HP's Dunn Still Trying To Place The Blame Elsewhere

from the responsibility? dept

While everyone still waits for the outcome of HP's board meetings on the fate of Chairwoman Patricia Dunn concerning her authorization to spy on other board members using questionable and most likely illegal means, Dunn continues in her effort to pass the blame onto others. At the end of last week, she tried to pretend she didn't really know about how the investigators found out the info and that the use of pretexting was embarrassing. Of course, if that was the case, then she would have said it was a problem four months ago when board member Tom Perkins pointed out how unethical it was. Instead, she found it more important to attack another board member, who had leaked some fairly inconsequential stuff to the press. The latest is that Dunn is now fighting back by attacking Perkins, and making it sound like he was the problem. She claimed that he originally "advocated even more aggressive means." What were those means? She claims he brought up using a lie detector test. Of course, there's a big difference here. You don't administer a polygraph on someone without them knowing -- and if they voluntarily agree, there's nothing illegal about that. Identity theft to obtain phone records of people seems a lot worse than asking people to take a lie detector test. In fact, it's quite likely that if the board had really brought up the lie detector test, George Keyworth would have just admitted to being the leaker. In the above link, Matt Marshall's analysis at Venturebeat is worth reading as well. He notes that, beyond yet another attempt at passing the buck, Dunn chooses her words very carefully in attacking Perkins. Besides, this is yet another attempt at deflecting blame. No matter what Perkins advocated, the method Dunn used was most likely illegal. To claim someone else wanted to be "more aggressive" (even if it wasn't) doesn't absolve her from moving forward with the plan to spy on board members.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    oust da byatch, 12 Sep 2006 @ 5:57am

    Yeah, I think in this case it is

    Here is an official .gov URL that pretty much explains that it is against the law:


    Although there are statements that mention financial accounts specifically, there is also a catch all clause as well where this act would fall under:

    ask another person to get someone else’s customer information using false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or using false, fictitious or fraudulent documents or forged, counterfeit, lost, or stolen documents.

    so yeah, not only is it unethical, but yes, it is against the law. If it weren't you wouldn't have such a blame game circus going on at HP.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.