Journalists Sue HP For Invasion of Privacy 55
Stony Stevenson writes "Four journalists and one of their family members are suing Hewlett-Packard for obtaining their personal phone records. The journalists filed lawsuits in California this week, claiming that HP invaded their privacy, intentionally inflicted emotional distress, and violated California's fair business rules. HP acknowledged in a US Securities and Exchange Commission filing last year that it investigated journalists in order to find out who inside the company had been leaking information to the press. The reporters' own publications have reported that HP representatives said they were disappointed the reporters did not take a settlement and decided to sue instead. The company said it plans to defend itself against the lawsuits."
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Predatory Corporations (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
HP should be convicted and Carly jailed (Score:5, Interesting)
If a natural person cannot be offered a settlement if he/she committed a crime, why should a corporation be any different?
A corporation is an extension of a natural person for separate liability.
Since it is manned by people, the natural persons responsible for committing a crime oin behalf of a corporation should be jailed.
Why should sgareholders suffer losses because some idiot CEO or criminal CFO cooked up statements or committed a crime by using Corporate Veil.
After all the corporate veil does not apply if the Govt. is owned any money. Similarly the corporate veil should not apply when shareholders and pensioners get robbed of their dividend because of settlements.
I suggest the journalists sue the CEO directly as a person who ordered a crime.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
No, she was chairman of the Board.
Mark "I do not recall" Hurd has been the CEO throughout this and also somehow managed to get himself appointed CEO when Dunn was removed, now effectively overseeing his own actions.
Re:HP should be convicted and Carly jailed (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think you should sue the executives, because the company has much more money. I think it's easier to prove against a company because all you need is evidence that someone intentionally committed a crime, and not a specific person.
Re: (Score:2)
I wanted to mod you up (Score:2)
Enjoy
CEO responsabilities [ucomics.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem you have here is what was done not actually illegal in the eyes of the Law. Unethical yes and definitely breaching HP's own conduct of standards. This does subject the person or persons subject to disciplinary action within the organisation which can be a sever reprimand to termination of employment.
While IANL for someone in an organisation to be jailed they must break the Law and be convicted of it. It could
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations, and the few rich men who own them, have been "having it both ways" and encroaching on the lives of the rest of us for a long time. Of course, it's the nature of corporations to do this, but every few decades, people have to take a few of these corporations (and their "few rich men") and slam them up against a wall, just to show them who's boss. (This is the Michael Ledeen theory of US foreign policy applied for the forces of good).
Here'
Natural people get settlements, too (Score:2)
That having been said, I agree that more *people* need to be held accountable for their actions when it's done under the guise of a corporation. I'm a little bit confused why there aren't criminal charges pending against the ex-CEO and the private investigator they hired.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but this is very different. On the one hand, HP is offering the victims (probably) money in order to make this case go away. This is called a settlement offer.
If a natural person offers a district attorney money to make a prosecution go away, it is called a bribe.
For your analogy to be correct, it would have to be the victims who approached HP (rather than the other way around), saying something like
Re: (Score:2)
Its called as extortion and is prosecuted under RICO.
Re: (Score:2)
Its called as extortion and is prosecuted under RICO>
1) Offering to settle to avoid a lawsuit is common practice, and perfectly legal, if it's done in good faith. (Unlike, say, sending a postcard to everyone in town with this message and seeing who bites).
2) Even if it were extortion, RICO only applies if the same individual does it several times, demonstrating a pattern of criminal activity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they own the company, they finance the company, they benefit from a corporation's wrong-doing, and they employ the people committing. In fact, it's them who directly influence the company's actions. If they don't want financial inconvenience, they can either choose a more reputable company, or actively demand in stockholder's meetings that day-to-day profits
Re: (Score:2)
Well most lawsuits against IT companies are BS or unprovable anyway.
Also, there's a thing called 'limited liability' which, among other things, means nobody in the company can be sued for the company's actions. In this sue-for-all age of lawyers extorting anybody of means, the importance if limited liability seems more obvious.
Limited liability is what takes enough of the fear away from people to start their own businesses and be successful. It's a tough p
Re: (Score:2)
Nowhere does limited liability means i can get away with the a limited punishment if i commit a crime.
If that were the case, trial lawyers would have a field day as they defend murderers, etc. on same proposal.
Most Mom & Pop shops are not limited liability stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
follow the leader (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course they do. (Score:3, Insightful)
When was the last time you saw something say "The company plans bend over and really take it from this lawsuit. Yeah, we're going to sit on our asses and get plugged." More likely, "We're going to ask you to bend over and get plugged. And by ask, we don't mean ask." Companies will defend all of their actions to the death (or the disolve, in this case). If the company had put orders in to have the journalist shot they'd still defend themselves against a lawsuit.
Personal responsibility is dead in this country.
It should be no surprise that corporate responsibility is.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope it helps (Score:5, Insightful)
So up to this point - charges were filed against HP by the government. Those charges were dropped - all HP had to do was admit wrongdoing, pay a 15 million dollar fine to the state, and agree to make some changes in the way they handle investigations. $15M sounds like a lot, but to a corporation like HP it's not such a big penalty.
The people involved were also charged - and the charges were dropped in all cases except one of the underlings at the private investigation agency - he had to do some community service. The worst actor of the lot - Patty Dunn - walked away scot free.
But what about those reporters? Beside the trauma of finding that their private records had been rummaged through secretly, they've suffered some real damage to their careers. None of them can ethically report on HP any more - and what good is a technology reporter that can't report on HP?
Not to mention the chilling effect HP's actions had on news reporters in general. Hard to get those hot tips when the people passing the information along quit doing so; if someone's tapping the reporter's phone, they'd be targeted. No thanks.
HP tried to settle with the reporters. We don't know what kind of settlement offer was made but it clearly wasn't enough to satisfy the reporters. So the reporters sue, and HP announces that they'll defend vigorously. What kind of defense can they offer, considering they admitted guilt in the state case? Another bad move by the folks at HP - now they're going to end up paying more (probably much, much more) and enjoy more negative publicity that gets generated as the cases wind their way through the legal system.
HP needs to make those reporters whole. Since HP through its illegal actions damaged their careers, they should pay the reporters at least the difference between what they would have earned and what they can earn now. That's only fair. But there's another angle to consider - punitive damages. Big punitive damages, the kind that would cause HP some financial pain and send a message to others - it's not even worth considering illegally manipulating the press. Lots of people in the news business feel this way, not just the plaintiffs in this action. And while these plaintiffs can't report on HP, There's an awful lot of reporters who saw what happened, feel that their profession has been done a great wrong, and aren't prohibited from writing about HP.
So here they go - HP gets to defend itself in multiple lawsuits and has to go in with the fact that they've already admitted guilt, preventing them from arguing much of anything other than how much they should have to pay. And while this is going on, the media will be reporting on it - the same media that HP went out of their way to alienate. The same media that HP depends on to print its press releases.
What will ultimately be the result of these suits? I don't want to guess at this point; corporations seem to be getting away with all kinds of things these days.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And while this is going on, the media will be reporting on it - the same media that HP went out of their way to alienate. The same media that HP depends on to print its press releases.
Well, unlike Paris Hilton, HP is a big advertiser, too: that means that yes, their press releases will still be printed. And yes, their products will still be evaluated as fairly as before (which says almost nothing), though I guess some could start criticising their huge, bulky printer drivers and accompanying software.
I do admit, a media boycott would sound nice, but it isn't going to happen. What would be even better, though, is detailed reporting on the case, with comments, analyses etc. That, howeve
Re: (Score:2)
Helping Corporate Officers (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
responsibility (Score:1)
Rip HP (Score:2)