No spies on us

That's pretty funny. Reporters getting all upset when their own methods are used on them.

Hmmm. Illegally obtaining phone records, physically tailing subjects, trying to infect computers with keylogging software -- you say you know reporters who do that kind of thing? because I don't.

So.... reporters never physically tail their subjects? Funnier and funnier.

Illegal phone records - Lets just look at the recent Alec Baldwin incident. It wasn't supposed to be released, but once it's out, just about every media outlet was happy to play it over and over and comment on it, and then are crass enough to comment on how awful it must be for the little girl to have this splashed all over the world. Whomever leaked it, and those who published it, should be held accountable. The press should honor the court's intent, or the intent of a company's NDA with it's employees. Or does it not count when it's about the political party or companies you don't like? Where's the demand for the accountability in regards to *this* leak? Clearly someone's in contempt of court, and there's a reporter who knows who, but hey, he got his story out, so what's the big deal, eh?

Dumpster diving? Hey, that's the hallmark of the press's research activities - digging through trash. Is it only bad when hackers and HP executives are doing it?

Tailing suspects? Hey, why don't you ask any celebrity about how *they* feel about the press and privacy issues, and the press's total disregard for the impact on their life.

HP may have been trying to enforce their contracts concerning the disclosure, and it looks like they had gone about it the wrong way, but surely they should be entitled to sue whomever it was that let the info out in defiance of their NDA. I'm sure that companies in the news publishing business that use such information would happily sue any of *their* employees who disclosed the dirt on them. How else are they able to enforce their NDA contracts when there's an entire industry who's out to encourage violations, and will collude with the violators to make a buck on it.

I don't condone what the HP execs did, but yes, I feel like the media has been calling the kettle black, here. The press can't have it both ways - asking for people to give them the goods in confidence (and either against the law, a contract or court ruling), and then claim "free speech" and "I have to protect my sources". It's even worse when the 'bad' news gets front page, but the correction or retraction is buried weeks later in the obits, if a correction is *ever* published. Too much stuff is misrepresented by the press, even after it's been debunked.

The press should not squawk 'foul' when their integrity and credibility is called into question, either. Whatever credibility the 'press' at large had has been squandered, either for ratings, ad revenue, profit, diluted through mergers and consolidations, or in the case of individuals - a Pulitzer. Sad to say, but others in your industry are giving the media group as a whole the same reputation as the ranks of used car salesmen, personal injury lawyers, and spammers.

Ya'll are starting to sound like Congressmen - them law's for them common folk, right?

How's that song about dirty laundry go?

well "the media" or "the press" are pretty broad brushes. some of us are better than others, none of us are perfect. but the activities of the PIs hired by HP go way beyond ethical journalistic standards.

yes, journalists do dumpster dive (that's legal, by the way). paparrazzi do follow their subjects (though it's pretty easy to see they're photographers -- there's not much subterfuge there). reporters do occasionally call someone up and pretend to be someone other than a reporter. but no journalist will say it's ethical to steal someone else's identity, or sabotage their computer, or many of the things HP's spies are alleged to have done. journos who do those things should be held in the same contempt as the PIs who did it on HP's behalf.

as far as I know, getting inside information from a board member isn't illegal. breaking NDAs are another story, but in that case we're talking about a civil offense, not a criminal one. the basic premise -- and key difference between HP and a reporter -- is that the journalists are supposed to be working in the public interest. that's not how it always turns out, but that's supposed to be the impetus. HP was doing the opposite -- working solely for its own private interest.

if corporations could control all news about them, we would never hear about defective products, or accounting scandals, or bad financials, or any number of other issues routinely reported in the press. that's what this story is ultimately about: the public's right to know.

peace,

rxc

I'm sure that a majority of reporters don't engage in any 'social engineering' to obtain information. However, how many of them will base their work on information gleaned in such a way.

I know reporters "feel" as if they're working in the public interest, but it's all about the ad revenue, even when you're working at PBS.

If what you're working on doesn't attract eyeballs, you're not going to be working on it much longer.

The "public's right to know" is a phrase I feel that the press uses for it's own interests, not the public's, and completely blows by a very real right to privacy. When you see a parking lot full of satellite news vans camped in a neighborhood, do you think that the community's best interest is being served, or is it a producer's demand to be the first to get any nugget out on the air or in print. As that Demotivators poster goes, no single drop thinks it's responsible for the flood. Congress uses the same "greater good" argument all of the time, but really, they seem to be serving their re-election campaign more than their constituents.

When it comes to papparazi and related - some of them limit their behavior to PR events and such, but enough go so far to be invasive. Much like spam, enough people keep buying to support that kind of market. Competition pushes both products to be more invasive and reprehensible, and much like the companies that buy the contact info from spammers, the publishers wash their hands because it gets them sales.

I guess to continue your papparazi analogy, HP hired the PI's, and should therefore be insulated and immune from the PI's activities.

If it's unethical for companies, or for you and I to do something, it should also be unethical for our government to do it. If you're condemning HP, or the PI's it hired, to break in and install data logging equipment, are you also condemning that activity when (insert 3 letter agency) does it?

As I understand it, obtaining or divulging insider information IS illegal, the SEC jumps on people for doing it, and people get fired from companies for divulging it improperly.

I guess it may not be criminal to profit from someone's breaking their NDA, but it is certainly unethical.

You're right, the public has an interest in faulty products, or fraud. Those are legal and safety issues. Were the HP disclosures about either of those, or where they about the infighting in the board room? Is it a valid company secret that something that they market and sell for $1000, only costs them $50 and grosses $950? I understand that the public may want to know, but where does their right to information end? In most cases, unless it spills out into the public, how companies chose to handle their internal squabbles should be their own business. If the company produces results, or doesn't produce, that's really the ultimate issue. If it works out, they will have both sales and employees that stick around. If not, well, another Home Depot story.

For an product safety or accounting scandal, there's a whistle blower's act that provides a venue for a good faith disclosure of that information. For that matter, no NDA will prevent (nor should it) someone for reporting illegal behavior.

Where HP went wrong, IMO, is that their board business may not have been ethically and practically protected.

The disclosure of board business was probably unethical but not criminal. The nettlesome issue HP needed to face that they could simply compound the ethical breach by responding actively. Instead, I think HP allowed hubris to take over. "How dare someone betray us? How dare someone betray me!?"

I've experienced similar circumstances, admittedly on a smaller scale. We suspected, strongly, that unethical behaviour was taking place. There were signs of it popping up everywhere. The people on the board discussed it and decided to do nothing.

The most cognizant comments on the matter, as I recall, were along the lines of, "What are we going to do? Have a witch hunt? And if we catch the perpetrator, then what do we do? Have some sort of kangaroo court?"

Sometimes you just need to accept that unethical people can get away with their misdeeds. They have to live with their conscience, presuming they have one. Trying to stop all malicious behaviour can become a quagmire and damage the organization more than the initial activity. If the rats keep up their chewing, eventually they will slip up and bite an electrical cable.

It's called taking the High Road. It's not done often enough, and that's what makes citizens and consumers cynical. Note that these comments do not apply to criminal behaviour.

Cringe,

RE: "the basic premise -- and key difference between HP and a reporter -- is that the journalists are supposed to be working in the public interest. that's not how it always turns out, but that's supposed to be the impetus. HP was doing the opposite -- working solely for its own private interest."

Do you consider yourself a journalist? Are you paid? If you produce no stories, do you still get paid? If not, then how are you different from a PI or HP employee? You are 'researching' and writing sotries for YOUR private interest (to get paid)!

First, I'm not condoning what the PIs for HP did.

But what about the HP shareholders - there are millions of them... Don't they have a right to a Board of Directors that will be accountable for what they've done (not deny it when directly asked, and then do it again when directly told that the behavior is unacceptable)? And how was it in the best interests of the shareholders for this Board Member to leak this information to the public?

Let's set aside the "public's right to know" - the shareholders have a overarching right to expect their Board members to behave in a manner that maximizes shareholder value. Not grandstand the inner workings of confidential meetings for the press and the competition.

And yes, I do expect Management to take appropriate action to identify corporate moles and remove them. Some in HP were too zealous in this regard. That's too bad.

Dear Mr./Ms. Ramorius:

"Let's set aside the 'public's right to know'"

screw you

let's not

Mr Damon:

Is there no limit on the "public's right to know"?

Dear Kohathi

Who's to decide what the limit is? You? Bush?

Don't make me laugh. I trust you as little as I trust him.

So who's to decide? Let me know when you discover someone or some group above petty self-interest.

I believe Thomas Jefferson would answer your question with a resounding NO - there is no limit on the public's right to know... not in a democracy.

Mr Damon:

Soooo... if I, by means fair or foul, learn your SSN, bank account numbers, PINs, mother's maiden name and witness protection program location then it's ok with you if I publish all that?

Dear Kohathi

ok =) you're gonna make me define what "is" is, arencha? =)

i assumed we were talking about facts and events, not data items protected by privacy laws and concerns of safety

but at a certain level... yeah, even that privacy information... if not available to the public at large, at least available to the public's representatives: the cops, the government, the courts, prosecutors, grand juries, if necessary even the military

to claim otherwise for anyone in any situation is to put them above the law

and i balance that with the right of sources of information to remain hidden from those in power in order to protect their safety and the flow of information (ie, whistleblowers and informants)

and i balance that with the rights of individuals to be safe from harm if bozos like you or the papparazzi obtain and publish information that would endanger someone's life or property

and i balance that with the right of all citizens to encrypt and protect their private conversations and correspondance with any other citizens

this is all covered in the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence... which don't mean much if you don't live in the US, but it's a decent model and laudable ideal

sometimes it's hard... there are hard choices to make, and sometimes every choice sucks... but that's democracy for you... the rights of the individual versus the rights of the group... a wicked balancing act indeed

that which protects the rights of ordinary citizens can be used to protect the rights of drug lords, Nazis, child pornographers, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove... yup

but if you "by means fair or foul" learn my "SSN, bank account numbers, PINs, mother's maiden name and witness protection program location" in order to stop me (or any of those miscreants listed above) from committing crimes against country or humanity? hell yes, in that case the public and their representatives have a right to know

and trying to hide a crime or act of stupidity in order to protect profits is not a justifiable reason at all for circumventing the public's right to know

btw, don't confuse the word "know" with the word "publish"