HP Execs Were Warned About Risks Of Spying Methods
from the hear-no-evil,-see-no-evil? dept
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.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
by JJ on Sep 28th, 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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Stephen on Sep 28th, 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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Gerald Buckley on Sep 28th, 2006 @ 7:03am
Patricia Dunn is courtroom material just like Ebbers, Lay, Skilling, et al. She'll serve time after all the smoke clears.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The key to 'plausible deniability'.... by jsnbase on Sep 28th, 2006 @ 7:24am
is plausibility. The ol' I'm-an-idiot defense doesn't really fly anymore.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Once again... by Lay Person on Sep 28th, 2006 @ 8:09am
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!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Anonymous Coward on Sep 28th, 2006 @ 9:54am
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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Anonymous Coward on Sep 28th, 2006 @ 9:55am
true - we need more corporate convictions... :)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment