Submitted by The scandal surrounding Hewlett-Packard’s investigation into boardroom leaks has claimed its first high-profile victim. HP on Friday said that Patricia Dunn would step down immediately as chairman and board member, to be replaced by CEO Mark Hurd.
The scandal surrounding Hewlett-Packard’s investigation into boardroom leaks has claimed its first high-profile victim. HP on Friday said that Patricia Dunn would step down immediately as chairman and board member, to be replaced by CEO Mark Hurd.
Apparently Hurd knew as much about the whole affair as Particia Dunn.
Why is there a big issue made about the bugging? quite frankly, the issue should be focused on the person who was leaking the information, and why he thinks he should get special treatment.
So you think it would be OK for your company to bug your phone, capture all keystrokes on all your computers (including home computers), plant listening devices in you house and car and bug all your friends to make sure you are not talking about company information?
Sounds a bit extreme to some people.
The fact, he WAS sharing the information, not might, probably or could be, but actually DID share information; the only person they were going after was that *one* individual, it was not a blanket sweep of the whole company.
How about you doing a little research about the original purpose of this ‘witch hunt’ – here is a director on the board of HP, who quite frankly, is paid handsomely, and I’m sorry, just because he sits at the top enshaloms of power, doesn’t mean he is above the companies rules and regulations in regards to disclosing information about the company and future moves.
“doesn’t mean he is above the companies rules and regulations in regards to disclosing information about the company and future moves.”
And neither is HP board of directors/chair(wo)man exempt from the laws on surveillance. There are good reasons companies aren’t allowed to spy on you wherever, whenever and however they want. Granted the “victim” was probably a royal jerk but that doesn’t make HP’s action any more legal.
The amount of money he’s paid is irrelevant.
Also, your argument is a case of the ends justifying the means – that their actions were acceptable because he turned out to be the leak.
Now, as far as researching goes, how about reading this
article: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6115509.html,
published 11 days ago.
Here’s an excerpt:
“”These techniques were practiced on a number of individuals including certain directors, two employees and a number of individuals outside the company, including journalists,” Dunn said in a message on Tuesday, a transcript of which was provided by the company. An HP representative confirmed that two current employees had their personal records targeted, but would not identify the employees or say which records were accessed.”