HP Spying More Elaborate Than Reported

theodp writes "The NY Times reports the secret investigation of news leaks at HP was more elaborate than previously reported. In addition to illicitly gathering private phone records almost from the start, detectives reportedly followed and videotaped some directors and journalists, were given photos of reporters to help identify them, and tried to plant surveillance software on a CNET reporter's computer. HP also fessed up to spying on its own spokesman, whose personal phone records were taken."

Re:Will anyone care?

[bleh-of-the-huns]

Unfortunately, you are correct, I work in a large corp/gov enviroment, the data center has been standardized on HP server products. With all that invested in a product, (not just the product but the support infrastructure), it would take years to change over to new hardware. I dont see that happening, not to mention the fact that HP proliant servers are quality equipment.

Re:Will anyone care?

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

No, I cannot imagine customers will care. And since customers won't care its unlikely investors will care too much. Some investors could be a bit shaken by news and shakeup but I don't see institutional investors (they really drive the market) getting to worked up over this. Longterm its hard to see this having any real effect on the company. Probably the biggest danger would be the SEC finding bigger corporate goverancne issues related to this (not filing 100% accurate documents, etc). I haven't seen anything yet that is too likely to get them in enough trouble with the SEC to cause any real problems, but with the congress getting involved etc there could be some pressure to make an example (don't really see that happening to HP though). The SEC coming down harshly could be enough to get the large investors to pull back a bit. All in all I'd guess your correct. Probably the fallout will mainly be limited to those individuals involved.

Re:Will anyone care?

[HatchedEggs]

I think that the reaction to this is in part wrong. Lets note that the it was select individuals who were doing this... and not all of HP. Certainly, in this case the problems came from the top, but in that it has also been handled and said parties are stepping down.

In something like this, I don't think you should blame the whole company and try to take it out on HP as a whole. The perpetrators in this instance are quite identifiable, and it is they who should be taken to task.

What should we expect of HP? More oversight in how they handle their internal leak hunts, etc. Also, to do some work cleaning up their image after this and distancing themselves from those involved. Well, and other things. My point is, why would it make sense to try and punish the company as a whole for this?

And no, I don't work for HP. It just doesn't make sense to me to blame this on the whole company, as there are tons of great people that work there.

Re:Will anyone care?

[maxd24]

Sorry, but these aren't just a few employees, these are board members. They define the direction of the company. In effect, they ARE the company. You're correct that the individuals who work for HP are not to blame, but the corporation as an entity made a decision to conduct business in an illegal fashion. Whatever happens (and I don't expect it to be much) should happen to the corporate entity.

Re:Would you work for a company that does this?

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably already do.

Re:How bad does it need to be?

[lucabrasi999]

I predict that the board will now force her immediate resignation, but will they also strip her of her directorship? What about severance? They should take it all, retroactively.

That is what they should do, but, in the world of corporate governance, that is not what happens. Remember, after HP fired Carly Fiorina, they gave her a $21 Million severance package (LINK [com.com]). And, Carly pretty much ran HP in to the ground. While Dunn's actions are arguably worse (both in terms of HP's reputation and legality) than Carly's mis-management, the fact is that Dunn will probably get a nice big check.

I imagine that even if Dunn ends up in front of a judge and jury because of this, her lawyers will ensure she still gets paid.

Re:A tough situation

[Anonymous Coward]

One one hand, I sympathize for HP. To have a board member that fails to respect the privacy of board room material can be very hard

This is such total crap! The whistleblower should be compensated. He helped shareholders find out that they were getting dicked. The criminal Dunn should not have been allowed to use the illegally obtained evidence to dump the whistleblower. He should at least be compensated as if he were a board member for the period of time a reasonable person would expect him to remain on the board if this hadn't been discovered.

Otherwise, this is basically a warning to whistleblowers to turn a blind eye to malfeasance.

Re:Will anyone care?

[svunt]

We live in a corporatist society. When a company can lobby governemt, donate to political parties, and so on, it's natural that we should react to their behavior as we would an individual who'd done wrong.

We don't admonish people's hands when they steal, we do so to the whole person (and we address our comments to the head, or boardroom in this case).

I agree that the specificly guilty parties should wear this, but corporations cannot have it both ways; either they're an entity, responible for all their actions, or they're a bunch of people in the same building, and they can start asking favours of their congressman individually.

Re:Will anyone care?

[GreyPoopon]

Sorry, but these aren't just a few employees, these are board members.

And the guilty members are stepping down and also under investigation by law enforcement officials. What more do you want? Perhaps you'd like to completely ruin HP so that they can lay off more employees? Personally, I'd be satisfied to see the guilty spend some time in prison and pay heavy fines that take a sizeable chunk out of their personal assets. And I doubt any sane company would ever put them in a leadership position again. Although if that were to happen, I'd support boycotting _that_ company.

Re:More News

[rbunker]

Nah... her behavior is obnoxious, and probably illegal, but her body count so far is zero. Between Stalin and Hitler you can pretty conservatively come up with 60,000,000 dead. She is a piker compared to them.

Re:Will anyone care?

[NMerriam]

doesn't it strike you that the message sent by the courts to tech companies with their Apple decision is "You're on your own when it comes to protecting your trade secrets"?

Well, yes, that is the message. That's what the law says -- it is the company's job to protect trade secrets. If they want to keep it secret, they get limited legal protection should a leak occur. The courts are not the place to go and complain that it is hard to develop a major new product in secret, and the courts are not in the business of protecting a company's marketing strategy and timeline.