Boardroom Spying Debacle at HP 505
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:An example (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're confusing "leader of our country" with every P.I. and divorce lawyer that's been practicing in the US since the turn of the last century. A powerful, private person with some axe to grind or a nasty leak to stop doesn't, and hasn't, needed any inspiration from any sitting president to pay some private spook team to find out what's happening. Doesn't make it all tasty and pleasant, but it also doesn't make a it a good fit for your partisan rantette.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, then perhaps the tone of the comment should have been aimed at more than one person? HP's BoD may be dealing with marketing and corporate espionage type issues, but they're not so much directly having to contend wi
Re:An example (Score:5, Funny)
Wow. I know that eventally, all Slashdot threads wind up in a Bush-bash. But this is the first case I've seen that goes straight there! (That is, without Bush or the government being the subject of the story.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:An example (Score:5, Insightful)
Because doing that gets you labeled as an appeaser and a traitor, which gets old and boring pretty fucking quick. Much more fun (for everyone!) to call him a goat-licking fuckhead.
you just turn him into a martyr
Stop teasing me.
Re:An example (Score:5, Funny)
You sent him a pizza? I want one!
Re:An example (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, as an ex-military, ex-Republican (since 2003, yes I voted for the retard in 2000) guy I'm here to tell ya: Bush is a fuckup. You can spin it anyway you want, but you do not use the NSA to spy on US citizens. You do not intercept domestic phone calls without warrants. He's set a nice example for everybody there. To hell with privacy and the law. There's your tie-in.
And I just can't resist even though it's non-sequitur: You don't start wars on questionable intelligence.
You Bush apologists crack me up. A damned blowjob does not equal a half trillion dollar war. Don't even get me started on "I didn't inhale" as opposed to the lack of response to the cocaine accusation.
The man is an asshole, as are Rumsfeld and Ashcroft. And guess what? The Republican party as a whole (including the Republican "centrists" of which I once counted myself) are going to pay over the next election or two.
Martyr? Maybe in the eyes of the Pat Robertson double-digit IQ brigade, but anybody with a moderate level of critical reasoning ability is going to see him as one of the worst presidents in this country's history.
Re:An example (Score:4, Insightful)
We forgive you. Maybe if he had been elected we could blame you, but he wasn't, so we can't.
Those are exactly the uneducated, unable to think for themselves, repressed people who DO think that a blowjob is worse than our children dying in Iraq for a lie.
Unfortunately, there don't seem to be enough of us left anymore. Certainly not enough to make the needed difference. Only with hindsight will history be able to judge GWB, and the verdict will not be favorable.
Cool links. [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think a reasonable corrolary to this is that, if everyone could simply get a nice massage and some good oral sex once in a while, there would be no more war.
Re:An example (Score:5, Insightful)
To me it looks even worse. It seems that the Bush government knew the intelligence was spotty but massaged the data to justify the war anyway. Maybe not Bush himself, he may be clueless enough that it was done behind his back.
But I think there are some people in the current administration who deserve to be hanged.
Re:An example (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:An example (Score:5, Interesting)
Well my mother had a long talk with a member of the whitehouse transition team back in 2000. And I remember the guy she spoke too complained about how they were obsessed with Iraq even back then. If you look at how they are a bunch of energy company old hands, and you look at how when Saddam rose to power he nationalized a bunch of oil holding you can start to see the big picture.
The transition team fellow also complained that the admisistration was the most paranoid group of people that he had ever had to work with. Everyone was in CYA (cover your ass) mode constantly.
Also on the backstabbing nature of the insiders I can attest that my mother and her boss were repeatedly called before congressional inquires on spurious matters mainly focused around the fact that the government agency they worked for advocated condom use. (She worked at the center for disease control) Her boss was a nobel prize winner for medacine who eventually stepped down due to the constant interuptions of his work and the hassling of his family and friends. (They were also called to these spurrious inquiry session)
It is not that Bush is corrupt, but that a single group has siezed power and allow no dissent nor debate. There is only an emperor and his minions all follow in lockstep.
Re:An example (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, then, how do you think the:
has affected impressions of what is and is not acceptable behavior in the boardrooms of America? Who outside the administration is responsible for those things happening?
The real problem is that so many deeply disturbing things are happening at once that it's becoming impossible to keep track.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If anything, the laws regarding corporate governance have gotten more strict during the current administration. I wouldn't blame/credit Bush for that, either - this was a long time in the making.
Who outside the administration is responsible for those things happening?
Could it possibly be the people who are actually in those boardrooms? Contrary to popular bel
Re:An example (Score:5, Insightful)
While that's true - you can't blame it directly on Bush, there is a huge network of rightwing thinktanks and pundits; Club for Growth, Focus on the Family, Heritage Foundation, Aspen Group, CATO, etc. etc. ad nauseum, who dominate the newsmedia op ed and commentary pages and shows, and to them, Bush is their hero, their figurehead, their demigod. They mindlessly push their ideology using trumped up "facts" and faked "studies", vitriol and personal attacks on various figures on the "left", they re-define terms, present false dillemas, strawmen, and every logical fallacy known to man (and I think they've even invented a few the Greeks didn't know about).
Bush is currently the de facto figurehead of this movement.
This movement's ideology fits perfectly with the actions of HP's board in this "stupid corporate scandal": The ideology that people should only have privacy if they aren't using it. The idea that corporate profits are more important than the rights of individuals. The ideology that the wealthy and powerful are above the law, and are the only people that matter.
No - Bush didn't make these people act this way. This ideology has been around for a very long time, and its recent resurgence in America does pre-date Bush's rise to prominence (whether you call it from Nixon, or Reagan's election, or the congressional takeover in 1994), I think it's entirely appropriate and accurate to "blame this on Bush". If not Bush - then at least the blame lies in "the horse he rode in on."
Re:An example (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a stupid statement. The NSA wiretapping was wrong and Bush should probably be impeached for breaking the law, but this has NOTHING to do with the scandal at HP, no matter how many paragraphs you write to try to justify it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This was a long running follow up to HP executive director's board members leaking information to the press in direct violation of BOARD policy to discuss meetings outside offical channels. The short story is that when Carly was still in charge information about her "chewing out" sessions with the board was leaked by a board member to "get b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you tell someone, "I think this policy is bad because
Tell someone, "I think this policy is bad bacause is an idiot".. and they will shut you out.
Regardless of party discuss issues, dis
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't the board pick the CEO? If they're not happy, just kick'em out!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:An example (Score:4, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
No one said it was Bush's fault and it is a sign either of your immaturity or your overdefensiveness (or both) that you would suggest that they did. Immaturity for putting words in people's mouths that they never intended; overdefensiveness because you feel compelled to defend him against an accusation that was never made.
Judging by a straight, literal read of the news coverage, I could see that Bush was being blamed for not doing enough to help, especially minorities, which provably, statistically, received less help.
Uh, how do you know? Are you privileged to know what goes on inside the white house? What's going on inside the councils of people who are in a much greater position of power than yuo are? Somehow, I doubt it.
Powell is highly connected with big oil and in my book he's precisely the same as any of the other assholes who've worked in that building under shrub.
This is an attack on his policy, but your apparent unfamiliarity with the English language must be inhibiting your interpretation. See, the President's job is ultimately pretty meaningless, he could be replaced with a very small shell script. Especially this one; all he'd have to do is make a bunch of unauthorized accesses. All kidding aside, however, I thought it was a pretty clear indictment against Bush's tendency to ignore privacy rights. It might have been kind of a cheap shot... but I don't feel too charitable to someone who seems to be intent on dismantling all of our freedoms as he comes across them.
Name one good thing that this administration is doing for any reason other than supporting something bad they're doing, please.
Re:An example (Score:4, Insightful)
Sigh.
Good time for anyone to leave (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But HP is in the "fortunate" position many corporations are today, you can pretty much demand anything from your workers, knowing that they got nowhere to run but mortgages to pay.
And this is why (Score:3, Insightful)
It probably won't make any difference. Here's why (Score:5, Interesting)
The world today, at least the western world (though I wouldn't be surprised if other parts too) has a very different minority that's disproportionately represented at the top: the sociopaths. It's not even much of a surprise. In a society and culture where we expect -- and indeed _demand_ -- sociopathic behaviour from corporations and politicians, the ones that make it to the top are those who can promise just that: to behave like a sociopath, and take decisions without letting emotions or empathy get in the way. And there are reasons too, such as their being natural actors and having no loyalty except to themselves. So they can put up an outstanding show for the boss and get a promotion, while you're busy doing actual work.
The thing is, what they do has no resemblance with what Joe Average and Jane Housewife does. Only about 1% of the population scores clean over 30 on an APD (Antisocial Personality Disorder = sociopathy/psychopathy) test. We're talking the creme de la creme, the elite among the elite. (To put it into perspective, the average Joe or Jane have maybe 1 confirmed trait or spurious minor manifestations of 2-3, and even those are often just bad habits or benign when they're not accompanied by others.) They're people who are actually more anti-social (in the medical sense) than the hardened criminals in a prison (who tend to average somewhere in the 20's), yet are smart enough to not end up in prison. You can't really look at what a sociopath does and extrapolate it at what the average man or woman would do, nor viceversa.
They're not only a minority, but they don't even function mentally in the same way as you do. Even if a lot of common people do get caught in an admiration of sociopaths and their methods, in practice they couldn't do the same things. They're just not wired the same way.
I.e., what I'm saying is that you can't look at this case and think she's representative for women as a whole. And conversely, those who think that "having women in power would make for a kinder, gentler world" make the wrong extrapolation in the other direction. They look at some of the average women around them and think, basically, "hey, I bet if she was a CEO/Chairman/President/whatever, it would be a nicer world." Well, maybe it even would, except it won't those who end up in position of power.
Just changing the genre stereotype won't make the world any better, as long as the same kind people are left to run the show. What can change the world is (A) recognizing these people for what they are, and (B) having enough checks and safeguards so they can't run amok and cause major damage.
Re:It probably won't make any difference. Here's w (Score:4, Interesting)
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
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be a requirement for corporate upper management to have to take an APD test.
:D
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!
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 (Score:5, Funny)
having women in power won't necessarily make for a kinder, gentler world.
That's because it's a certain personality type that goes after power, and that type is gender neutral.
Also, if women ran the world, the Earth would be a bombed out nuclear ruin after the first full moon.
Oh, I'm gonna get modded down...
Re:And this is why (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless something changes in the next couple of years, I don't think you're going to have to imagine much longer...:)
Re:And this is why (Score:5, Insightful)
This has proven not to be the case, as evidenced by the behavior of various corporate and political women in power. While true that the Cynthia McKinney's and Carly Fiorina's of the world are not the rule, they do lead to questions of whether women are so fundamentally different after all.
Is Hillary Clinton somehow better than the other senators simply because she is a woman? Is she exempt from being accused of being an opportunistic carpetbagger, merely because she has a set of tits? That is what some would have us believe.
If I can call Sen. Stevens a bastard, I can call Sen. Clinton a bitch.
Yes and no (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that corporations are essentially immortal sociopaths, I think their structures *select* for sociopaths or people who are comfortable being in a sociopathic structure.
Only "young" corporations do not show these traits.
It is possible to be honest/noble but you won't get campaign contributions from the corporations (so you must be in line with a sociopathic agenda to get funding). The lust for power is very corrupting- even of people who start out good. A lot of idealistic republicans broke their word over term limits because they came to think they were more important than they really were.
No, not all of them (Score:3, Interesting)
And if you want to get technical about it, yeah, it's not just sociopaths out there, it's pretty much a split between those and
Pre-Texting at a Bank (Score:4, Interesting)
I work at a bank, and we have to take yearly courses on Pre-Text calling, because it's such as issue here.
also here [msn.com] is printer unfriendly with the annoying javascript popup
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How did she do that? (Score:4, Insightful)
-d
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Regards,
Steve
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
-d
Re:How did she do that? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm no lawyer, but I'm relatively sure the law requires notification whenever a person's reasonable expectation of privacy is to be infringed upon. A telephone call is one of those reasonable expectations. As is sitting on the toilet. I don't know if there's a legal precedent for email, but I do know that you usually sign an agreement stating that the corporation can watch anything/everything you do using their workstations, telephones, email servers, etc, etc. Without it, I would imagine the person being watched would have a fairly good case in court. They may not win, but then again, they may very well win, and pocket a lot of the company's cash in the process.
Employer agreements (Score:4, Informative)
Keep in mind though, that response is more relevant in the context of an employer-employee relationship. Board of Directors are not "necessarily" employees of the company. Their election by the shareholders binds them to the company, what the company can do with them is limited, and I certainly would think the company could not dictate an agreement to them to do X or Y. The Directors have an obligation to the shareholders, not to the "company."
Re:How did she do that? (Score:5, Interesting)
(Standard IANAL disclaimer here.)
So, as long as you're in a company bathroom, we can video tape everything you do? After all, it's company property.
Well, bad example (I'll mention why in a minute), but the answer to the spirit of the question is: Yeah, probably.
You may or may not have any right to privacy at work. Most Americans see a definite right to privacy in the Constitution, but they fail to understand that the Constitution is meant as a limit on the power of the government. Specifically, it was meant as a limit on the power of the federal government; not until the Fourteenth Amendment did the US Constitution come to apply to the states as well. If it was a police officer who set up the cameras in the bathroom with no cause, it would almost certainly be illegal.
That said, I believe most case law thus far has come down on the side of "while you're on company property, they can do whatever they want to you." Including, in some cases, opening up your drawers and rifling through your papers; reading your emails; etc. No, they can't watch you in the bathroom--but not as a privacy issue; they couldn't do that because it may very well violate other laws, such as voyeurism. Telephone calls may also be safe, but again, not because of your right to privacy: Depending on the state, it may simply violate wiretap laws.
Some decisions have begun to come down saying that employees do have some expectation of privacy at their places of employment, and I expect that to be the general trend. That said, I believe it's still in the minority. Your employer still has a tremendous latitude in determine how much privacy to give their employees and when it might be time to violate that.
More to the point of the case, however, it appears that they did not actually tap anybody's phone. Rather, they looked at phone records. You can bet that it is perfectly within a company's rights, at least at present, to pull the phone records of any employee for any service the company pays for. If they truly did trick the employees' phone companies into releasing their own personal phone records, then that sounds to be entirely illegal.
So, like I said, the spirit of your initial question seems to be yes: Employers can watch an awful lot of what you do so long as they are not violating any specific laws while they do it. It's the difference between violating a law and violating a right: It does not seem to be the rule (yet) that companies have any obligations to extend you any rights not backed up by law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Beats the shit out of me. You would think someone would have pointed out US code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 119--WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.
Here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/u s c_sup_01_18_10_I_20_119.html [cornell.edu]
Plus depending on the State this occured in there may be other violations. Is
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What they did do was "pretexting," which apparently is also illegal. Basically, they impersonated the directors. They called their phone companies, and -- pretending to be the director in question -- they lied to the customer service person until he/she believed the real customer was on the line. Then, they instructed the customer service person to give them the con
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How did she do that? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Which *MAY* be illegal. (Score:5, Informative)
In California, where HP is headquartered, it is a crime to obtain labor through "fraudulent representation or pretense" is guilty just as if they had stolen services with similar value (California Penal Code 532). By representing themselves as the customers of the phone company whose records were requested, they obtained the labor of customer service staff under false pretense.
It is likewise criminal, in California, to willfully obtain "personal identifying information" (including, among many other thingsother things, name, address, telephone number, place of employment, or social security number) of another and then use that information for any unlawful purpose, including "to obtain, or attempt to obtain, credit, goods, services, or medical information" (Penal Code 530.5, emphasis added), without the consent of the person whose information was used. Here, they used several pieces of personal information concerning the directors targetted to obtain services from people with whom those directors did business, and did so without the directors consent.
So to say there is no law which makes it illegal to use someone else's personal information to enable yourself to impersonate that person to get someone to give you information is, well, not exactly true, even outside of banking information.
just to put things in perspective... (Score:5, Informative)
This is pretty dramatic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's data mining got to do with anything? This is about spying and fraud.
They think it's OK to read through employee email and listen in on their phone calls but God help the poor slob who does it to a member of the board?
Come on - if you make calls or send emails from company devices on company time you have no right to expect privacy, particularly in the time of SOX compl
First stock advice post! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:First stock advice post! (Score:4, Funny)
Smoking Gun (Score:5, Informative)
Whatever happened to the old HP? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a shame, really.
Dunn should be Done (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, it's pathetic how easy it was for these investigators to get personal phone records on these accounts. You'd think there would be some standards in place, such as only sending the information to addresses already tied to the account, or something. I'm no security expert, but this looks pretty shoddy.
Re:Dunn should be Done (Score:5, Insightful)
But once she had her proof, why not confront that director personally, rather than pull a stunt like this in front of the full board?
Probably because she wanted the full board to witness the ease and efficiency with which her henchmen had tracked down the wrongdoer, to point out to them the futility of opposing her rule. In her mind, after such a brazen display of power, no one would ever dare to leak again! Unless maybe they had a prostate problem.
Doubleplusgood! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doubleplusgood! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Doubleplusgood! (Score:4, Interesting)
folks that gave up the information were idiots. We might even say what a great
guy the young geek was for pointing out the flaws in a company's security system.
Both are lying.
Where the NSA goes, there goes the nation? (Score:2)
I don't care... much. (Score:4, Interesting)
So why care on their behalf? These walking lobotomies need to stand up for themselves.
Re:I don't care... much. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't care... much. (Score:5, Insightful)
I just think these dumb idiots bent over and let her screw them. And when they found out how much they had been violated, they apparently just stayed hunched over, waiting for more. It's pathetic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So yeah, I would say that he is wealthy.
Trust in the boardroom (Score:5, Insightful)
"The situation is regrettable," Ms. Dunn said in a statement provided to the Wall Street Journal. "But the bottom line is that the board has asserted its commitment to upholding the standards of confidentiality that are critical to its functioning. A board can't serve effectively if there isn't complete trust that what gets discussed stays in the room."
Can the board serve effectively if there isn't complete trust or confidentiality anyway? If the CEO is spying on you at any or at all times?
Re:Trust in the boardroom (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a certain amount of information about the company that has to be disclosed, and most of that appears in annual reports, quarterly reports and certain, required press releases. Shareholders have a right to attend shareholders' meetings, which could include employees if they happen to be shareholders.
When Common Sense is Ignored (Score:2, Interesting)
"slowly, one by one, the penguins steal my
BBC Says CA AG will investigate (Score:4, Informative)
'Pretext'? (Score:5, Funny)
If you have to think up a euphemism for what you're doing, it's probably wrong.
Unless it's funny, like 'bumping uglies' or 'dropping the kids off at the pool'
Who wants to be a HP customer now? (Score:5, Interesting)
If they were looking at company issued phones, computers, or other equiptment I would say that is fair game. When they pretend they are you and get information from services providers where you pay the bill they have crossed the line. I was shopping for a new laptop and HP is now out of contention.
The only way this can be corrected is if HP cans Patricia Dunn ASAP. Tom Perkins should be running HP. He actually has a moral compass and stands by what he thinks is right.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If Patricia Dunn spies on her employees like this, how can I trust her enough to be a customer of HP?
To be honest if HP produced equipment that was halfway decent and sold at a reasonable price, it wouldn't bother me one way or the other. They don't, on both counts, so the point is moot. Regardless, I'd tap that sociopathic ass [forbes.com].
Naughty Patricia.
Naughty.
She announced it? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only bright spot of this situation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
When I get to be a director I'm going to learn to use the street-corner payphones!
CEO works for board, not other way around. (Score:3, Informative)
As I understand the situation, the remaining board members aren't entirely in the clear since the CEO appears to have committed criminal acts as
Used to work for Pattie Dunn - what a change (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Used to work for Pattie Dunn - what a change (Score:5, Funny)
This is symptomatic.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that there aren't established procedures and rules (and laws) of how to monitor employees (even board members). It's that this Ms. Dunn can't be bothered to look it up. Or even ask human resources. Making stuff up as you go along is what passes for "innovative", "bold", "leadership.
She's cut from the same jib as, say, those Enron guys. These are people who see life as a game, and yes, they're winning, if you keep score the way they do. Morally, as human beings, they're of course pieces of shit.
It's not surprising the rest of the board members stayed on board. They're used to treating people like children, and they've not fully grown up themselves, so this sort of irresponsible prank seems logical to them. They're the business equivalents of Bill O'Reilly - great ratings, but ultimately they're just spewing hot air, and their oversimplified black-and-white world is so disconnected from the real world, they wouldn't know it if it bit them in the ass.
But there you have it. Apparently the Chairwoman at HP is willing to go to great, and illegal lengths, to run the company. Will the shareholders say "hey, wait, maybe having someone at the top who's willing to commit felonies isn't such a great idea"? Only time will tell..
A little extra (Score:3, Interesting)
This kind of behaviour is tipical of a certain kind of people who hide behind a crowd and lead it to act in ways which solo individuals never would.
- If the crowd is on the streets they're "a mob" and the aboved mentioned people are called "rabble rousers" or "inciters to violence"
- If the crowd sits down in buildings they're "a corporation" and the above mentioned people are called "directors"
I strongly suspect that personality-wise the same
It reminds me .... (Score:3, Interesting)
This reminds me of a couple of years ago when the football (soccer if you're an american) club i'm a fan of elected as president a shaddy lawyer character which years before had scammed some persons out of their moeny but somehow managed t
They didn't get mine (Score:5, Interesting)
The sad part is, they will probably get away with all of this. The sadder part is they are looking in the wrong place. As a member of that nebulous group know as 'the press', I can say that people speak out and leak when things are going badly, wrong, and management has their heads stuck up their collective asses. Rather than fixing the problem, they assign blame.
In any case, I should drop my guys a line and have a laugh.
-Charlie
Not at all (Score:5, Interesting)
Not at all. They know who I am, and if they had a shred of evidence that I did anything wrong, they would have sued me long ago. I post everything with my name attached, and with my email on it where applicable. I tried calling HP and talking to them several times, but they did not return my calls. I did leave all my contact info, and have done so numerous times at trade shows. If you don't do anything illegal, you don't have to hide behind anonymity.
That said, I did not do anything wrong, have never signed an NDA with HP, or agreed to anything of the sort. On top of that I scrub my emails religiously and regularly so if they send me paperwork, they will get nothing because I have nothing. That said, I have looked for the names of the people I wanted to talk to, and I don't have them any more. Sad, a quote on the Inq now would have been quite topical. Scrubbing mail is a double edged sword.
Either way, I am not worried at all, what are they going to do call up my ISP and pretend they are me to get my records? That would be flat out illegal, and they would never do such a thing.
-Charlie
Re:They didn't get mine (Score:5, Informative)
HP has a fundamental problem. The leakers are the symptom, and their inability to catch any significant number of leakers is evidence that the problem is truly endemic and well known by the employees. It's like catching insurgents -- to do it, you need intelligence, and to get intelligence you need cooperation. If the insurgents have grass roots support, you won't get that cooperation, and you're doomed.
Two wrongs make a Right? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, she is easily indictable and her imprisonment will serve as a fine example for others of her ilk who doubtless think likewise.
OK, obvious question (Score:4, Funny)
Just where are HP getting their board members?
Long time employee, first time truly angry (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Let's hear it for Perkins (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a counter to the examples we so often see of businessmen doing the wrong thing. You don't often hear about people in business doing the right thing, because that seldom makes a juicy story. In business, you have to make ethical decisions all the time. It's nice to see a news story that sheds some light on one of those decisions properly decided.
Re:I don't see why anyone would mind (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, who's the first to volunteer for random house checks?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Perkins, who helped launch HP's computer division in the 60's, has asked the FTC, FCC and the Justice Department to investigate.
So are articles...
According to Tom Perkins, an HP director who was present, Dunn laid out the surveillance scheme and pointed out the offending director, who acknowledged being the CNET leaker.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.