Terry Cowgill

Throw The Book At HP Snoopers

September 18, 2006 on 8:32 pm | In Main, National |

As someone who often leans Libertarian, I am happy to criticize government officials when they are guilty of overreaching, unethical behavior or just plain corruption. But the private sector can be just as out-of control. Witness the disclosures recently of the shameful behavior of the board of directors of Hewlett Packard.

Earlier this month, news accounts surfaced that as early as January 2005, when inside information about the ousting of former chief executive Carly Fiorina first emerged , HP excutives and board members launched an ill-fated investigation into who was leaking company secrets to the news media (the leaker was identified as a board member and has since resigned). Now a piece in today’s New York Times reveals that almost from the beginning the probe included surveillance and the gathering of phone records of both board members and journalists. Click here to read the NYT piece.

And it gets even worse. The probe reportedly included not only illicit gathering of phone records under false pretenses but the tailing of reporters and board members and the planting of monitoring software that would report the activities of a journalist back to HP security consultants. The actions are possibly illegal and almost certainly unethical. Not surprisingly, the California attorney general has said he thinks he’s got enough evidence to indict company officials or the private detectives they hired.

What caused HP officials, including the now-ousted chief executive and chairwoman Patricia Dunn, to think this kind of behavior is acceptable? I have three possibilities: 1) She got bad advice. 2) She wasn’t minding the store. 3) Or, more likely, she was a powerful executive at one of the world’s largest and most successful companies and simply felt she was above the law.

Numbers 1 and 3 are often related. Sometimes mighty and dominant executives get bad advice because the people who work for them are loath to tell the boss anything s/he doesn’t want to hear. That’s because frank advice given to an insecure boss can cause the employee to fall out of favor and possibly invite a nasty tongue lashing (or worse). So the yes-man becomes the enabler and the boss starts to view himself as invincible — and in somes cases, above the law. I know. I’ve worked for such a person.

The best thing a principled employee can do is resign. But of course that’s not always practical or financially advisable, so we are back to square one. I don’t know that this is the scenario that played out at HP, but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if it did. How about you?

P.S. I know what some of my watchdogs are thinking: “You’re only upset at this big corporation because they targeted journalists.” I must admit it made the issue hit home. But an important principle is at stake no matter who the target.

P.P.S. It is worth noting, however, that law enforcement officials are allowed to go undercover and misrepresent themselves to the players in their investigations, but corporations (HP) and new organizations (e.g. ABC News in the Food Lion case) expose themselves if they do. Is that as it should be?