decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
HP Tells Its Side in 8K; Reveals Contacted by CA AG and SEC - Updated
Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 03:35 PM EDT

HP has filed an 8K with the SEC telling its side of the story of the leak probe. You can also read the Thomas Perkins letter to HP's Board of Directors regarding his resignation from the board in protest over the "questionable ethics and the dubious legality" of HP's leak investigation methods, as well as the "fraudulent method" of obtaining the "private telephone records" of board members by pretexting. That's Thomas Perkins of Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers.

The letter references earlier communications, expressing his concerns of "illegal conduct" and asking that the matter be referred to a special committee, and saying that since he has not received any reply, "it appears that my disagreement is not only with the chair, as I initially thought, but also with the Company."

Update: California's Attorney General today sent out subpoenas in connection with its probe of the HP leak probe and whether illegal actions were taken, according to Reuters. And AT&T has filed a lawsuit:

"There are potentially two penal statutes that have been violated that could result in criminal liability," Lockyer said. "They are identity theft and illegally getting information out of a computer system such as AT&T phone records."

"One of the fact-based questions is to what extent the employer has any expectation of the privacy invasion being done by the third party, the database brokers."

Also on Wednesday, AT&T said it had filed a lawsuit in federal court in northern California seeking to identify data brokers that accessed as many as 2,500 accounts.

"We will use every means available to vigorously pursue these individuals who, through fraud, have attempted to obtain unauthorized access to customer information," Priscilla Hill-Ardoin, AT&T chief privacy officer said in a statement.

As I said, this story isn't getting any smaller.

That link to the Perkins letter also has the AT&T letter to Perkins confirming that someone accessed Perkins' personal phone records without his authorization, using pretexting.

The HP 8K filing reveals that HP has been contacted about the matter by the California Attorney General's office and the SEC:

HP recently has been informally contacted by the Attorney General of the State of California requesting information concerning the processes employed in the investigations into the leaks. HP intends to cooperate fully with that inquiry. HP also has received a comment letter from the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Division of Corporation Finance with respect to its May 22 Form 8-K regarding Mr. Perkins' resignation. HP intends to respond to the SEC staff that it believes its disclosures in the May 22 Form 8-K with respect to Mr. Perkins'resignation were accurate and complete at the time of filing and were based upon Mr. Perkins' actions and representations prior to such time concerning the reasons for his resignation.

As for the charge that HP used pretexting to get board members' personal phone records, HP says this:

After its review, the Committee determined that the third party retained by HP's outside consulting firm had in some cases employed pretexting. The Committee was then advised by the Committee's outside counsel that the use of pretexting at the time of the investigation was not generally unlawful (except with respect to financial institutions), but such counsel could not confirm that the techniques employed by the outside consulting firm and the party retained by that firm complied in all respects with applicable law.

This story is not getting smaller. This is such a significant story, I'm reproducing the explanation text from the 8K in full. Also, I think this is the article that started the entire chain of events. Also, this 8K makes reference to a May 22, 2006 8K announcing the resignation of Thomas Perkins from the board, and here it is, along with the press release the May 22nd 8K references and attaches as an exhibit. Neither makes reference to any dispute. The list of all the board members voted onto the board in March of 2006 can be found in this 10Q for the period ending April 31, 2006, which makes this one-line reference to Perkins' resignation, "As previously reported in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 22, 2006, Mr. Perkins resigned as a director of HP effective May 18, 2006." And the December 2005 annual report gives biographical information for the board. Here's HP's page on its website on its board members.

And for those who are interested, the AT&T litigation against the databrokers has so far two documents only on Pacer, the ADR Scheduling Order [PDF] assigning the case to a judge and to Alternative Dispute Resolution and a Supplemental Order [PDF] setting up the first case management conference and providing instructions from the judge, The Hon. William Alsup, as to what he expects in the way of conduct during discovery and depositions. The complaint isn't electronically available to the public yet.

**************************************

Item 8.01. Other Events.

On May 22, 2006, Hewlett-Packard Company (�HP�) announced the resignation of Thomas J. Perkins from its Board of Directors. At the time of his resignation, Mr. Perkins did not provide any written communication to HP concerning the reasons for his resignation. Following his resignation, and after HP on May 22 had disclosed the fact of Mr. Perkins� resignation on Form 8-K in accordance with the applicable federal securities laws, Mr. Perkins notified HP that he had concerns with the HP Board�s handling of investigations that had been conducted into leaks of confidential HP information from meetings of the HP Board of Directors. HP is filing this Form 8-K to report the following additional information about the circumstances relating to Mr. Perkins� resignation, to report the findings of its leak investigations, and to report other related events that have occurred subsequent to the completion of those investigations and Mr. Perkins� resignation.

HP has been the subject of multiple leaks of confidential HP information, including information concerning the internal deliberations of its Board of Directors. HP believes these leaks date back to at least 2005. In response to these leaks, outside legal counsel conducted interviews of directors in early 2005 in order to determine the source of the leaks and to obtain each director�s reaffirmation of his or her duty of confidentiality. The interview process did not yield the source of the leaks. Notwithstanding these actions, the leaks continued. As a result, the Chairman of the Board, and ultimately an internal group within HP, working with a licensed outside firm specializing in investigations, conducted investigations into possible sources of the leaks of confidential information at HP. Those investigations resulted in a finding that Dr. George A. Keyworth II, one of HP�s directors, did, in fact, disclose Board deliberations and other confidential information obtained during Board meetings to the media without authorization. At a Board meeting on May 18, 2006, after Dr. Keyworth acknowledged that he had leaked confidential information, the Board, after deliberation, asked Dr. Keyworth to resign his position as a director, which he declined to do. It is at that meeting that Mr. Perkins resigned from the Board after expressing personal frustration with the Chairman of the Board relating to the handling of the matter with the Board. He stated that he objected to the matter being brought before the full Board and that he believed the Chairman had agreed that he and she would handle the matter privately. The Chairman disputed Mr. Perkins� assertion, explaining that she was complying with advice from outside counsel on the appropriate handling of the matter. At the time, Mr. Perkins confirmed he did not have any disagreement with HP on any matter relating to HP�s operations, policies or practices.

On June 19, following his resignation and after HP reported Mr. Perkins� resignation on Form 8-K, Mr. Perkins sought information from HP concerning the methods used to conduct HP�s investigations into the leaks, asserted that phone and e-mail communications had been improperly recorded as part of the investigation, and informed HP that he had recently consulted with counsel regarding that assertion. In response to Mr. Perkins� request, HP informed Mr. Perkins that no recording or eavesdropping had occurred, but that some form of �pretexting� for phone record information, a technique used by investigators to obtain information by disguising their identity, had been used. Mr. Perkins, although no longer a director, then requested that HP conduct an inquiry into the propriety of the techniques used to conduct the investigation.

HP�s Nominating and Governance Committee thereafter engaged the outside counsel to conduct an inquiry into the conduct and processes employed with respect to HP�s investigation of leaks of confidential information (the outside counsel was not involved in the investigations of the leaks initiated by the Chairman or the internal HP group). The Committee was advised that HP had engaged an outside consulting firm with substantial experience in conducting internal investigations and that this firm had retained another party to obtain phone information concerning certain calls between HP directors and individuals outside of HP. The Committee was further advised that the Chairman and HP had instructed the outside consulting firm to conduct its investigation in accordance with applicable law and that the outside consulting firm and its counsel had confirmed to HP that its techniques were legal. After its review, the Committee determined that the third party retained by HP�s outside consulting firm had in some cases employed pretexting. The Committee was then advised by the Committee�s outside counsel that the use of pretexting at the time of the investigation was not generally unlawful (except with respect to financial institutions), but such counsel could not confirm that the techniques employed by the outside consulting firm and the party retained by that firm complied in all respects with applicable law.

Based upon its investigation, the Nominating and Governance Committee has recommended to HP�s Board and Chief Executive Officer that controls relating to investigations be strengthened and that management should be in a position to assure that all aspects of HP�s investigations comply with applicable laws and HP�s code of ethics as applicable to HP�s directors, officers and employees. HP�s Board and Chief Executive Officer have accepted the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee.

HP recently has been informally contacted by the Attorney General of the State of California requesting information concerning the processes employed in the investigations into the leaks. HP intends to cooperate fully with that inquiry. HP also has received a comment letter from the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission�s Division of Corporation Finance with respect to its May 22 Form 8-K regarding Mr. Perkins� resignation. HP intends to respond to the SEC staff that it believes its disclosures in the May 22 Form 8-K with respect to Mr. Perkins� resignation were accurate and complete at the time of filing and were based upon Mr. Perkins� actions and representations prior to such time concerning the reasons for his resignation.

In addition, on August 31, 2006 the HP Board of Directors, upon the recommendation of the Nominating and Governance Committee, also determined that, based on his conduct, Dr. Keyworth should not be nominated for another term on the Board of Directors.

SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

DATE: September 6, 2006

By:/s/ Charles N. Charnas
Name: Charles N. Charnas
Title: Vice President, Deputy General Counsel and Assistant Secretary


  


HP Tells Its Side in 8K; Reveals Contacted by CA AG and SEC - Updated | 122 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
HP is the only "strategic partner" of SCO
Authored by: ak on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 04:05 PM EDT
HP supports The SCO Group Inc. and is their only "strategic partner": http://sco.com/company/partners/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: Avier on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 04:07 PM EDT


U know the drill

Clicky links, HTML, Preview please

---
----------------
If all other things fail, read the fine manual ....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections thread
Authored by: Avier on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 04:10 PM EDT

...... so we get 'm in one place

---
----------------
If all other things fail, read the fine manual ....

[ Reply to This | # ]

"No written communication"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 04:23 PM EDT
He made it very clear to the board why he was leaving. He just didn't write it
down. That doesn't excuse HP from reporting this as requred by SEC
regulations.

JSL

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Pretexting" - Such a cute little name...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 04:23 PM EDT
...for wire fraud.

Other names used for this is "Social Engineering",
"Scamming", and "Confidance tricks".

The people who did this, and the HP CEO who hired them, should be arrested.

[ Reply to This | # ]

HP Tells Its Side in 8K; The Ends do not justify The Means
Authored by: WhiteFang on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 04:35 PM EDT
Message to the HP Board:

The Ends do not justify The Means.

Getting your hands dirty at one remove by paying someone else to lie is still
getting your hands dirty.

For board members of such a large publically traded firm to not understand these
simple basic ethics suggests immediate calls for their resignations or ousters.

By definition company board members are _required_ to be ethical. That's part of
what S-O is all about.

---
DRM - Degrading, Repulsive, Meanspirited 'Nuff Said.
FDA Warns Consumers Against Drinking High-Strength Hydrogen Peroxide.

[ Reply to This | # ]

pretexting==lying
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 05:00 PM EDT
Wow this ethics thing is harder than it looks...

NOT!

---
GPLv3: The Manufacturer and User receive the same rights!

If the Manufacturer can run an altered version of the sw on hw so can the user.
fsfe Bangalore-rms

[ Reply to This | # ]

who supplied him with the social security numbers?
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 05:08 PM EDT
When they trace the guy who they outsourced the pretexting to...

It will be interesting to ask him who supplied him with the social security
numbers of the board members.

I mean this information is sensitive and confidential only the government and
your...

EMPLOYER

have access to this information... no?

---
GPLv3: The Manufacturer and User receive the same rights!

If the Manufacturer can run an altered version of the sw on hw so can the user.
fsfe Bangalore-rms

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not so fast, folks
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 05:12 PM EDT

Did any of those who slammed HP RTFA?

In response to these leaks, outside legal counsel conducted interviews of directors in early 2005 in order to determine the source of the leaks and to obtain each directors reaffirmation of his or her duty of confidentiality. The interview process did not yield the source of the leaks. Notwithstanding these actions, the leaks continued. As a result, the Chairman of the Board, and ultimately an internal group within HP, working with a licensed outside firm specializing in investigations, conducted investigations into possible sources of the leaks of confidential information at HP. Those investigations resulted in a finding that Dr. George A. Keyworth II, one of HPs directors, did, in fact, disclose Board deliberations and other confidential information obtained during Board meetings to the media without authorization.

In other words, a board member violated his duty of confidentiality. He took HP's money as a Director and then violated his promises to HP. Why, we don't know - maybe for financial gain, maybe to get back at an enemy - could be any one of a number of things, but none of them are remotely ethical and some of them merit jail time.

Now, does anyone think he should have gotten away with this?

No? Then what do you propose HP do to root out this scumbag? They can't fire the whole board just because one unidentifed member is a bad apple. It really doesn't make any sense to call in the police, because there's no evidence a crime has been committed (evidence may emerge, but only after it's known who the offender is).

[ Reply to This | # ]

But what do they require of their employees?
Authored by: tz on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 05:13 PM EDT
Do they have their employees sign forms saying they can check their credit,
criminal background, drug testing, etc.?

I'm not sure about HP since some time ago they used to be a good place to work,
but lots of other places have changed. But it usually affects the little
people, not the aristocorporacy.

Maybe they just need a form for all directors that says "We have the right
to use pretexting to obtain any information we want anytime we want and if you
don't like it, just resign from the board".

If they don't require such things of their employees, then they have an axe to
grind. If they make their employees sign away their rights and invade their
privacy as a condition of employment, I have no sympathy. Does anyone know?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nonapplicability
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 05:50 PM EDT
Ah, but there are some situations where the law understands there is a need for this. Also, if you want to limit this discussion to the financial area (that which most people are more conscience about than most other areas), there are nonapplicability statements in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act (which has above been referenced to) that should be understood such as "No provision of this section shall be construed to prevent any State-licensed private investigator, or any officer, employee, or agent of such private investigator, from obtaining customer information of a financial institution, to the extent reasonably necessary to collect child support from a person adjudged to have been delinquent in his or her obligations by a Federal or State court, and to the extent that such action by a State-licensed private investigator is not unlawful under any other Federal or State law or regulation, and has been authorized by an order or judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction." See this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

HP Tells Its Side in 8K; Reveals Contacted by CA AG and SEC
Authored by: phaoUNTOtom on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 06:04 PM EDT
See here for an informative article regarding pretexting and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB). It covers a lot of the details regarding above posts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How the mighty have fallen
Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 07:40 PM EDT
I worked for a company *many* years ago that used HP computing equipment almost
exclusively.

They did so because HP were prepared to do what no other company were. They
were prepared to back their equipment by agreeing to provide technicians as
required on-site within 4 hours. (The site was a 2+ hour flight from the
nearest HP office).

We found them to be honest, trustworthy, and generally a company that you
actually *wanted* to do business with. The employees always had good things to
say about the company. The equipment was built like a brick umm... ah... OK, it
was solidly built.

I'm not sure when the change started, but that culture was pretty much a thing
of the past by 1990 I think.

We were the largest customer of theirs in our state (and our state had the
national headquarters of HP) and we started moving away from them. We did so
because the price premium no longer bought us what it had. I left the company
soon after, but by that time HP equipment (other than certain instruments) was
becoming a rare sight.

I was not a customer of theirs in any big way since that time (but I continue to
use some of their equipment that dates from I guess the mid 90's). My
perception is that their quality is no better than anything that comes out of
China. Once almost an evangalist for their printers, today I'd be hard pressed
to recommend any of their printing products.

And the slide continues. My opinion is that Carley snuffed out the last
vestages of the spirit of the old HP (it was probably mortally wounded anyway).

The slide continues.

The fact that they continue to associate themselves with SCO is yet another
indication of their changed moral nature. It is hard to fathom why they are
prepared to associate themselves with a company for whom even the most rabid
supporters seem to have gone awfully quiet.

And then this. What's next, suing their customers?

---
---
That's not a law suit. *THIS* is a law suit!

[ Reply to This | # ]

HP in context: Ran into the iceburg aboard the Itanic.
Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 09:45 PM EDT

From a good read:

Hewlett-Packard and Intel announced their joint research-and-development project in June of 1994. Aimed at providing advanced technologies for end-of-the-decade workstation, server and enterprise-computing products....in 1996, HP produced its first 64-bit general purpose processor named PA-8000.....On Oct. 14, 1997 at the Microprocessor Forum in San Jose, Calif., Intel and Hewlett-Packard companies made their first public disclosure of the IA-64 basics......

Before the official Intel announcement in 1997 it was expected that jointly developed HP-Intel architecture would provide source compatibility with x86 and PA-RISC families. But now it's disclosed that Merced implementing this architecture will run only software that currently operates on x86 family......In brief, it is not clear about x86 compatibility. Only one thing is for certain: Intel's officials say Merced will be able to run x86 code..... Merced Facts and Speculations - by Alexei Pylkin


Microsoft were beginning to think about "trusted computing"(Vista)in March 1998:

The new 64-bit version of NT will also fully support existing 32-bit applications, according to Microsoft and Intel sources. "We intend to provide a 32-bit subsystem within the 64-bit operating system, just as we currently have a 16-bit subsystems within the 32-bit operating system," Muth says. Find Articles


Doom and Gloom:

IBM got together with SCOG on Project Monterey and a 32/64 bit version of Unix.

Before in 1999:

Intel broke the steering on the Itanic as some were already suspecting by announcing that Itanium would not have native support for 32bit x86.

Some people, like me, believe that this decision was probably influenced by a Microsoft sometime change of plans, make "trusted computing"(Vista) 64bit only.



IBM was wary enough of any Wintel intention that they had gotten together with AMD to develop the Athlon/Opteron for 32/64 bit operation and Sun had continued to develop Sparc.

But HP was a fullblown Intel partner:

PROBLEMS



They had the DEC Alpha, but all their energies had been poured into Itanium. What to do?


Before joining HP in July 1999, Fiorina worked at AT&T and Lucent Technologies. She was listed by Fortune magazine as the most powerful woman in business for six years in a row until 2004....

Fiorina's tenure at HP was fraught with controversy. Her lack of popularity at HP was amplified by her many decisions, which some thought to be provoking.....she removed the portraits of HP founders, William Hewlett and David Packard, from HP lobbies, and replaced them with her own......challenged HP tradition by accelerating lay-offs to increase profits....while HP was undergoing massive layoffs, Fiorina approved the lease of two new Gulfstream jets, had HP pay to move her yacht from the East to the West coast, and took several trips to socialize with Hollywood movie stars and politicians. Many believed that these trips were focused more on furthering Fiorina's own political career...... Wikipedia


HP thought of themselves as No.2 to IBM. They made their own boxes. They had their own OS.

Carly Fiorina wanted to buy Compaq, Outsource and Wintel Boxshift and they even sold HP badged i-pods.

Hewlett-Packard on Friday released a letter to shareholders bashing dissident board member Walter Hewlett for his opposition to the company's planned acquisition of Compaq Computer.

"Walter Hewlett, an heir of HP co-founder Bill Hewlett, is a musician and academic who oversees the Hewlett family trust and foundation," the letter states. "While he serves on HP's board of directors, Walter has never worked at the company or been involved in its management. His motivations and investment decisions are likely to be very different from your own."..... Cnet


HP was at war and leaks were just some of the weapons used by both sides.


Carly mole legacy spills blood on HP carpet

.....For what it's worth, Mr Keyworth was not our Mole in Chief, we had dozens of them running through the HP tunnels.The Inquirer


The battle was well reported across hardware sites and in the general press.

Is "the truth" about the "HP war" about to come out?

Itanic was "responsible" for a great many "things".

Not least the destruction of Santa Cruz and the birth of SCOG.


Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sorry, I Left My Babel Fish In My Other Jacket....
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 10:23 PM EDT
Uh, does this make sense to anyone here? (I refuse to click on any of the
links, as I have no idea what is waiting on the other side. I don't care if I'm
not using Windows, I don't trust this.)

May I be the first to recommend deleting this post?

[ Reply to This | # ]

YYY222
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 06 2006 @ 11:12 PM EDT
Could some one please translate this to English.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • YYY222 - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, September 07 2006 @ 12:01 AM EDT
Who is Keyworth?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 07 2006 @ 12:31 AM EDT
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1248

The guy has a PhD in nuclear physics ... why would he do something so dumb?

[ Reply to This | # ]

HP Tells Its Side in 8K; Reveals Contacted by CA AG and SEC - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 07 2006 @ 05:36 AM EDT
The Committee was then advised by the Committee's outside counsel that the use of pretexting at the time of the investigation was not generally unlawful (except with respect to financial institutions), but such counsel could not confirm that the techniques employed by the outside consulting firm and the party retained by that firm complied in all respects with applicable law.
By disclosing this, has HP waived client/attorney privilege on this communication?

Darkside

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Internal" vs "External" Information Access. Is there a Difference?
Authored by: sproggit on Thursday, September 07 2006 @ 05:41 AM EDT
OK, so this is a tangential question, but I'll ask it anyway...

This article covers the activities of an as-yet unknown third party who used
pretexting to "monitor" activities of an HP board-level director.

In the eyes of the law, is there a difference between this activity and the
company using it's own internal email, instant-messaging and telephone records
to conduct the same surveillance?

I suspect the answer will vary with jurisdiction, but for example in the UK we
have the Data Protection Act which requires companies to only maintain and
retain information records for the purpose under which they were originally
obtained. If the information gathering is essential to the business practice of
a company [ie paying employee salaries] then explicit consent from the data
subject is not required. If the information is being used for other purposes, or
is being re-used after having be gathered for a different purpose, there is, I
believe, a requirement on a company to inform the data subject and to obtain
their consent.

Or is it the case that companies tell their employees in advance that any use of
company assets for any purpose may be investigated and monitored and as a result
get unfettered access to such internal records?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ethics and Honesty -- a customer perspective
Authored by: AlanF on Thursday, September 07 2006 @ 10:49 AM EDT
As a customer and stockholder of HP, I am deeply disturbed to
read these news accounts.

If the top person at HP cannot be depended on to treat people
in an ethical and honest manner, how can customers trust HP to
treat them in an ethical and honest manner.

After the totally unpleasant experience I had with trying
(unsucessfully) to get off HP's spam lists, this reinforces my
extremely negative opinion of the people at the top.

This customer is very upset.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can this be turned to advantage?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 07 2006 @ 12:36 PM EDT
Now that HP has used some very questionable methods to investigate, and invade
the privacy, of the HP board members, how many other corporate board members are
worried about what a CEO/Board Chairman might do? Could a bit of politics and
letter writing turn this into some sort of effective privacy protectaion
legislation? If so, how can us regular folk help?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What about their liability to AT&T?
Authored by: bwcbwc on Thursday, September 07 2006 @ 02:57 PM EDT
It seems to me that AT&T has grounds to file criminal or civil charges.
Pretexting basically is a technique of impersonating a person who is authorized
to access particular data in order to obtain unauthorized access to it. Under
AT&Ts internal access restrictions, the outside investigators are not
authorized to view the data. If they were authorized, pretexting wouldn't be
necessary.

Don't the anti-hacking laws pretty much outlaw any sort of unauthorized access
to the data in computer systems, regardless of the method used?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cox.net IP 68.99.17.80
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 07 2006 @ 10:22 PM EDT
Omaha/Council Bluffs area?

Are there any big database companies located in that area with a corrupt CEO
and everyone's telephone numbers and SSNs on file?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )