Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

HP CEO Allowed 'Sting' on CNet reporter 145

Posted by Zonk from the ouch-that-stung dept.
Mark writes "The Washington Post, reporting on Hewlett-Packard's Chairman Patricia Dunn and alleged spying on other HP board members, has obtained e-mails that implicate the CEO, Mark Hurd, who approved an elaborate 'sting' operation on a CNet reporter." From the article: HP's leak investigation involved planting false documents, following HP board members and journalists, watching their homes, and obtaining calling records for hundreds of phone numbers belonging to HP directors, journalists and their spouses, according to a consultant's report and the e-mails."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HP CEO Allowed 'Sting' on CNet reporter More

HP CEO Allowed 'Sting' on CNet reporter

Comments Filter:

  • WOW (Score:2, Funny)

    by BlackIcejane ( 1004346 )
    I still can't belive this sort of thing happends and they got away with it. it boggles my mind in so many ways.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They probably thought," Well, if our own government can do it and get away with it, then why the hell shouldn't we do the same?"

      Just following the example set by Bush and his cronies.

      • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        They probably thought," Well, if our own government can do it and get away with it, then why the hell shouldn't we do the same?"

        Just following the example set by Bush and his cronies.

        Nah, the government *hates* it when other people horn in on their business.
      • Put your pathetic political position aside when you moderate. Parent makes a good point.

        • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Political opinion doesn't matter. No matter who the post was referring to, bush or not, it was a message intended to provoke. "whoever and his cronies".... That fits the definition of troll as far as I'm concerned.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Well, she didn't get away with it, did they?
      We are reading about it. There are Congressional hearings (which may not be criminal presecution but is an effective way to bankrupt you with legal fees) and the CA GA is investigating for criminal charges. Yeah, scott free.
    • You're kidding right? We probably only hear of about 1% of the crap that happens in the corporate s**thouses, that's what surprises me..
    • We should attach a generator to Hewlett and Packard; I bet they are more upset than you are. This is a far cry form what David Packard wrote in The HP Way: How Bill and I Built Out Company. Actually, it is an OK book which discusses things like how they wanted to build technically superior products, not just more mass market junk like they do now.

    • Re:WOW (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Friday September 22, 2006 @02:18PM (#16162259) Homepage
      I still can't belive this sort of thing happends and they got away with it. it boggles my mind in so many ways.

      What boggles my mind is that you're currently moderated as funny, not the +1 eerie we're all feeling about this.

      Companies illegally spying on people is something straight out of a cyberpunk novel or something. It scares the crap outta me, because if nobody gets into actual legal trouble over this, the next time a company does it, people will just start going "Oh, that old thing", and turn the channel.
    • I still can't belive this sort of thing happends and they got away with it.
      They're rich Republican supporters. Which part are you having trouble with exactly?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by iocat ( 572367 )
      I still can't belive this sort of thing happends and they got away with it. it boggles my mind in so many ways.

      Um... they didn't get away with it.

      I don't know how often this sort of thing happens, but when the cabal announcd what they'd done -- the results of their 'investigation' -- one of the board members (Perkins) blew the whistle and before long, all the major players were indicted for felonies, with their careers in ruins.

  • Don't put the blame on Hurd. (Score:4, Informative)

    by mikesd81 ( 518581 ) <.mikesd1. .at. .verizon.net.> on Friday September 22, 2006 @12:56PM (#16161654) Homepage
    Fromt the article: "None of the e-mails reviewed by The Post were to or from Hurd, nor do they detail what information Hurd had when he approved the sting operation."

    Just because he approved the action to sting the reporter, he didn't necessairily know what the means were.

    • Re:Don't put the blame on Hurd. (Score:4, Informative)

      by bunions ( 970377 ) on Friday September 22, 2006 @01:05PM (#16161718)
      zuh?

      From TFA:

      Dunn replied: "Kevin, I think this is very clever. As a matter of course anything that is going to potentially be seen outside HP should have Mark's approval as well."

      On Feb. 23, Hunsaker sent an e-mail to Dunn. "FYI, I spoke to Mark a few minutes ago and he is fine with both the concept and the content."


    • Re:Don't put the blame on Hurd. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BrynM ( 217883 ) * on Friday September 22, 2006 @01:09PM (#16161746) Homepage Journal
      Just because he approved the action to sting the reporter, he didn't necessairily know what the means were.
      Where I come from, we call that Plausible Deniability [wikipedia.org]. It keeps our best elitists from getting their hands all grubby with the details or criminal charges. After all, repercussions are for the riff-raff.

    • Absolutely put the blame on Hurd. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 22, 2006 @01:14PM (#16161779)
      When you are a manager, particularly an officer of the company, and you approve something like an investigation, you know it's going to be sensitive and that if it's not done properly, it's going to hurt the company.


      If you don't inquire into the details of what you've approved, it's either because you are: a) foolish, or b) don't want to be accountable.


      If a CEO directs something sensitive to happen, it's their responsibility to be aware of what it is and how it happens.

      • Or

        c)trust that your managment skill that got you the position has enabled you to trust the delegation of this job to people who are competent to handdle it in a manor you see fit.

        D) none of the above ????
        e) profit!!

        The big problem with this (and government positions as well) is that the people in charge believe they have the best pepple availible to delegate authority and responcibility too. Often this is because they do not know how to handdle it themselves. When these people embarrass the administ
    • So if I arrange for someone to be killed, but don't specifiy the MEANS to do it, that's OK? "Hey, I didn't know HOW the guy was gonna get killed.. maybe it was going to happen real nice and proper like?."

      Funny, I thought deception, fraud, and outright lying were wrong from the get-go. Now apparently the only thing that's wrong is HOW you go about deceiving, defrauding, and lying. If you do it properly, it's not wrong. Silly me.
      • That's a bad example. Asking someone to kill someone is illegal weather you specify the means or not. To catch someone leaking information is not. If I walk into my boss's office and say I think someone is leaking our sensitive information, I'm gonna try to see who it is and he says ok then fine. If he says ok, but how?, then he has a potential problem.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Jacked ( 785403 )
        Don't be ridiculous. Arranging to have someone killed is not only "wrong," but the very act itself is illegal, regardless of how many details you know. However, if I ask a friend to get me a Mt. Dew and he goes to my neighbor, beats the crap out him to get in the house and steals it from his refrigerator, I am not responsible for any of those crimes.

        Deception, fraud, and outright lying aren't always "wrong from the get-go," either. For example, if a nutcase with a machete comes to my house and asks to se
        • Don't be ridiculous. Arranging to have someone killed is not only "wrong," but the very act itself is illegal, regardless of how many details you know.

          Murder is "wrong", and is illegal pretty much everywhere that has a functioning government.

          However, for better or worse (maybe "better and worse" is a better way of putting it), soldiers and even the police are given the power and authority to use deadly force; not all circumstances where someone kills someone else is "murder". Note that the US government o

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Several points people seem to be consistantly missing:

        1) HP's board had a legal obligation to find the leak of financial information from the board. If they did not, they could be heavily liable under SEC rules.

        2) HP engaged well known and respected investigative companies. This was not cousin Guido. These companies are legally in business and purportedly use legal methods

        3) The companies the investigator used for the requests we now know as "pre-texting" are legally in business, and have been for a while.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by hobbesmaster ( 592205 )
        "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by vought ( 160908 )
      Just because he approved the action to sting the reporter, he didn't necessairily know what the means were.


      God forbid an executive be responsible for actions they approved.
      • God forbid an executive be responsible for actions they approved.

        I think though if you say "Just don't tell me HOW you plan to sting the reporter, I don't want to know", there's an implicit order to do whatever you deem necessary, legal or otherwise, just don't tell me about it. You should be held accountable for that as well.

        In a few month's we'll all forget anyway, and Patricia Dunn will become Chairman again.
    • Just because the mob boss approved the action to silence the witness, he didn't necessairily know what the means were.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gutnor ( 872759 )
      Let's call that Enron Defense: hey, I'm the boss, I don't know anything about the details of this company, ask the interns, that's their fault.

      Seriously if something needs to be approved by the CEO, that means that to do his job, the CEO should know exactly what's implied by his approval. The CEO does not approve the hiring of a new Janitor or the number of printers to buy in Alaska branch. The CEO personally approves "important" decisions. If he just sign everything his PA gives him, that makes him a moron
  • So now we've got CEO's investigating reporters, and reporters investigating Executives. When will they turn their high powered invest-i-scopes back onto politicians?

    • If you really want to carry the analogy all the way through, then it will simply require yet another reasonably high-level whistleblower (like a Deputy Chief of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for example) to leak vital information on actionable offenses. Watergate had its Deep Throat, after all.

      If this happens, though, use of "gate" as a suffix is strictly forbidden, because that's just silly.

      • Re:Reversal of watergate (Score:5, Funny)

        by gEvil (beta) ( 945888 ) on Friday September 22, 2006 @01:15PM (#16161791)
        If this happens, though, use of "gate" as a suffix is strictly forbidden, because that's just silly.

        I think they've been following that rule for a while now. Notice how there's been no "investigate" for a long time...

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by random coward ( 527722 )
        If this happens, though, use of "gate" as a suffix is strictly forbidden, because that's just silly.


        The correct usage for -gate is only for a Republican(or sometimes conservative) scandal. HP is neither therefore -gate would not be correct.

        Incidently the suffix for a Democrat(or sometimes liberal) scandal is very arcane (due to media bias against reporting and spiking of those stories), but is -aquiddick.
        • HP is neither therefore -gate would not be correct.

          Perhaps you somehow missed the part of the GP post that read, "when will they turn their high powered invest-i-scopes back onto politicians," and therefore subsequently missed the point.

      • How about Nand-gate?

        Herd It, Dunn It -gate?

        Nothing beats the Microsoft monopoly scandals - what were those called? Oh yeah, bill-gates

    • Actually, what we have here are members of the corporate elite mistaking themselves for politicians--i.e., the government. Or is that a mistake...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hackus ( 159037 )
      You silly person.

      Why would you want to investigate Congress?

      Corporate America IS Congres, and have the real power.

      Duh!

      -Hack
  • According to the article, "The idea, evidently, was to induce Kawamoto to open an e-mail attachment with a "tracer" in it that would allow them to see who she forwarded it to. They hoped it would pinpoint board member Keyworth as her source, according to the documents." How is this done? Is this something spammers do?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Thansal ( 999464 )
      sounds like a nice simple piece of malware. Probably spyware that simply reports back to the central location.

    • Easy (Score:3, Informative)

      by wantedman ( 577548 )
      If you want to to it the really n00b way: Place a link to a spacer.gif image in the email, then look at who accessed the image from your logs. You can even be script-kiddie clever by using a script disguised as an image to record all sorts of good information, like IP, browser, etc.

      And yes, spammers use this to see if someone accessed their emails.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by cayenne8 ( 626475 )
        "If you want to to it the really n00b way: Place a link to a spacer.gif image in the email"

        That's why I don't view/send HTML mail...I go plain text.

        Even on webmail accounts, I set them all to not load images unless I ok it.

        I thought that was pretty much common sense??

        • It's common sense for the tech crowd.

          But the story isn't targeting them, it's targeting people who probably don't know or care about that sorta thing.
        • gmail allows you to DISABLE image displays. that's one thing.

          I always disable javascript for anthing that doesn't NEED it.

          finally, I use ELM - good old ascii email (when I'm on my unix box). image preview? pffft! yeah, right. only if the 'image' is in vt100 escape sequences ;)

      • Then Karl Voth's "Reaper" exploit can phone home with the *content* of forwarded message including the comments added as people forward them.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mikael ( 484 )


      You would simply have the E-mail with an HTML attachment that referenced a web image or page somewhere ('img src="". Just a one pixel transparent image would do the trick. The filename would be so obscure, no web spider or wandering web user would find it.

      Once the image was referenced, the sender would know the IP address of the computer that accessed the page.

  • Well Executed Plan (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Black-Man ( 198831 ) on Friday September 22, 2006 @01:00PM (#16161693)
    Dunn was/is a lame duck on the board. She has cancer and had no intentions of remaining as the chairman next year. Therefore, she knew what had to be done to stiffle the critics, i.e. friends of the Hewlett family. She succeeded in getting both of them off the board and now all is left is damage control with her taking the "fall". Gotta give her credit.

  • The Sting (Score:2, Funny)

    by sbackholm ( 203315 )
    I knew they should have hired Paul Newman.

  • Why are supposedly smart people so stupid? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ip_freely_2000 ( 577249 ) on Friday September 22, 2006 @01:01PM (#16161699)

    Let me answer my own question....because they are amoral.

    It's amazing to think these people would sign off on such an act. They had to know that the means to collect information would be shady at best. If they didn't know, they're too stupid to be in their position. It makes one wonder how they got there and what nefarious acts they committed to achieve their position.
    • I can only speculate, but it seems to me that nowadays any high-profile tech firm will have their employees sign NDAs. In addition, if they were using corporate email, why the hell shouldn't the boss be allowed to spy on their conversations? It seems to me that he would have a very vested interest in the discourse of others, especially when trade secrets or insider-only communication is involved.
      • Vested interest or not, they have no special rights to police the release of information outside of corporate property. They don't get to play vigilante just because they have a lot to lose...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Thaelon ( 250687 )
      I don't wonder how they got there. They knowlingly committed amoral, nefarious, and shady acts.
    • The traditional way to trace a leak is to contact the journalist directly and offer juicy exclusives of more confidential information in exchange for the journalist betraying the source. Unethical, but it doesn't constitute fraud or computer trespass.

      There's the risk of that technique failing if you try it on an ethical computer industry journalist (stop laughing so hard! You're turning blue! Take a long deep breath before you faint!).
  • This is yet one more point on the side of "humans were not evolved under conditions that would lead to responsible behavior given extraordinary amounts of power in a society." Personally, I'm with Douglass Adams here - I think that anyone ambitious and capable enough to have gotten such power in the first place should by no means be allowed to exercise it.

    Well I guess it's "better" than BushCo etc spying on all of our phones, but at least they can pretend that's for the greater good...
    • Don't you think it's a bit unfair to indict all of humanity based on the actions of a couple people? Fundamentally, you're making a judgement based on the coverage of one news story with little to no consideration of the thousands of companies that don't make the news.
      • Don't you think it's a bit unfair to indict all of humanity based on the actions of a couple people?

        If this was the only reason I felt this way, I think you'd be absolutely right. However, I think that I have seen so many cases of small and medium-scale abuse of power at school and at my various places of employment, and even among my peers... it's a pattern to me, and to be honest, I have a hard time imagining having all of that power and responsibility and not tempted to do a few questionable things

  • Irony (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "The document, one of more than two dozen e-mails obtained by The Washington Post, for the first time links Hurd to an internal investigation of media leaks..."
  • If I worked for HP and depended on their stock options for (a good portion of) my retirement, I wouldn't be the slight bit muffed by management doing whatever it takes to stop leaks that may end up hurting the company through the loss of valuable trade secrets, technology, etc. That's the board's job - to raise the stock.
    • Or they could just "take you out", or dig up enough information on you so that they could enact some clause that does not allow you to get your retirement. Putting the extra money back into the coffers should raise the stock some. Maybe they could just get your whole identity, open up a few credit cards in your name, and use them to pay everyone a dividen.

      Stealing peoples idenities and hacking into their computer systems to obtain private information is a crime. If they could find the leak using leaga

      • "Have you checked the worth of their stock lately?"

        Yeah, the price went up when Dunn said she was stepping down last week.

    • Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sizzzzlerz ( 714878 ) on Friday September 22, 2006 @01:49PM (#16162026)
      If I worked for HP and depended on their stock options for (a good portion of) my retirement, I wouldn't be the slight bit muffed by management doing whatever it takes to stop leaks that may end up hurting the company through the loss of valuable trade secrets, technology, etc. That's the board's job - to raise the stock.

      Ok, for the sake of argument, let's assume that you would stop short of approving the murder of the leaker(s). Just how far, short of that, would you still feel good about: knee-capping, breaking the bones in one's hand with a hammer, kidnapping a family member, burning down their house, torturing their cat, etc.?

      Remember, you are protecting trade secrets here and the value of your HP stock is at stake.

      I hope you think this is absurd but your comment is stupid. It is not the board's job to break the law and it is not within their purview to do anything necessary to protect the stock.

  • and now with no ads [washingtonpost.com]!

  • Hmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rethcir ( 680121 ) on Friday September 22, 2006 @01:27PM (#16161858)
    The reporter was sending out an SOS to the world, because not every little thing the CEO did was magic.

  • How could this happen!? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ChefAndCoder ( 902506 ) on Friday September 22, 2006 @01:29PM (#16161877)
    What kind of a country could we live in where this type of spying, duplicity, and invasion of privacy would be seen as acceptable by HP's executives!?

    Oh . . . wait . . .

  • Nothing wrong with spying (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 22, 2006 @01:29PM (#16161880)
    This whole thing came about due to general bashing of the rights of individual, the concept of spying is trying to justify itself and integrate into the culture and psyche. The value of the individual is being eroded daily. The Soviet constution provided all the rights that Americans have. Except there was a clause that these rights can be suspended in some cases "for the good of the state". If you read the Declaration of Independence you will see that the founding fathers believed in the rights of the individual over some lofty pseduo utopian ideal of advancing the state. Governments are instituted for the protection of the rights of people (thats what it says in the consitution).

    The people you have running around today justifying spying .. these are the same folks that would have said the 4th amendment is useless. They would have argued strongly against the 6th amendment, and would have laughed at the concept of the 8th amendment. Yet these are the same people passing themselves off as patriots today.

    There are folks walking around waving the US flag, and yet they dont believe that all humans are created equal and have inalienable rights. The very concept that founded the country! The nation was formed under war. Redcoat spies and traitors everywhere yet even in those troubled times they instituted the Bill of Rights.

    If you listen to the fake patriots speech their philosophies imply that instituting the Bill of Rights back then in the nations infancy would have brought about the demise of the US. Yet the USA prevailed, liberty wins out in the end. They pass off some lie that torture can prevent an attack. But what about the innocent people you torture to prevent an attack?

    It may seem that I am offtopic here .. but I am not .. my point is that the general sentiment of folks seems to have twisted from rights of an individual towards the goal of advancing the state towards some utopia. And that is why you have people thinking it's OK to spy on possibly innocent people.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Asylumn ( 598576 )
      Redcoat spies and traitors everywhere yet even in those troubled times they instituted the Bill of Rights.


      True, but only after they shot all the redcoats.
      • All one million of them?

        The colonies had a population of about three million at the time of the Revolution. It's estimated that about a third of them supported Britain. I don't know how actively Britain was working to undermine the States by the time the traitors to the Crown started writing up the Constitution (I think most of their efforts were devoted to naval harassment, which was a big cause for the War of 1812). But it wouldn't have been hard for the Founding Fathers to slip into the "We have enemi
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • it'll put a few women who have been victims of stalkers on your jury.

      And any good defense team will make sure that does not happen. They would argue, and rightly so, that those jurors might be biased against the defendant.

  • the only thing the HP bunch can do is resign, now, and clear the Hell out today. put some field tech in charge of the outfit and try and salvage something.

    I have to laugh at the heavy promotion HP is currently running about their Itanic server line, curiously named "Integrity."

    folks, there is no integrity at HP when they are all about spies and lies.

    Kenny Lay and Bernie Ebbers weren't evil enough to spy on employees, reporters, and each other on the board of directors, for God's sake. looks like all the h

  • So What's Acceptable? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Infernal Device ( 865066 ) on Friday September 22, 2006 @02:02PM (#16162134)
    This whole debacle does raise the questions of:

    1. How do you stop leaks from occurring?
    2. What's acceptable practice to do so?

    Obviously, HP went too far in their actions. Investigating within the corporation is one thing, but going outside the corporation, in the manner they did, is beyond the pale. This is a matter easily dealt with by law, without requiring a huge amount of weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    The first question is more troubling, though. Apple leaks information like a sieve, information that they don't want out there until they do. So do most other tech companies in the manufactured products game, and it's obvious that current sanctions don't work. So how do you kill the leak at the source?
    • Poor Apple, with all that information leaking out of them. No wonder they haven't been able to turn a profit, with all those valuable bits and bytes slipping through their fingers...

      In actuality, they're still able to make lots of money. If anything, all the grist for the rumor mill serves to keep the fanchildren running in circles. I doubt leaks are nearly as important as most people think. The reaction you often get to corporate leaks has less to do with the actual damage done, and everything to do wi
    • Obviously, HP went too far in their actions. Investigating within the corporation is one thing, but going outside the corporation, in the manner they did, is beyond the pale.

      There was NOTHING wrong with investigating the outsiders involved with the leaks. Even (especially) if they were reporters.

      What WAS wrong was USING ILLEGAL MEANS to do the investigation.
    • Your questions imply that you beleive there is something harmful about the leaks in the first place. Perhaps the beleif that if people actually knew the truth about how your company is being run than share prices would plummet should instead be taken as an indicator that your running the company wrong! The leaker, as the longest standing board member, obviously thought the information he was providing to reporters would benefit the company, not harm it. We know the real reason these arrogant bastards used u
  • Anyone else notice the big HP advertisement at the top the page of TFA: "HP Notebook with Biometric fingerprint sensor - it helps safeguard your data - giving you the peace of mind to get back to business".
  • if they are part of the 56% [slashdot.org]?

  • sting != crime (Score:3, Interesting)

    by theonetruekeebler ( 60888 ) on Friday September 22, 2006 @02:41PM (#16162435) Homepage Journal
    Setting up a sting operation to find and plug a leak is not a crime. If I knew there was a leak in my boardroom, or anywhere else in the company, I'd plant attractive data where suspects could find it, each plant different than the other, and see which one showed up in the Wall Street Journal the next day. And I'd start looking for "@wsj.com" in the To: heading of their outgoing mail, because when I hired them they acknowledged that any mail sent from their work account was property of the company. Says so in their hire letter and at the bottom of each outgoing e-mail.

    That said, everything else HP's CEO did stinks to high heaven of criminality. Compromising computers, stalking reporters, and fraudulently obtaining phone records should send a perpetrator to jail.

  • I'm not sure I really see the big deal. It's just the rich spying other rich people. It's not like the government spying on everyone. It's not like HP is spying on its own customers. If HP was spying on the cleaning staff that works at its buildings then I think there would be real public outcry. Mostly I think people just find the behavior of HP paranoid (to the point of being a clinical case), but not terribly unethical.
  • ...and today it was anounced the the San Jose Mercury News paper will be changing their name to Hewlett Packard News.

    They may as well...

    I'm a bit tired of hearing about this. The issue has very few implications beyond HP.

    On the one hand, If someone is leaking sensitive info, the Board has a responsibilty to stop the leak.
    On the other hand, they need to do it legally.

    I'm not convinced anyone but the investigators broke any law and I'm not convinced that the people who hired the investigators should be held
  • Related to the whole HP thing but not this article is that I've just realized that this whole "pretexting" thing wasn't a form of sending false text messages to phones, but a euphemism for "lying" [ftc.gov]. Just thought others might not have caught on immediately either. I guess I wasn't thinking "low enough" to catch on more quickly.
  • Hey, at least the executives didn't waste all of their time hunting that pesky wabbit...

  • HP's Dunn resigns immediately: "code of conduct" (Score:3, Informative)

    by swschrad ( 312009 ) on Friday September 22, 2006 @04:54PM (#16163396) Homepage Journal
    violation, according to TheStreet.com and reuters.com.

    one down, something like 7 to go, being the rest of the board and Hurd.

    what is a violation of the code of conduct for one, is a violation for all.

    Chicago Tribune had the california AG thinking about going to Hurd's news conference right after the closing bell on wall street. since he's been talking about plastering the place with subpoenas after the new lawyers gagged public comment from HP, I expect he will have five aides with boxes on handcarts to carry them all.

    looking a lot like Watergate here, over the same damn thing. somebody got paranoiacally bent out of shape about one of their designated corporate leakers putting out a couple of things the board hadn't agreed to.

    it won't end the same way. we can do without a corporation. we can't do without a central government that you can trust to preserve and defend the constitution of the US.
  • So when is the Attorney General of California going to indict George Bush for illegal wiretaps?
  • I just got a new HP computer, and yesterday I was confronted by an HP popup message offering to check for updates. I wonder how much SPYware is in HP products now.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.

Close