Perspective: What the HP affair really says about privacy

After what had to be the most hellish week of her professional career, Patricia Dunn finally had enough. Hewlett-Packard's embattled chairman said she will leave the post in January, making the right decision--for all the wrong reasons.

In the only public comment she's made since then, Dunn offered a modest apology for the "inappropriate techniques" HP used to carry out an inquiry into boardroom leaks.

And so now it's back to business, everyone, she seemed to imply. I'm staying put until the start of the new year. Let's move on.

Actually, let's not.

Just to be clear, HP's investigators lied to fool the phone company into supplying private data belonging to company board members and journalists. Yes, I suppose that does qualify as an "inappropriate" technique.

Dunn's heavily lawyered "non-apology, apology" was an obvious sop to Wall Street.

Indeed, if a parliamentary democracy found itself in this sort of mess, the minister in charge of the probe would have immediately drawn the appropriate conclusions and resigned.

Not at HP.

Instead, Dunn still justifies her original decision to discover the source of leaks that she claims "had the potential to affect not only the stock price of HP but also that of other publicly traded companies."

On behalf of the CNET News.com newsroom, I thank her for the compliment, since it was our January story that apparently set her off. But her claim stretches beyond the boundary of credulity. Her real point was to point attention elsewhere.

Dunn's heavily lawyered "non-apology, apology" was an obvious sop to Wall Street. If management let the affair fester, big investors worried it might cause real damage. The board felt pressure not to let things get out of hand. And so a deal was struck: HP would get a new chairman, while Dunn could hang around for the long goodbye.

Maybe we were supposed to conclude that Dunn's judgment wasn't as flawed as the critics--yours truly among them--suggest. But California's attorney general, who is gathering evidence and may indict HP personnel and its hired contractors, apparently thinks this story is not over.

Truth be told, I wasn't hoping for a Tammy Faye moment of teary contrition from Dunn. But this was a moment where she needed to do more than shift blame to some mysterious--and still unidentified--contractor. Wishful thinking on my part, but HP might have seized the moment to make an important statement about protecting peoples' rights to privacy in the cyberage. Instead, HP served up pabulum and hoped that would satisfy the growing chorus of naysayers.

Not everyone agrees this is such a big deal. Since writing an earlier column urging the board to get a new chairman, I've received no shortage of e-mails from readers accusing me of selective outrage. To wit: "You wouldn't give a rat's tootsie if reporters' precious personal data had not been involved."

With all due respect, my interlocutors are missing the bigger point. The HP affair is only the latest in a series of depressingly familiar incidents that underscore a painful truth: When it comes to privacy, expediency too often trumps principle. In the eyes of our best and brightest, it's just not very important. Congress grandstands but does little to give weight to its words. The president cuts corners, saying court-ordered permission to snoop is an encumbrance--and even harmful to national security.

Maybe it was too much to hope for better from the folks running HP. After all, they're just doing what everyone else does.

Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.

More Perspectives

[MattLPMP]

Can this be spun any more?

Let's clear up a few things:
1. HP's investigators were not HP employees, they were hired, PROFESSIONAL private investigators. It's not like HP sent its crack squad of identity thieves as the article implies.

2. Pretexting is a "gray area" of law in California, and that's why there haven't been any indictments. The State's Attorney General said that on the very first day the story broke. It's *wrong*, but may not be illegal under California law.

3. This particular stunt was the brainchild of ONE employee and the privacy issues were caused by ONE investigating company. Implying that HP is tainted and doesn't care about people's privacy is asinine.

If you wrote yet another article that is ridiculously off-base, no one would say that C|Net as a news outlet was prone to hyperbole.

[Vurk]

yes, by the folks at hp

Yes, let's clear up a few things:
1: No "professional" investigators would break the law, or even intrude on the law. Thats what professional means. Leave the dumpster diving to the amateurs.
2. Speeding is also a "gray area," but *if* you are caught, you get a ticket. Impersonating someone for the purpose of an illegal act (theft of information) should also get punished.
3. This may have been the act of a single employee of HP, but that employee was the CEO, who should know better. It would be different if this was someone in the mailroom. Because this was the product of HP's leadership, is *does* mean that HP is tainted. Who is going to refuse a stunt like this in the future unless the CEO is punished? About peoples privacy, you obviously have never installed an HP printer. If you had, and then ran a spyware check, you would see that a part of the HP driver install is a piece of spyware.

Because of your defense of HP, one must conclude that you are a part of HP's management team, and arent brave or foolhardy enough to say that you are.

[metabass]

move on: privacy is an illusion

the reason our best and brightest don't care about privacy is that almost no one else cares either. we like to have the illusion of privacy. maintain at least the illusion and everyone is happy enough. if people really cared about privacy, they would make sure they used HTTPS when checking out or demanded that financial institutions use more than just your SSN to give out credit in your name. privacy mostly doesn't matter. Japan and England are further down the slippery slope and their societies probably better off in many ways. let's move on and stop wasting time, money and energy on something we only care about in principle.

[phillynets]

Fiduciary Reponsibilities for Board Members

The whole affair is predicated on the idea that the Directors have a fiduciary responsibility to the Board or the Chairman. They don't.

Directors are supposed to be protecting the interests of the shareholders. That so few directors in general seem to give a rat's butt about shareholders is how executive pay packages get to be so obnoxious, golden parachutes turn platinum, and perks shine brighter than Pam Anderson's headlights.

When a director feels that the board is doing some NOT in the best interests of shareholders, is doing someting illegal or unethical, or is watching a stock price drop off a cliff (all things that HP's board was guilty of during this time) a responsible director should bring this to the attention of shareholders. HP wanted directors to maintain confidentiality - what they needed was people who would remember their fiduciary responsibilities TO THEIR SHAREHOLDERS.

[marileev]

Dunn Didn't Get The Memo

Apparently her post-Enron corporate governance awareness is nil. Ms. Dunn didn't get the memo that her actions were really against HP's Values, as CEO Hurd had said yesterday, "inappropriate investigative techniques will not be employed again, they have no place in HP."

If she was really concerned with the potential effects of the media leaks, she'dve gone about this in a less cloak and dagger manner than pretexting http://www.iwantmyess.com/?p=100

[sharrahl]

HP MESS

I think what they did was criminal and all parties invovled with 'innappropriate techniques'
that were used to obtain phone records of board members should be tried and put in jail. You know darn well that Mr.Joe Public would go to straight to jail without stopping at GO.

[marileev]

jail time

well, the California GA and now Congress are looking into the matter http://news.com.com/Congress+plans+hearings+on+HP+pretexting/2100-1014_3-6115960.html?tag=cd.top

Ms. Dunn might just meet Mr. Joe public there in the big house http://www.iwantmyess.com/?p=100

[fred dunn]

This became and is a conspiracy to defraud...

When the board learned of the investigation initiated by Pattie Dunn and blessed by both inside and outside counsel and did not inform the appropriate authorities this became a conspiracy involving the complete board. Whatever his intentions, Tom Perkins was the only one that let the cat out of the bag so he should be in the clear and if not will make a great State resource.
It is unclear to me whether Mark Hurd knew about this mess and tried to cover it up but so far my bet is that he did.
For all you Wall Streeters cheering Pattie on for the good job she's done (which she has, up to this point) good for you. Hold onto that stock while the investigations drag on and down the stock value, Yes I think you'll be jumping ship too.
The so-called leaked informaton that I saw made me feel better about HP not worse.
I really like HP and especially Mark Hurd but unless they take more decisive action I see dark days ahead for a reviving HP and it's stockholders and employees.

[john55440]

Bush/GOP Culture of Spying on Everyone

>Maybe it was too much to hope for better from the folks running HP. After all, they're just doing what everyone else does.<

HP is just joining the "spy one everyone culture" promoted by President Bush and the Republican Party.

[Dragon Forge]

Symptomatic - Attn: Mark Huard

I have acquired an ever increasing disrespect and totally mistrusting attitude of HP over quite a few years from 1st hand experiences.

Everything they do is suspect and not to be accepted on any faith.

The fact that someone felt obligated to share speaks volumes and should be taken beyond the surface. They know that just a mere poor execution of ideologies (that'd be the candy a spin) and badly handled business practices (that'd be utter nonsense considering the malintent of every HP startegy) needs the light of day.

How could any [personal/private] investigation be complete or comprehensive when the single activity comprising this was like a hubritic stab at the heart in place of what should ahve been a calm objective examination, an action designed to be decisively final and preclude anything remotely connected to objectivity and fairness.

I beleive more than just a thorough investigtion is necessary on HP accounting and business practices, there is more here than just the tip.

Legally and philosophically the HP conduct is reprehensible and nothing should be allowed to detract from making sure this is not forgotten as it is completely indicative of the way that is HP.

I have dealt with HP long enough and can not possibly understand, considering the dirty little tricks they pull for consumer products alone, how they have managed to get this far.

Mark will have no problem recalling our communications.

[nanarita]

go and get privacy for yourself

Yep, we're in a time where it's out in the open - there is no inherent privacy in digital communication. If you want it, yu have to enable it yourself by changing the way you text, email, all of it. Unless you use encryption or email anti-theft measures, you are leaving the door open for anyone with the skills to walk through it.

If you look around, you'll find there are easy solutions to the privacy problem. You can use an email security solution like Taceo, that acts as an Outlook add-in, to send an receive email that is private and can not be forwarded or edited. Solutions like this are inexpensive - Taceo is only $59 a year, and if yu've got a PC and an email address, you can use it.

http://www.essentialsecurity.com/

[Stormspace]

Legalities

For nearly a decade companies have been publishing acceptable use policies for company owned assests, phones, e-mail, etc. that states you have no right to privacy with these items. They require each employee to agree to it and sign it. However this case is somewhat different.

First, we are not exactly talking about HP employees. Those under investigation were board members and they might have different rules than that imposed on the rank and file. Last, the phones pretexted may not have been company assests, but private lines.

If these two things are accurate HP and those directly involved should burn for it. That is to say they should pay the consequences. To often large corporations get off with a fine or a slap on the wrist when actual people in charge are the ones responsible for such behavior.

Another thing to consider is that in the last couple of days it has been reported that employees were also investigated. If this is true the same should be done as with the board members. Companies should not have the right to lead corporate sponsored witch hunts for some imagined or real wrong. If an individual has committed a crime bring in law inforcement and let them investigate, don't take matters into your own hands and voilate someone's privacy because they embarassed you.

[Barbara Thurber]

Disappointed by HP's response to Dunn

It is disappointing that a company that I used to respect, mostly for their great technology and services, but also for their integrity, has taken the low road on this. It was great to see HP making a dramatic turn around in profitability. They should get the connection between their future profitability and their integrity as a corporation. Dunn should not only resign her chair person position, but she should no longer be on the board at all.
It was terrible to watch Carly Fiorina go down in flames at HP, and now to watch another prominent woman in technology implode is awful. Integrity is too important to ignore, and a person in her position should have learned that lesson long ago. Sorry, not buying the lame excuses. Thoroughly disgusted by the whole thing. This does impact my opinion of HP as a company.

[paul zemp]

hp or watergate ?

mr.cooper you are right about all of this but you know they would have got away with it if they had not tagged your people for the other would have rolled over but not you guys because you are for the good of all an you keep us all up to date on all things so do a tobby keith on them an if they donot like that its to bad keep the good work up for its mid. terms comeing up so lay it on them to do something not just talk

[wtlong]

Inappropriate balance

I find your article lacking in the balance that would be appropriate for supposedly professional journalists. That's not too surprising since you have inserted yourselves not only as reporters, but as participants in the story.

Let me be clear about what that participation involves. You were a party to the misappropriation of proprietary information that the source had no right to give you and that you had no right to obtain. (That is an entirely different issue from your right to publish the information once you obtained it.)

Where is the outrage over that behavior? It wasn't the menu at dinner or what officer's wives or husbands were wearing that your source was revealing. The officer and directors at any public company have a fiduciary responsibility to protect information that affects the value of their shareholders' investment.

A truly balanced commentary would have addressed the misappropriation of private property that led to the actions in question.

But again, you were too much of a sanctimonious, self-righteous participant in the story to produce that.

[charlie cooper]

Not quite

Thanks for your note. I think we disagree on the role of the press. You're entitled to your views. But I don't think our role is to sit back and wait to take dictation or print spun press releases from companies or government agencies. We're in the news business. We absolutely have a responsibility to be fair and accurate -- and when we fall down on those items, shame on us. But it's troubling that you seem not to believe an aggressive press is worthwhile.

[mgao]

Leak is a fraud and Media is biased

Why is such an imbalance in coverage?

Leaking confidential information is fraud, a breach of fiducial duty of a board member. As I read news.com's article, the leak even mentioned the M&A of an infrastructure, security and/or app management SW company. We now know that Mercury Interactive is being acquired by HP.

Why is such an imbalance in media coverage? i.e. focusing only on the ones trying to dig out the leaker? It is ironic that in the context, the leaker is portrayed like a victim.

The conclusion I started to gravitate towards, is that Media, including news.com, behaves like a king without any constraint or law, and is ready to crash anyone who stand on its way.

[Hep Cat]

More to the point...

What does this affair say about the "responsibility" of corporate
officers?

Dunn couldn't take responsibility for this fiasco and resign, as
she should have. Yet had HP posted record profits, I'm sure she
would have been happy to step up and receive accolades for her
governance of the board and stewardship of the company.

Power?responsibility in Silicon valley. The cubicle workers are
expected to be responsible for their TPS reports, but we can't
expect the head honchos to be responsible for...anything.