria. That's a relic of the past. When sexual harrassment first got major corp attention, the people in charge tended to apply common sense. They'd ask "Would a reasonable person consider this case to be sexual harrassment?" This seemed like a good approach and it did cover the basics. No reasonable person would disagree that "Sleep with me if you want this promotion" is harrassment.

    The "reasonable person" standard, however, did not address the very wide middle ground. Are dirty jokes harrassing? If not occasionally, then how often? How many per day should be allowed? Should you be held responsible for being unintentially overheard? The "reasonable person" criteria failed to address all these at first blush.

    Now, in my organization, we expected people to speak up for themselves. If someone felt harrassed and said "That makes me uncomfortable", then the person doing the harrassing action no longer had an excuse. Even if the harrasser felt that a "reasonble person" would not be harrassed by the situation, the harrasser now knew that their criteria was misused in re the person who made the complaint.

    In practice, this meant that anyone could get away with anything (except the obvious aforementioned "sex for a job" situation I previously mentioned) until they were put on warning. Since it was up to the victim to issue the warning and since the victims frequently felt they were rendered powerless by the situation, warnings weren't issued. Bad manners continued to be displayed. Major harrassment incidents stopped but more subtle things that really do impact the bottom line (things like "a pervasive atmosphere of harrassment" or however you want to phrase it) continued unabated.

    The "reasonable person" criteria had to be abandoned.

    The new criteria is pretty simple. The victim defines the crime. If someone says something is sexual harrassment, it is.

    The current situation, where *anything* is sexual harrassment if someone wants to feel they're being harrassed, results in lots of counter-intuitive weirdness. It seems crazy that if I stick up a calendar from a local sports team that has a picture of the cheerleaders on it, it's harrassment. That harrassment may not be in full flower but you better believe I'm going to be told to take it down before some super-sensitive idiot sees it and gets their feelings hurt.

    As stupid as this seems, it actually works out better in practice. By "over-specifying" the defintion of sexual harrassment, the oppressive environments that were able to continue to exist under the "reasonable person" criteria are resolved. Yes, us old white men feel a bit put upon because we can't make dirty blonde jokes. But the upside is that the whole place works better and everyone can better contribute up to their potential.

    Bottom line for people who don't work in big-corp type environments: the definition of "sexual harrassment" is much broader than seems reasonable. For practical reasons, learned the hard way over decades, the situation must be this way.

    I don't like it. It offends my sense of justice. But I've seen it done both ways and in practice, the unreasonable, nanny-state version of sexual harrassment remediation just works better for everyone involved.

    • by tehcyder (746570)

      No reasonable person would disagree that "Sleep with me if you want this promotion" is harrassment

      But is it OK if at least one of you was drunk?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      While see your point and tend to agree with it, there is still the problem of the perceived victim abusing the system. Under this broader definition, if I ask a co-worker on a date (even if only once and I let it go) and she is so inclined, she can report me for sexual harassment. As you say, the victim defines the crime and most companies have a no tolerance rule for sexual harassment, so I stand a very good chance of losing my job because of something a "reasonable person" would never consider harassment
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Excellent point. Abuse occurs. People cry "Wolf!" when they shouldn't.

        However, I work in an environment that respects everyone's rights. No one is going to get fired based on an accusation alone.

        An accusation starts a process of investigation and resolution. There will be several opportunities for both sides to understand what went on from the others perspective. There will be opportunites for everyone to reach an accomodation and go back to work.

        If the situation is pushed, eventually an employee may f

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ShaunC (203807)

      I've been a POSH (Prevention of Sexual Harrassment) trainer at my employer

      The fact that this sort of training exists, and there's a (presumably) recognized acronym for it, means the whole situation has gone entirely too far.

    • by Spykk (823586)

      the unreasonable, nanny-state version of sexual harrassment remediation just works better for everyone involved

      Even the otherwise innocent guy who loses his job when a coworker decides she wants a big payout from the company?

      • by jd (1658)

        That obviously won't apply here. He was a CEO, he can be pretty much guaranteed to have been guilty of something.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by vegiVamp (518171)
      Your not allowing me to put up a tasteful poster of a beautiful, if scantily clad, woman is clearly a sexual issue, and I see it as harrasment. The victim defines the crime, right ?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        I tried that. It didn't work. :-)

        Joking aside, this has actually been tried. It didn't survive the initial stages of investigation. IOW, no person who has ever been told to take down a poster or change their computer wallpaper has felt sufficiently damaged that they were willing to make a formal complaint. If they're not willing to press the issue (especially when doing so is *so* easy), the issue doesn't exist.

    • by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @10:30AM (#33276288)
      And this is why I am glad I live in Europe and not in the US. You are describing three well known problems in US culture:
      • No win no fee litigation
      • Free comment allowed on sub judice matters
      • Lack of rights of the individual in the workplace

      Although European (EU mainstream) countries are far from perfect in this, legal restraints make it much harder for ambulance chasers to make fortunes by publicly exaggerating allegations, and employment law means that there are proper remedies at reasonable cost which means that companies are not exposed to excessive risks from ordinary human behaviour. (I might add that we don't suffer so much from kneejerk Protestant fundamentalism, but I think that's a sideshow.)

      Interestingly, when I had to do the training in the UK, our (US) trainer was quite clued up on UK law, and commented that a number of the overbearing rules that get applied in the US would be rejected by employment tribunals in the UK as unreasonable grounds for dismissal ("you guys are lucky").

      Bottom line: your comments may well be correct for the US as it is, but are a sad commentary on the US legal profession and the relationships inside US companies.

    • So, in other words, anyone who screams sexual harassment wins immediately? It's like the racism card, then. No wonder it's so popular, it works and it always wins, and as a bonus, there is no "innocent until proven guilty". Kind of like pedophilia allegations, you have to prove you didn't do it and even then the stench never goes away.
      • No. See my other comment on the process of enforcement. [slashdot.org]

        Having a written, enforced process to follow in the wake of allegations is incredibly important. Without it, the whole system would fail. I realize that in non-government and/or non-union shops, the process may be faulty or non-existent. If you're in such a situation, my heart goes out to you.

    • by Shotgun (30919)

      Except the "reasonable person" issue is still there. If I feel pressured by a female employee in the workplace and report it, I will be laughed at.

      And so it goes.

  • by biscuitlover (1306893) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @09:04AM (#33275290)

    If you were working at a company and you found out that someone you worked with had been in some adult movies, wouldn't you be curious enough to google them and check it out? I sure as hell would.

    I can't speak about the rest of the case, but evidence of harassment or a personal relationship this is not.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tehcyder (746570)

      If you were working at a company and you found out that someone you worked with had been in some adult movies, wouldn't you be curious enough to google them and check it out? I sure as hell would.

      I think I'd do it at home rather than work though...

  • More simply just a list of all their CEOs? I guess that comment was simply meant to be catty and I'm over thinking it.

  • I don't suppose that anyone has considered the possibility that this story and others like it are the result of a concerted effort by Mr. Hurd (and his rather influential allies) to rehabilitate his image by smearing his accuser? I mean, it's not like the method is unheard of (cf. practically every rape trial) or that misconduct by the executives of companies large and small, sexual and otherwise, is exactly a rarity. Moreover, there's a pretty vast disparity in the ability of these two individuals to pump

  • by WindBourne (631190) on Tuesday August 17, 2010 @09:53AM (#33275860) Journal
    The first is that HP does a nice job of tracking you. In fact, in general, ALL of Corporate America does this. The important part of that, is that HR is typically given access to the data. That way, if the company needs/wants to fire you, almost ALWAYS, they have SOMETHING to base it on.

    The second is that all should realize that Hurd was not fired for Sex harassment. He was fired because ppl on the board wanted him out and did not have the courage to simply fire him.

    Third, that is DAMN scary that Sexual harassment can be looking up public information about somebody. Would I, or anybody else, watch that kind of info on an somebody in a public position, esp. an actress? Hell yah. Even the HR would have done that.
  • Many employees worry about WebSense and other logging apps but in my experience, those apps aren't what gets you in to trouble. I've never seen an investigation start with the logs...but I have seen a couple of senior execs fall after the board started an inquiry in to some internal financial issues and the investigators found porn on the execs computers. As soon as they find out they go pull the web logs and then things spiral. So often these logs aren't really the target of the investigators, but if th

  • Browsing history is a horrible way to determine anything. You don't know exactly how someone got to a particular page, you can only surmise. Also, if I clicked on a video and then immediately closed it, my browsing history would still say I "watched" the video. Even if the video downloaded fully, it's no guarantee that he watched it. Quite frequently, I'll pause a video to allow it to download fully before I begin watching it. My browsing history has no concept of whether or not I watched it fully or w
  • For those interested, the movie in question was called "H P Lovecraft" but due to a virus was replaced with some sort of cephalopod-related porn movie.

Mr. Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant; the population is growing.

Working...