HP Execs Were Warned About Risks Of Spying Methods

from the hear-no-evil,-see-no-evil? dept

Wed, Sep 27th 2006 8:19pm — Mike Masnick

The HP spying saga continues. While various people have all said that they never would have moved forward with the "rogue" spying program if they had realized that it was illegal, it's now coming to light that an HP security official warned those in charge of the project that it was "very unethical at the least and probably illegal." On top of that, the employee (prophetically) stated: "If it is not illegal, then it is leaving HP in a position of (sic) that could damage our reputation or worse," followed by the recommendation "that we cease this phone number gathering method immediately and discount any of its information." While Patricia Dunn continues to pretend she wasn't that involved, it increasingly looks like a case of where it may have been more about what she didn't want to know -- so that there was some plausible deniability there. Certainly, people involved with what was going on sensed that it was illegal, and tried to warn those above them. Whether or not Dunn knew the specifics of how things were done, she didn't seem too bothered by it once she did find out, and only seemed to feel bad about it after it became public.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

7 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

JJ, 28 Sep 2006 @ 1:24am

What Dunn doesn't realize is that she'd be much better off just admitting she screwed up. Each time she tries to pass the blame or claim it was someone else, the worse off she looks. She knew about it in May when Perkins brought it up, at the very least, and she didn't mind then. It's time for her to suck it up and except at least some of the responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2006 @ 9:54am
  
  Re:
  not sure that is necessarily true. sure she looks bad to many of us but it's political suicide to admit you were wrong in this day and age. she's doing what a smart business person would do - deny as much as possible to avoid a conviction - then it doesn't matter what some people think cause you can always fall back on the, "I never did anything wrong because I was never indicted" card.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stephen, 28 Sep 2006 @ 5:43am

They just put an exec in jail for 25 yr for "unethical.. and probably illegal" acts. She may be a little reticent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2006 @ 9:55am
  
  Re:
  true - we need more corporate convictions... :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gerald Buckley, 28 Sep 2006 @ 7:03am

Patricia Dunn is courtroom material just like Ebbers, Lay, Skilling, et al. She'll serve time after all the smoke clears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jsnbase, 28 Sep 2006 @ 7:24am

The key to 'plausible deniability'....
is plausibility. The ol' I'm-an-idiot defense doesn't really fly anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lay Person, 28 Sep 2006 @ 8:09am

Once again...
Once again, all points single out the fact that Dunn was there to do the dirty work.

She knew she was there to clean house and that's just what she did.

Which is worse for a company? Boardroom leaks or the repercussions of an ill-conceived investigation?

I believe that the leaks trump the investigation methods.

I mean are we really discussing morality or freedoms here? I think not. Sure it makes for a good story but this is BIG BUSINESS and there simply isn't room for warm fuzzy feelings about fellow men and such. It's simply about the bottom line and if soemone attempts to shed light on questionable behavior...so what? Does anyone here really expect a business to behave properly? No, proper behavior takes a back seat to the bottom line; it's the exception and not the rule.

So get over it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]