Originally Posted By jonvn Who would have thought that the amoral management at HP, who has shipped thousands and thousands of jobs overseas while lining their own pockets with more cash, would behave in another amoral fashion by trying to place spies in newsrooms? These tech companies are all horrid places, lacking in any sense of social responsibility or decency. This story is just more evidence of that: <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/23/HP.TMP" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/23/HP.TMP</a>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Dunn and Hurd had maintained that they would not have approved the tactics used by the company's hired investigators had they known about them. But on Friday, Hurd admitted that he had approved at least one tactic used by the investigative team: Sending an e-mail containing false information to a journalist." When I read the first paragraph my immediate reaction was "bull- ", because I was thinking along the lines of what is in the second one here. The I read the second one. Hurd HAD to have known. This is all very interesting if you've ever worked in management for a large company. In my former life, I was an internal investigator for a large but now defunct retail chain in the West. This type of thing, with the exception of trying to plant spies in newsrooms, happens all-the-time. Matter of fact, I was the designated "dirty tricks" guy where I was, and it was after yet another assignment that was accompanied with "and if you're discovered doing this, we're going to disavow any knowledge, you were on your own" that led to me resigning. As it relates to what HP is going through, "Poison pill" information is what we called it, doling out bits of manufactured data that was easy to trace. We did surveillances, installed cameras in offices, ran TRWs, you name it. Execs will often give out instructions on what they'd like done, and implicit is the idea they will be assuming you're doing it all legitimately, but also implicit is by not detailing exactly how they want their wishes carried out, they want it done no matter what it takes. Somewhere along the way, it IS possible somebody decided to go "cowboy" on Hurd and friends with the newsroom infiltration, but ultimately, it's his ship to steer and he's responsible for asking questions. I'd agree that Dunn is a scapegoat here, because they'd rather stop the bleeding here and now. She was allowed to resign because don't think for a moment she was accomodated in some way as she left. When Fiorina was fired, one possible scenario is she was going to insist on asking questions as this went along with the power of veto and she was denied. This is why some cliches stand the test of time, such as "oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." Another one, that investigators love to use, is "tell the truth, it's the only story you have to remember."
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Siggghh.... "She was allowed to resign because don't think for a moment she WASN'T accomodated..."
