|
Hurd and Dunn Each Provide Written Statements to House Subcommittee - Update |
|
Wednesday, September 27 2006 @ 07:14 PM EDT
|
I thought you might like to read the written statements provided to the House Subcommittee on Investigations, House Energy and Commerce Committee by HP CEO Mark Hurd and ex Chairwoman Patricia Dunn. Her first header is, "Why the Leak Investigation was Necessary." She claims that one of the leaks affected the stock price, a leak in January of 2006. If you look at the days from January 21 to 31, 2006 on this chart, do you see any noticeable impact from the CNET story that seems to have driven the board stark raving mad? Here's the entire month. Same story. Steady. No dips or huge peaks. You can't help but wonder about this alleged reason for the investigation, particularly now that we discover that the investigators began snooping and pretexting poor George Keyworth and his wife and daughter back in May of 2005. What were they hoping to find? Dirt on the family? This whole story makes no sense to me. Was it all about getting him off the board by any means necessary? One can't help but ask. The other surprise to me is that she implicates the entire board regarding the first 8K filed, the one that didn't mention Tom Perkins reasons for leaving HP, on page 26. The summary of Hurd's testimony says: "How did such an abuse of privacy occur in a company renowned for its commitment to privacy? The end came to justify the means. The investigation team became so focused on finding the source of the leaks that they lost sight of the privacy of reporters and others. They lost sight of the values that HP has always represented. We are making the necessary changes so that this never occurs again.... In summary, the big picture of what happened is that we began an investigation of our board for leaks and have ended up investigating our investigation. I pledge that I will dig harder and deeper and I will get to the bottom of this." In the full-length version of his statement, he writes, "This company was built on integrity. If Bill Hewlett and David Packard were still alive, they would be appalled. They would be embarrassed. And that is the way the people in our company feel."
In spite of all that has happened, I believe him. Update: Also, here's a Business Week article with some emails written by HP staffers at an unknown date that demonstrate that Keyworth was indeed used by HP as a media contact person, just as he said. So did HP find the leaker?
Here's what Business Week tells us:
But Keyworth maintains that he was not the source of earlier leaks. HP (HPQ) has admitted that the company doesn't know who to blame for a series of stories fed to the press in 2005, despite declarations by Hurd and others that the company has gotten to the bottom of the leaks.
Now, a series of e-mails turned over to House of Representatives investigators and obtained by Business Week illustrate that Keyworth was considered a valuable asset to Hewlett-Packard's media relations team, which frequently and aggressively touted him to reporters. Indeed, the longtime HP director was one of the company's biggest boosters....
The company's public relations staff considered him a corporate booster, and frequently encouraged him to talk to reporters, even without supervision. Mr. Keyworth has reportedly agreed not to verbally bash HP, but that doesn't mean he's a bit happy about the way he has been portrayed, as you can see in this SFGate story.
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, September 27 2006 @ 07:33 PM EDT |
If there are any.
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2006 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, September 27 2006 @ 07:35 PM EDT |
For all items off topic.
Please make links clickable (see instructions when posting)
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2006 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 27 2006 @ 07:42 PM EDT |
"How did such an abuse of privacy occur in a company renowned for its commitment
to privacy?"
Wha? When did 'commitment to privacy' get redefined as 'printers that print secret
tracking numbers on your documents'?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kaemaril on Wednesday, September 27 2006 @ 07:50 PM EDT |
Of course they're embarrassed. They got caught doing naughty things. People
tend to look embarrassed and shamefaced when caught, it looks good in front of
the judge. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 27 2006 @ 08:03 PM EDT |
The first witness said he heard someone say, "Let's smash some
records". The second witness says she saw five athletes race past faster
than anyone else previously.
But what was Heard and Done were two different things.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, September 27 2006 @ 08:04 PM EDT |
The Surprise Player Behind The Coup At HP
BusinessWeek has
learned that Richard A. Hackborn, the board director who built HP's gold-mine
printer business in the 1980s, carried out crucial behind-the-scenes roles in
the months-long drama leading to Fiorina's sacking..... In the final weeks
Hackborn was a key proponent of a plan to shift operating authority from Fiorina
to HP divisional heads, says the current insider, adding: "Dick's criticism
helped shape the views of other, often newer board members." Hackborn did not
respond to requests for interviews, and HP and Fiorina had no comment...question
now is whether the 67-year-old Hackborn will exert the same influence over the
next CEO and the company's future strategy.
The current insider says
Hackborn pushed for former Compaq and HP director Thomas J. Perkins to be
reinstated to the board. That occurred on Feb. 7, just in time for Perkins to
vote for Fiorina's ouster the next day. Two departees from HP say Fiorina wanted
Perkins off the board because he was more critical and outspoken than other
directors.....
Business Week
A good read on board history and HP/Compaq up until the
downfall of Carly. Explains the state of the disaster at HP when Mark Hurd
entered.
Brian S.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 27 2006 @ 09:40 PM EDT |
I don't think this really had anything to do with what HP executives are now
calling leaks. I think it was a power play, pure and simple. Hurd and Dunn
wanted to rid the board of two of its more outspoken, independantly minded,
and sometimes contrarian directors. The so-called leaks just provided a
convenient excuse, especially since the company had used one of the targets to
funnel information to the media.
My hope is that Hurd and Dunn both end up losing their positions at HP and that
Perkins and Keyworth are asked to rejoin the board. What a perfect irony that
would be.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: _Arthur on Wednesday, September 27 2006 @ 10:11 PM EDT |
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/
california/northern_california/15623314.htm
In a June 28 e-mail to former HP director Tom Perkins, Sonsini said he had
checked with HP General Counsel Ann Baskins and that the investigation was
"well done and within legal limits."
However, in the same e-mail, he makes one of the earliest references to the
use of "pretexting" by HP's outside investigators, saying the practice
was a
"common investigatory method" that had been vetted with outside legal
experts.
In this potentially illegal form of subterfuge, detectives hired by HP used
Social Security numbers to trick phone companies into turning over the
detailed call records of directors and journalists.
And Sonsini later changed his tune, saying he delivered an opinion on the HP
leaks probe before his firm had fully reviewed the tactics.
HP later disclosed in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
that Sonsini's firm couldn't confirm that the tactics of the outside
investigators "complied in all respects with applicable law."
Sonsini said his initial comments were based on information he received from
HP's legal department, and that he was simply relaying the information before
his firm had a chance to investigate.
Legal experts said the exchange casts a curious light on Sonsini's role in the
scandal.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 27 2006 @ 11:45 PM EDT |
Your "statements" to the Subcommittee are at best sophmoric
(High-school
9th grade) and at worse lunacy.
On your apperance I advise the following.
1. Look calm, cool and collected.
2. After the Subcommittee Chairman finishes his opening remarks
say the following,
"Mr. Chairman. Thank You. At this time I must appeal to the 5th
Amendment. I have nothing more to say."
At that point, rise from the seat, turn, ["find the door"] walk out.
After the mayhem subsides, fire your legal council! Hire new legal
council, pronto!
Toodles![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Quibble - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 28 2006 @ 12:49 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, September 27 2006 @ 11:57 PM EDT |
In a Feb. 7 e-mail, HP security official Vincent Nye told the company's
head of security and a lawyer supervising a probe into unauthorized leaks that
he had "serious reservations" about what the company was doing...said that his
understanding of the methods HP was using to obtain telephone records using
false pretenses "leaves me with the opinion that it is very unethical at the
least and probably illegal,"..........
The e-mail appears to have been sent
to former HP security head Anthony Gentilucci and Kevin Hunsaker, a former HP
senior counsel. Cnet
Brian S.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eric76 on Thursday, September 28 2006 @ 12:12 AM EDT |
The first day of hearings starts tomorrow (Thursday) morning at 10 am eastern
time. It will be broadcast on C-SPAN 3.
Unforunately, (I don't believe) they don't carry C-SPAN 3 on Dish Network, just
C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2. I'd love to hear the hearings.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: zdz80 on Thursday, September 28 2006 @ 12:35 AM EDT |
Read what she says at the end of her submission to the house energy and
commerce committee. It starts at the end of page 31 and conts on page 32. It is
chilling to say the least.
She wants deliberations and plans of companies protected as "intellectual
property". She goes on to say that yes pretexting should be outlawed but
that congress should make laws to protect companies from threats to their
governance. She actually wants congress to make laws to help her with sanctions
against leakers.
You got to hand it to her she has guts. This person is an unmitigated
disaster.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 28 2006 @ 01:18 AM EDT |
No! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Khym Chanur on Thursday, September 28 2006 @ 02:22 AM EDT |
Her first header is, "Why the Leak Investigation was
Necessary."
Is it just me, or does this sound an awful lot like
"What I Did Over My Summer Vaction"? --- Give a man a match, and he'll
be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his
life. (Paraphrased from Terry Pratchett) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 28 2006 @ 06:54 AM EDT |
Sounds like the Watergate senate investigation - Mr. Senator, I do not recall...
I do not recall... I do not recall...
Mark Hurd:
I was informed by the
investigation team that they intended to send an email to a reporter containing
false information in an effort to identify the source of the leaks. I do not
recall seeing, nor do I recall approving, the use of tracer technology.
How
else did he think they would determine the source of the leaks? Without doing
something beyond sending the email, they wouldn't have been able to tell
anything by the results. Either the false informaton would show up in a news
story or it wouldn't, but they couldn't tell from either result who the
boardroom leaker was.
If Mark Hurd lacks the intelligence and common sense to
come to these types of obvious conclusions on his own, or to at least ask
questions if it was unclear to him, then I certainly wouldn't want him running
my company. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 28 2006 @ 07:17 AM EDT |
The biggest reason that an amateur should NOT manage their own investment is
because the charts made available on boards such as Yahoo! are not the entire
picture - they aren't even the entire stock picture.
PJ, you are proving yourself to be less and less a qualified
"journalist".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 28 2006 @ 08:56 AM EDT |
What has Hurd done about what Dunn heard? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: _Arthur on Thursday, September 28 2006 @ 09:16 AM EDT |
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8KDRE180.htm
In the midst of a corporate spying scandal, Hewlett-Packard Co. announced
Thursday that General Counsel Ann Baskins has resigned, effective immediately.
Baskins leaves HP after 24 years with the company.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Rudisaurus on Thursday, September 28 2006 @ 12:04 PM EDT |
The summary of Hurd's testimony says:
[...]
In
summary, the big picture of what happened is that we began an investigation of
our board for leaks and have ended up investigating our investigation. I pledge
that I will dig harder and deeper and I will get to the bottom of
this."
[...]
In spite of all that has happened, I believe him.
We've seen previously on Groklaw that Hurd was probably in on
the intimate details of the investigation -- if not right from the beginning,
certainly well before it became public -- notwithstanding his statements to the
contrary. Why believe him now?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: LPrecure on Friday, September 29 2006 @ 09:33 PM EDT |
OK, so I don't know the law, (and I suspect it's been asked before, but I don't
know how to find it), but it occurs to me I might be in the right place to ask.
There seems to be some discussion as to whether this practice is illegal. Can
anybody explain to me why this ISN'T identity theft?
I understand the "investigators" weren't opening credit cards, buying
TVs, and selling them, but I'd think that the language in the law would be along
the lines of "obtains any thing of value", and I'd claim that my phone
records have value.
(As support of this, I'd point out that the phone company pays money to keep the
records, so they must think they're worth something. They also retain the
records so they can use them as part of their privacy invasion, I mean, customer
enhancement system. And heck, the "investigator" no doubt charged HP
for obtaining the records, so there's another two people who think the records
have value, the investigator and HP.)
Assuming they have a defendant, is there anything else they need for a charge of
identity theft?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|