Boardroom Spying Debacle at HP

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."

An example

The leader of our country sets an example for the leaders of our corporations

Re:An example

Why can't you guys just attack his policy

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.

Re:An example

You will probably hear a knock at your door any minute now...

You sent him a pizza? I want one!

Re:An example

It's amazing to me that people seek to blame everything on George W Bush. Some loony CEO at HP spies on her employees and it's somehow Bush's fault.

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.

Why can't you guys just attack his policy, instead of looking to blame him for everything from the weather to idiot CEO's? His foreign policy is quite debatable, as is Dubai Ports, illegal immigrants taking blue collar jobs from the lower middle class, outsourcing, our trade policy with China, etc, etc. By feeding into the stupidity of blaming Bush for everything you just turn him into a martyr.

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.

Re:An example

(since 2003, yes I voted for the retard in 2000)

We forgive you. Maybe if he had been elected we could blame you, but he wasn't, so we can't.

You Bush apologists crack me up. A damned blowjob does not equal a half trillion dollar war ... Martyr? Maybe in the eyes of the Pat Robertson double-digit IQ brigade

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.

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.

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]

Re:An example

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.

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.

Re:An example

Ok though, just for the record, no one doubted the intelligence at the time. I'm sure some republibot can provide links, but even Bill Clinton said there were WMDs in Iraq. Clinton even established the "regime change" policy. This is in no way a defense of the prosecution of the war, or me saying it was necessarily a good idea, but people on BOTH SIDES of the aisle said there were WMDs in Iraq (and there were -- more than 700 WMD bearing shells have been discovered), so it's hard for me to buy the notion that Bush influenced the intelligence (in a 'bush lied, people died' sense), since it was apparently saying the same thing to Bill Clinton, before GWB was in office.

Re:An example

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.

Re:An example

unbridled attempts to blame Bush for everything that goes wrong - rather than just the things that he's responsible for - only serve to marginalize valid opposition opinions on things like illegal surveillance, deficit spending, the Iraq war, etc.

OK, then, how do you think the:

• Abandonment of the MS antitrust verdict
• Shortlisting of Ken Lay for Treasury
• Double secret energy task force
• Abramoff scandal
• no-bid contracts to Halliburton
• Gutting of the EPA, FDA, FTC, etc.
• appointments of well-connected, unqualified cronies to key positions
• Profligate giveaways of public property to logging, mining, and petroleum concerns
• Unabashed disregard for the rule of law when it counters the administration's interests

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.

Re:An example

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

It's unfortunate that you see anyone who expresses an idea you don't like as 'spinning'.

, 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.

So, that leads to the CEO of HP spying on her employees? Using this same logic, Clinton is responsible for every guy who cheated on his wife or perjured himself. Since I related it to a political figure you like, do you see the narrow mindness of this thinking? People were cheating on their wives, getting blowjobs, smoking weed, etc long before Clinton was around. George W Bush did not invent the wiretap.

Blaming presidents for things unrelated to them because you dislike their politics ruins rational political debate. This activity is usually out of pure tribalism, where people will not even consider the view of the other side.

And I just can't resist even though it's non-sequitur: You don't start wars on questionable intelligence.

Thanks General. While we are at it, I'll throw one at you. Interventionism leads to terrorism. Neither party will come out and say it, but the truth is the foreign policy of Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 (briefly) is what led to 9/11. The terrorists would not be over here, if we were not over there. The Bush's weren't the only ones looking for dragons to slay overseas. Clinton took us into Kosovo when our national interests were not at stake, and the US citizens were not at risk. He also continued the sanctions against Iraq which Bin Laden mentioned in his Fatwah. Look, you can blame one party if you want but the truth is there isn't much difference anymore.

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.

I'm still wondering how you inferred I support the president from my first post. I was simply pointing out that the tone of politics today does not lead to meaningful debate.

The man is an asshole, as are Rumsfeld and Ashcroft.

Thanks for the brillant assessment.

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.

Historically speaking, they should lose this fall, and the polls indicate that will happen. I don't like the foreign policy of the neocons, nor do I think they have the best interests of America in mind.

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.

You don't get it. He can be the worst president in the countries history, but if people think he's being unjustly attacked they WILL sympathize with him. Not just republicans either. Simply attack him on the issues, when you break down his actual public policy there are few things that conservatives or liberals would support. So much of the debate gets caught up with silly accusations and tribalism that most people don't see the factual reasons for what is wrong.

Also, your insinuation that christians have a double digit IQ is ignorant, would you say the same thing about Jews or Muslims? I'm not religious, but I don't like double standards.

Re:An example

All he said was you can't blame this stupid corporate scandal on Bush.

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."

Re:An example

I think it's entirely appropriate and accurate to "blame this on Bush"

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.

Re:An example

It's amazing to me that people seek to blame everything on George W Bush.

It's only fair because Clinton gets blamed for all of Bush's mistakes and he's not even in office anymore.

Re:An example

It's amazing to me that people seek to blame everything on George W Bush. Some loony CEO at HP spies on her employees and it's somehow Bush's fault.

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 the media coverage you would think George W Bush made Katrina himself last year, and aimed it at New Orleans.

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.

One of Powell's men accidently leaks the name of a spy, and everyone blames Bush and Rove, yet there is little chance Powell or any of his 'boys' would take a dive for the neocons.

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.

Why can't you guys just attack his policy, instead of looking to blame him for everything from the weather to idiot CEO's?

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.

His foreign policy is quite debatable, as is Dubai Ports, illegal immigrants taking blue collar jobs from the lower middle class, outsourcing, our trade policy with China, etc, etc.

...illegal wiretaps, illegally keeping people in the armed forces past their retirement date because no one seems to want to sign up for his bullshit war, stepping up attempts to recruit minorities only because they've run out of white people dumb enough to sign up, threats against journalists, "etc etc"

Name one good thing that this administration is doing for any reason other than supporting something bad they're doing, please.

Re:An example

It's amazing to me that people seek to blame everything on George W Bush.

It's amazing to me that an otherwise interesting /. discussion has, yet again, dissolved into a political flamefest.

Sigh.

Re:An example

The leader of our country sets an example for the leaders of our corporations

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.

Re:An example

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.)

Good time for anyone to leave

Sounds like a good way to get anyone to leave, from top to bottom.

And this is why

having women in power won't necessarily make for a kinder, gentler world.

It probably won't make any difference. Here's why

More like it won't make any difference, though not for the obvious extrapolation that everyone will make at that phrase. It's that regardless of which gender you favour, there'll be a certain _kind_ of person who makes it to the top. It's not whether most men are better or most women are better, it's that those who end up at the top will _not_ actually be representative of the majority of men or women anyway.

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.

Re:It probably won't make any difference. Here's w

Well, since bus drivers and construction workers (and, yes, software engineers) have to take invasive tests (I had to pee in a cup ... kinda irritated me at the time but I wanted the job and they didn't require any kind of non-compete agreement so I figured it was a reasonable tradeoff) of one sort or another in order to obtain work, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be a requirement for corporate upper management to have to take an APD test. At the very least, they should have to take something like the old MMPI so that we have at least some idea if they are complete whackjobs or not.

I'm not saying that should result in their not being hired for such positions: that would depend upon an individual corporation's policies. But if the results of such testing were required to be a matter of public record, it would be the first thing a potential investor would examine. It would also discourage other sociopaths from even applying for such positions: the last thing a true sociopath wants is to be unmasked. Yes, I know ... that's rather private data and isn't something that most people would want available to anyone, but if you're not willing to submit to such a test, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to run a major corporation.

Now, granted, there are those that will complain that such testing and publication would be grossly unfair and violate various civil liberties and all that. And I suppose they'll be right in that: I'm not an attorney so I have no idea of what laws such testing would run afoul. But the unfortunately reality is that many of these individuals absolutely cannot be trusted and some means of early detection needs to be put in place. It really doesn't help when the Ken Lays and Bernie Ebbers and others like them are eventually caught (if they are ever caught) because by then the damage has been done, people have been hurt. Look at what Ms. Fiorina accomplished in just a few short years, and managed to walk away from scot-free. It's also obvious that stringing a few of them up hasn't had the desired deterrent effect either. And why should it? If you feel that you're above the law you're not going to let the law get in your way.

Waste of time

I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be a requirement for corporate upper management to have to take an APD test.

The reason that would be a waste of time is that most of these people are really, really smart. Maybe not maths geniuses or that kind of smart, but they know exactly how to pull the levers in people to get what they want. Unless the APD test checks for some sort of chemical imbalance (preferably while they are comatose), they will know exactly what to say to the relevant questions in order to make themselves look as un-sociopathic as possible. Hell, most of them will look it up before the test, or pay a psychologist to do it for them.

We are trying to determine if you have any positive emotions towards your fellow man. Do you like children?
Why yes, I love children, I donated $500 to a childrens foundation just this month!
:D

There really isn't an easy answer to this one. Can they do the jobs they are employed to do better than anyone else? If the answer is yes, then they belong in that job. The only thing that can be done is to ensure that if they commit crimes, they are punished to an extent that it will give other sociopaths pause before attempting the same thing. If the RIAA (sociopath city) can sue someone per song in their collection, high level corporate crime should be dealt with on a per-victim basis.

Steal the pension funds of 500 people? Thats 500 counts of theft or fraud, to be run one after another. Even if they only get 6 months per case, thats still 250 years of hard time. That might seem a bit harsh, but as they say, with great power comes great responsibility.

Re:And this is why

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...

Re:And this is why

Oh, I'm gonna get modded down...

Well, maybe if there were women on /.

Re:And this is why

For many years we have been told that, if women were in positions of power, they would behave differently than men. This assertion was based solely on the premise that women are somehow fundamentally different than men, and that this difference would ensure that female executives and politicians would be somehow "better" then males.

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.

Yes and no

As I was saying in another post, the fallacy there is assuming that it would be the Jane Average that ends up in those positions of power. Except those who end up at the top, male or female alike, are the kind that aren't representative of the John Does and Jane Averages that make up the rest of the population. But that goes the other way too: comparing Stevens to Clinton doesn't really say anything about comparing men to women in general.

I don't know if men as a whole are better or women as a whole are better (probably neither is better), but comparing the sociopaths at the top won't tell us anything about that. The ones at the top will be the ones who _don't_ actually have the instincts/reflexes/education/etc associated with being either the average man or the average woman. You won't find any maternal or paternal instincts there, just people whose only loyalty is to themselves and care less about everyone else than you'd care about the NPCs in a computer game. You won't find any inherent adherence to either male or female hierarchy/clique/whatever dynamics and mechanisms, either, but at most a determination to mis-use and abuse those to one's own interests. Etc. Anything that you might think of as an inherent trait of either males or females in the average people around you, at that level you won't find people actually displaying either. They may fake it, they may use it to push your buttons, but essentially both are a category of their own that's neither male nor female.

Re:Yes and no

Mostly agree with you.

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.

Pre-Texting at a Bank

Legal experts vary in their views on the extent to which pretexting is a violation of criminal law.

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

I wonder who leaked that

kinda makes you wonder what she'd do to find out who leaked the info about her spying on people.

How did she do that?

Can someone please explain to me what authority she had to authorize phone taps on private cell phones? She is not law enforcement. WTF?

-d

Re:How did she do that?

So, as long as you're in a company bathroom, we can video tape everything you do? After all, it's company property.

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.

Employer agreements

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.

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."

Re:How did she do that?

(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.

Re:How did she do that?

They did not actually tap the phones. According to TFA:

It was classic data-mining: Dunn's consultants weren't actually listening in on the calls--all they had to do was look for a pattern of contacts.

They did obtain the records under false pretenses though, which is illegal.

Re:Which *MAY* be illegal.

There's no law that makes it a crime to get someone to give you information (unless it's banking information).

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.

just to put things in perspective...

Tom Perkins, as in Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers. [wikipedia.org]

This is pretty dramatic.

Nothing to fear

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. So he is obviously a terrorist.

First stock advice post!

Short sell! Short sell!!!

Re:First stock advice post!

Short sell! Short sell!!! ...if only you packaged it up in an animated gif, and flashed it every 17 seconds...

Smoking Gun

. . . has documents here: Hewlett-Packard Targeted Board In Leak Probe [thesmokinggun.com]

Whatever happened to the old HP?

HP used to make decent products. Now they make craptacular products and have management that read from Stalin's playbook.

It's a shame, really.

I read that wrong.

Am I the only one who read the title as "Bedroom Spying"?

Dunn should be Done

Dunn sounds like a melodramatic sociopath bent on her own power trip. It's bad enough to hire outside inspectors to track down a leaker, and to resort to snooping on personal call records, which is truly dirty pool. 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? Had she confronted this guy directly, he may have resigned quietly. Instead, she's now thrown the spotlight on her disregard for personal ethics or the respect of her colleagues.

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

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.

Doubleplusgood!

pretexting, the controversial practice of obtaining information under false pretenses

That's an awful lot of words to replace a single, more useful one: "lying".

Re:Doubleplusgood!

That's an awful lot of words to replace a single, more useful one: "lying".

I thought we called that "Social Engineering" here on /.

Re:Doubleplusgood!

If this were some young geek, we would say "social engineering" and say that the
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.

Where the NSA goes, there goes the nation?

I thought it was interesting that finding leaks, and their relative importance, was cited as a major reason for Carly Fiorino's departure -- she thought they were important, the rest of the board didn't (or, maybe, they were concerned about performance and she was concerned about finding something other than performance to distract their attention.) It's also interesting to wonder whether leak-fixing/spying on fellow board members is more likely to happen in the wake of the increasing publicity surrounding NSA wiretapping. I wonder if this was also going on during the Nixon era -- is there a correlation between government willingness to spy on its own, and corporate willingness to do so? (Obviously corps are always willing to spy on the Little People, but I'm talking about corp officers, which is a little bit more personal.)

I don't care... much.

Believe it or not, it's hard to get worked up about this. Sure, reading the Slashdot text got me mad. It sounds shocking -- what a huge violation of privacy! But then, reading the article, you see that aside from 1 director who resigned, all the other directors, including the leaker, have stayed on board! In other words, the guys whose privacy was invaded didn't care. It was done to them, and their response was to keep serving.

So why care on their behalf? These walking lobotomies need to stand up for themselves.

Re:I don't care... much.

Why should have to leave? Let her resign. And their privacy may have been violated (and probably was), they just haven't found out yet or don't have physical proof so they are keeping mum.

Re:I don't care... much.

Hi Hoi Polloi. You're totally right. I should have been more clear. The board has known what Dunn did since May. So my real thought is not that they all should have resigned, but that they all should have done something. Yes, make her resign. If not that, then public disclosure and shareholder review. Something. But they sat on this for May, June, July, August, and now we're into September, and they've still done nothing. Well, they've finally been caught off guard by being exposed. Maybe that will stir them into action.

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.

Trust in the boardroom

Funny, but quoting from The Register article [theregister.com]

"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

I like how the board "[upheld] the standards of confidentiality" by ... violating the confidentiality of the board members' personal lives. Yay for double standards!

When Common Sense is Ignored

I can't help but think of the Admiral's statement in the movie, "Enemy of the State". Loosely, it was, "...if this was someone's unilateral wet dream, then that someone is going to prison..." Now I'm all for making money at someone else's expense; But not at the risk of getting caught breaking the law. I think we'll be seeing HP public relations types clawing their brains trying to put a positive spin on this. Maybe I can help, "George Bush does it; Why can't I?"

"slowly, one by one, the penguins steal my sanity" - Unknown

BBC Says CA AG will investigate

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5321034.stm [bbc.co.uk]

'Pretext'?

Funny. I'd call it 'lying'.

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'

Ugly for everybody

It was an effective way at spotting the leaks, which were pretty uncool, but the means were also uncool. In a more ideal world, neither the leaks nor such measures to catch them would be necessary..

Who wants to be a HP customer now?

If Patricia Dunn spies on her employees like this, how can I trust her enough to be a customer of HP?

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.

She announced it?

The real boneheaded move here is that she disclosed to everyone what she was up to, presumably because she thought it would be OK with them or something. That was totally stupid! Anyone knows that if you want to break the law like that, you have to keep it under the table and OUT of the boardroom discussions... DUH!

Dunn is a felon

"Sonsini acknowledged that Dunn's security consultants "did obtain information regarding phone calls made and received by the cell or home numbers of directors" and that it was "done through a third party that made pretext calls to phone service providers." "

PROSACUTE THE BIMBO

The only bright spot of this situation...

...is Tom Perkins's ethical behavior. I only hope that when I get to be a director, I would have the cajones to resign rather than to serve under or carry out orders from a boss with a history of such behavior. Well, that and the handwriting on the wall (SEC investigation) might have helped influence his decision. But what a way to go!

anti-trust

The movie Anti-trust comes to mind...

Used to work for Pattie Dunn - what a change

As a former employee of Pattie Dunn when she worked at Wells Fargo Nikko Investment Advisors which became Barclays Global Investors, I always found Pattie to be a person who really cared about her employees and their personal lives. She was always approachable, listened to your concerns no matter how high or low you were in her chain of command, and without sounding too sexist, had a great smile, a charming personality, and was the easiest on the eyes boss I've ever had. I can only imagine what HP has put her through to cause such a change in her attitudes. On the other hand, perhaps this is an example of what has happened to America in general. "Truly a sight to behold. The man, beaten. The once great champ, now a study in moppishness. No longer the victory hungry stallion we've raced so many times before. But a pathetic, washed-up aged ex-champion. " (obscure Better Off Dead quote :) )

Re:Used to work for Pattie Dunn - what a change

As a former employee of Pattie Dunn when she worked at Wells Fargo Nikko Investment Advisors which became Barclays Global Investors, I always found Pattie to be a person who really cared about her employees and their personal lives.

Apparently, she still cares very much about their personal lives.

Millions

You guys missed it all.

She was looking for a quick bonus. She'll get fired and receive a severance pay of 50+ millions... That's it.

This is symptomatic..

In my mind this is symptomatic of the corporate life in the higher echelons. Basically, these people at the top don't have te requisite life experience, or call it wisdom, or even common sense, to act like adults. Corporate life to these people is nothing more than a replay of high school. They're scheming, pulling pranks, cheating, and generally making stuff up as they go along.

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

Coming from someone who was ripping HP up and down at the time for their moronic behavior, I can say three things with authority. First, I had sources on that level. Second, they didn't get my sources, not even close. Several witchhunters resigned and/or were canned while looking for Inq sources, but as far as I am aware, they did not find a single one, teh fewls. Third, my sources are a lot smarter than Mr Keyworth or Ms Dunn.

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

"Dude, don't you hate it when you forget to check "Post Anonymously" box?"

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

Re:They didn't get mine

Charlie is an author for The Inquirer, which has been the main source for leaks from HP since Carly started fucking things up. Including leaks about witchhunts for previous leakers, ampling demonstrating that the witchhunts weren't working. Charlie keeps his sources secret, HP has no way to compel him to release them, and all this is known by anyone who reads The Inquirer which is where the leaks show up. If he had posted anonymously, I would have ignored him. As it is, I've read many previous leaks on The Inq (including the sad/hilarious case of HP purchasing a new corporate jet in the midst of layoff season), and know what he is saying is probably true.

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.

Two wrongs make a Right?

It appears that the HP Charwoman believes that leaks are so wrong as to justify conspiracy, fraud and other felonies. That sounds like a control phreak to me. Perhas we should expect nothing less given the corporate selection process.

However, she is easily indictable and her imprisonment will serve as a fine example for others of her ilk who doubtless think likewise.

OK, obvious question

"Keyworth was asked to resign but has refused to do so. HP said it will not renominate him to its xxx-member board."

Just where are HP getting their board members?

HP and their women CEOs

Maybe it is time to get some real entrepreneural CEOs back on board - somebody with the insights of Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard. Carly screwed things up and now Dunn isn't doing much better.

Remember their great test equipment? Their calculators? Other advanced technology? Those days passed on. The women want their PCs and servers and can't seem to see beyond that. Oh, ripping off the consumer for ink is another female created advancement.

Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard were just ahead of their time and were ethical, inventive and made the name a world-wide recognized leader.

It doesn't suprise me.

HP is a sewer of incompetence and dishonesty. They screwed me once. I'll never do business with them again. Caveat emptor.

He should have gotten even, not quit

The guy who quit should have gotten even instead, and had HER followed/investigated. I'm sure this Dunn woman, like all power-mad people, has some awful habits of her own -- embarassing sex habits, booze/drugs, gambling, whatever.

I'm sure she'd like getting a plain brown envelope at the office with 8x10 glossies of her taking a nose full of coke, blowing her tennis coach, or trying out a new vibrator, along with a note that says "quit spying on people."

It seemed like a good idea at the time...

I'm quite sure, but this is why major corporations like HP staff huge legal departments. You can't tell me that at some point it didn't occur to them "Hmmm, maybe we should run this past Legal?"

They Should Get Rid of Dunn

Her goal was admirable, but her tactics to achieve that goal were clearly unethical.

the kids will play

HP unfortunately is showing that it will become even more irrelevant. H & P must be turning in their graves now.

Unless they're pimping you ink,

would anybody be upset to see HP die any more?

May 18th

May 18th is also the day Mt. St. Helens blew up. Generally a bad day.

Long time employee, first time truly angry

Normally when I comment in relation to HP (I'm an employee) I stay anonymous and just correct facts. ACs tend to get modded down but hey, at least that way I don't get my posts interpreted simply by what the reader thinks of HP. But typically the topic is "Alpha vs. Itanium" or somesuch where no matter anyone's claims to knowing the one shining truth, it comes down to matters of opinion (hey, I'm a software guy, what would I know...).

But this situation is different. It's truly embarassing and I hope Dunn suffers in consequence. Talking to the press is bad. Whether or not you agree, that was what the board decided. Any board member who disagrees should stand up and be counted or have the guts to resign. I get paid good money, have access to confidential information, and would like to think I have the standards to quit rather than get petty ego-boosting revenge by talking to the press. Whistle blowing bad business practice etc is noble. Leaking product roadmaps etc is just masturbating.

So Keyworth deserves to leave the board. His actions, however, just don't compare to Dunn invading the private lives of her colleagues.

HP has done a lot and does a lot to be proud of. Every once and a while a salesperson does a stupid thing or a business decision is "sub-optimal", but for instance we haven't joined the ranks of the many tech companies playing silly buggers with the financials. We've been getting our act together over the past year and a lot of us are hopeful we will become a great company again.

Then last thing before I go to bed (I'm in the UK), I hear that the board doesn't even understand that lying to get an innocent person's personal information is a bad thing. I don't care whether it's illegal or not. It's a shit thing to do. And I hate going to bed pissed off.

There's one combination of things that always makes me angry. First, acting in a clearly "bad" way - whether that's illegal, unethical, plain rude, whatever. Second, when it's also a stupid thing. What do we get for outing the leak? Not much (but there can be minor advantages to the competition being in the dark for a few months, trust me). Will the way we've behaved come to light? Of course - look at Tom Perkins letters, this eventually becomes a matter of public record via the SEC for fuck's sake! Will it be embarassing if a customer brings it up? Yes, perhaps with a financial impact, and with the story on e.g. front webpage BBC, everyone's going to know about it.

I hope they ask her to resign.

Death of Honor and Integrity

Let's face it, honor and integrity are meaningless today. 90% of you are ready to string Mrs. Dunn up. Meanwhile there is a corporate officer who was scrwing over the shareholders by leaking corporate planning to the press and you want to give him a pat on the back. I see the same thing in world politics.

Dunn ousted both Keyworth and Fiorina

Say what you will about Dunn, but the fact of the matter is that she ousted both Keyworth, a hack and a leaker, and Carly Fiorina, who was just a hack. The loss of Perkins is regrettable, but I support Dunn all the way. If she continues to clean house she can administer anal probes to the Board and Executive Committee for all I care.

Let's hear it for Perkins

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.

HP

So how did she become HP's chairman? is it because she represents a big investor?

What about AT&T?

I see lots of discussion about whether HP and/or their security subcontractors acted illegaly in obtaining personal phone records, but what about AT&T? It would appear that they handed over personal information to a third party posing as a customer without conducting any sort of rigorous check to ensure that they realy were talking to the right person. For example, they could have;

(i) Offered to call the "customer" back on the number in question.

(ii) Offered to post the information to the customer's home address.

I am reasonable sure that their actions would be illegal under UK data protection laws, although there is of course the usual question of whether anyone could afford to sue them. We do have a commissioner [dataprotection.gov.uk] who is in principle responsible for enforcing data protection laws, but they are a toothless tiger who seem primarily interested in educating organisations in the hope that they won't do it again!

Weasels will get away with it.

From this article [varbusiness.com]:

HP claims its Nominating and Governance Committee hired independent lawyers to review the conduct used in the investigation and those lawyers concluded that the company had hired an experienced firm. The firm retained another party, which obtained information about calls to and from HP directors, the company stated in the filing.

i.e. It's not OUR fault! We hired them, they hired someone else, those people are the ones to blame, not us! Our lawyers ASSURED us that everything was legal. It's sounds like laundering money, only it's laundering accountability. Utterly disgusting. - Jasen.

Re:I don't see why anyone would mind

That's right. In fact, no one should ever mind anyone reading their (e)mail or listening to their phone calls, unless they have something to hide. It should be legal for cops to just come in your house any time they feel like it, just to make sure you're not doing anything you shouldn't be. Random house checks by the cops would help put an end to the evil crimes of pot smoking and non-missionary sex. After all, if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide.

OK, who's the first to volunteer for random house checks?

Re:Sad...

taken over by MBA type idiots

More
Bullsh*t comes from your
Ass


In a way, this kind of thing is an outgrowth of the nature of a corporation. Corporations are created to insulate individuals from the consequences of their actions. Not that any reasonable person doing this kind of thing should expect a corporate umbrella to save them, but it seems to be a prevalent mindset in corporation culture. After all, that's the name of the game - hide behind something.

Re:I don't see why anyone would mind

If someone has broken no laws, and has nothing to hide, then they should be doubly pissed that someone invades their privacy.

Would you mind If I did a body cavity search?

I mean, I'm not suggesting you have anything up there you aren't supposed to, but if that's the case, you certainly shouldn't mind me having a peek.

You're not HIDING something in there are you?

Now if you will, just drop those trousers, bend over the table there, close your eyes, and think of England.

It's really for your own safety. You should thank me...and America thanks YOU!

Re:Follow the libertarian mantra:

When governments do it, it is EVIL and AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS. When corporations do it, it is survival of the fittest, and tough shit to you.

While Libertarians do appear to tend toward social Darwinism, they are quick to point out that holds only so long as fraud isn't involved.

The essence of fraud is misrepresentation. The investigators misrepresented themselves to obtain crucial, privileged information. Thus, a Libertarian would almost certainly decry the CEO's actions here.

Schwab

Re:i luv hp

"For good measure, I think I'll print this out on my hp keyboard."

Wow, I wish I had a keyboard that could print. That'd be a major space saver. Where do you keep the paper tray? ~CYD