Taking Corporate Spying to the Next Level

No, you are not the only

No, you are not the only ones reading these posts. I am intrigued by this one in particular because I have been screaming for years that data security and privacy due diligence needs to be enforced at the corporate level. What's most interesting about this case is that it was NOT the government that took action first. No, it was CIVIL ACTION that cracked open a can of worms that the Board hoped would never see the light of day. HP effed-up when they decided to ignore the law and order the illegal pretexting and surveillance.

Let this be a warning to businesses everywhere: if you sanction the mis-handling of sensitive information in a negligent, reckless or harmful manner then you WILL be taken to court and you will PAY DEARLY. Apparently the incentive for businesses to practice data security due diligence and compliance will not be Federal sanctions, but rather the FEAR OF HUGE CIVIL PENALTIES AND LOSS OF BRAND IMAGE.

I can't wait to see how this one plays out...and how the media spins it.

-CeeBee513@hotmail.com

Zapped, Thanks for keeping

Zapped,
Thanks for keeping this discussion nice and on the level. Seriously, it's great that we can debate; maybe get a tiny bit ugly, but in a good sportsmanship manner and nothing that is undignified. So again thanks.

To respond, my goal isn't to get you to agree publicly or privately, or to agree at all. I whole heartily believe in everyone's right to an opinion, even if it strictly opposes mine. I'm just trying to keep you honest, which is how I took your comment on your thinking that I'm fixed on my position. It's a statement that's valid enough to type if only to make me be sure that I'm not being closed minded.

Having said that, and re-evaluating the reasons for my stance on this issue, I still am unable to draw the same conclusion as you have. And here is why. First, I would like to read the article you referred to that claims that Dunn didn't do anything wrong because she didn't know about the pretexting. If you are referring to the CNNMoney article: http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/08/technology/hp/index.htm , it says that HP, and again I reiterate, HP said that she didn't know about the pretexting. Yeah, of course to save face as a whole, HP would say something like that. I'll believe that she didn't have any knowledge whatsoever of the pretexting when the Californai AG and the SEC report that she didn't, whether during the investigation or before she exposed George Keyworth. Don't get me wrong, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but I'm not sentencing her. I'm stating that her actions already prove that she had knowledge of the prexting.

To further explain, I have to go back to when she received the report about who was leaking. What, did the surv. company just give her a piece paper with one sentence: "George Keyworth is the leaker.". I highly doubt it. They had to have given her the reasons for suspecting him and how they obtained that info. And here is the kicker. Now, please feel free to read as I have and tell me how I'm reading this wrong. CNet news reports:( http://news.com.com/Leak+scandal+costs+HPs+Dunn+her+chairmans+job+-+page+2/2100-1014_3-6114655-2.html?tag=st.num )(among the many other news outlets) that Perkins resigned because Dunn went forward with the investigation and because of the pretexting practices. It is even noted that in July, Perkins sent an email to the board about the pretexting practices and requested that his resignation reflect that practice and that his advice was ignored as the real reason for his leaving. That would mean that on May 18th, Dunn pointed out Keyworth as the leaker and obviously had to show how she came to that conclusion. Which would have to indicate that she knew about the pretexting before she submitted final report to the board.

I'll be as open minded as possible and give you the leeway that maybe she didn't know about it when the pretexting actually occurred. But I believe that I have shown that she was fully aware if it before the meeting took place on May 18th. To say that she didn't know at all about the methods before the leaker was exposed is in my opinion a statement that cannot be counted as true.

To go further, in a NY Times article: ( http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/business/08cnd-hp.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5094&en=a77f5592843fbd7c&hp&ex=1157774400&partner=homepage ) Dunn says via a phone interview that "The more gentlemanly methods that were used in the past didn’t work". And that it looks like there was sloppy work along the way. OK, I'll submit and say that the comment is a stretch in proving that she even knew about the pretexting while it was occuring, but with what I've shown so far in that she did atleast know before Keyworth was exposed, it has to atleast make most people wonder.

So here is my wrap up. I'll admit that until further evidence is shown, as in what I highlighted in my previous post, we can't say for sure that Dunn knew about the hacked phone records, as Perkins termed it, before or when the investigative company's subcontractor did their thing. But I believe I have proven that she did know about it before reporting it to the board, which means that she had an obligation in how to handle the situation in an appropriate manner. Not only legally, but in a business-wise manner for the board, shareholders, and employees. I'm not saying I know exactly the best path that she should have taken, but that she should have atleast denounced the report with the investigative company and found another way to expose Keyworth without the use of the report. And she should have reported the pretexting practices to the authorities in order to make sure that illegal activity didn't take place. She had an obligation to protect the personal rights of her board as they are in essence employees of the company as well. Just as the news outlets are working to ensure that the best actions are taken on behalf of their employee's whose rights may have been violated, Dunn should have done the same for the board. Instead, I can't help but draw the conclusion, that she chose not to, in order to continue forward in ousting Keyworth.

On an interesting not-so-tangent tanget, it's funny how Dunn said to the AP: ( http://www.topix.net/content/ap/1883444564416715365735797061411247076298 ) that she "serves the pleasure of the board". But isn't one of Perkins' reasons for resigning is that his advice was completely ignored? And according to CNet news: (http://news.com.com/Media+leaks+prompt+HP+board+shake-up/2100-1014_3-6112501.html ) Perkins was even "stunned" to find out that the investigation had gone forward. That should indicate that the board had not officially voted on doing the investigation. Or that only a few, besides Dunn, knew about it.

And let's not forget about the not so compliant resignation announcement to the SEC. Surely Dunn would have had to have final approval on what was sent to the SEC, as it was a board member's resignation. So why was the course taken to not be forthcoming in the reason? Yes, others besides Dunn could have been involved, and the Cali AG and SEC should look into that also. But that doesn't exclude her in having a hand in what very well will be illegal activity. I look forward to your rebuttal.

And, are you and I the only ones reading these posts? It sure seems like it.

Cochack and others. I am

Cochack and others. I am enjoying the debate. Let me see if I can look at this from your point of view and completely give up my point of view for a moment. She and anyone else on the board that broke the law should be penalized. Correct? End of Story. This is the perfect scenario in theory and exactly how it should happen in real life, and this is how it should be made to happen in real life. Do I have it? Now tell me, how do you now feel that I have agreed with you publicly on this blog? Feel free to use any adjectives to describe your emotions. There's more, but I can't respond until I get your responses. Incidentally, I saw a brief news report today where it was said that she did nothing wrong because she did not know about the methods used by the PI. The board is unamously considering giving her the boot. Now put yourself in her position. How do you "think" she should feel. I wonder what would cause a person to do something like hire a PI to investigate press leaks? Her inclination to locate the leak was correct. The method used is what is questionable. My previous statements are not confusing. I think you're fixed on your position and maybe unknowingly using confirmation bias to support your position. Thoughts?

Zapped, Believe it or not,

Zapped,
Believe it or not, I seriously value everyone's comments when I read blogs, even those who seem to just irrationally say anything. So I'm replying to your second comment, not to start a war, but to enjoy the process of discussion, which tends to bring to light items that would never have been thought of.

Parts of your second post makes no sense. You specifically stated in your first comment "She did the right thing. The investigator did the wrong thing, and so did the board member that was caught." Yet your second posting said that you never condoned law breaking. I'm confused. You had said before that the investigator did wrong and the leaker did wrong. Not arguing about the leaker. But as I said before, you can't avoid the law simply because you weren't the one holding the gun. And so what if she learned it from her counterparts, who happen to be older white males. Two points to that. Ever hear "So if Johnny jumps off a bridge, will you?" Yes it's irritating when that saying is used all the time, but it has a point. Her counterparts didn't force her to do this. And to question how wrong is she really because others have gotten off when they did something simliar is absurd. I'd like to see you try to get out of a speeding ticket by saying that the guy in front of you was speeding too.

The second point. We can't overlook her actions simply because we all know that corruption is at an all time high among execs and board members. If anything, that should suggest that she gets the book thrown at her, to try to send the message to other execs, "Unethical actions will not be tolerated". If we aren't good at keeping companies honest, it doesn't mean that everyone gets a "Get out of jail free" card.

And are you serious about asking the question "Was the law broken intentionally?". Come on. You have to be joking. I don't think I even have to comment on that. Her actions, among other common sense knowledge about this, speaks for itself.

What is disturbing is the

What is disturbing is the underhanded way the data was obtained, especially since it presumably could have been obtained either by
a) Asking the board members openly to supply their phone records directly or to a trusted third party who would filter appropriately (draw your own inference if they fail)

and/or

b) (not a lawyer, so I could be wrong) Obtaining them by a civil search warrant--although the latter would probably require filing of a suit for damages first, and therefore you would need to narrow the field and it would be somewhat controversial

For Anonymous above, Look in

For Anonymous above,
Look in the Constitution again, specifically Amendment 10, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
OR TO THE PEOPLE, if it's not GIVEN to the government it's OUR RIGHT!!!

This action was clearly

This action was clearly against the law. The means and methods used were fraudulent and as a result it is my opinion that the person(s) who committed these acts need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. I am also deeply concerned that the actions of Dunn crossed the ethics that govern HP not to mention SEC regulations. It is a terrible road to go down - what's next actually listening to unsecured calls of board members because they don't agree with the way she is running the company?

Mr. McKay, It is refreshing

Mr. McKay,
It is refreshing to have found your blog. For a while there I was disheartened by the lack of morals and the greed which seems to justify all things in corporate America.
Thanks for restoring this old idealist's hope.
Adrigol

Zapped and other anonymous,

Zapped and other anonymous,

I'm amazed at your audacity in which to suggest that since Dunn wasn't exactly the one who did the pretexting then she didn't do anything wrong. Let's apply this to another situation. So if a person hires a gun to kill their spouse, but they themselves didn't do the killing, then they are in the clear, right? Wrong, that's not right. And neither is it to suggest that Dunn didn't do anything wrong because she didn't do it herself. From what I have read so far, she hired the surv company to do exactly what they did. It doesn't seem that she has made any comment to the point that she was deeply surprised and shocked to find out that they employed pretexting practices. Nor did she destroy the evidence and throw it out, since it was obtained illegally. Instead she did exactly what it seems that she had planned to do. Find info through whatever means necessary to expose the leak.

I understand the need to seek out the info leaker, but it's sad to suggest that it’s okay for someone to go above the law in order to accomplish something that would help the company. What if she had pointed a gun at the board members and demanded that someone confess? Would that have been okay also, since she was trying to do what is best for the company? Not in my book.