Now, I understand that the law was broken here. And I don't rejoice for the mentality that puts this kind of cloak-and-dagger and paranoia into the workplace in the first place.
That said, I can't help but feel there's something of a double-standard at work here.
I've worked in a number of corporate environments, and if there's one thing I'm fairly certain of, it's the presumed privelige of those on high to monitor those below. Phone calls, internet access, breaks, lunches; many people end up feeling that a log is being kept on them for something to use to justify their termination, or at least something to threaten them with to boost their productivity or justify a raise- or bonus- crushing performance review some time in the future.
Why is it that a board of directors is expected to be above oversight that, supposedly, is making sure they do their jobs properly? I'm genuinely baffled. Are there more elements I'm failing to see here, or is this merely a seperation of the low-to-mid five and the six-to-seven figure salaries?
Posted by HegemonsAcolyte (Member # 1468) on :
I am not sure what confuses you. They tapped home phone calls and people created false identities to get even more information. It doesn't matter what level the employee is at, that sort of action will be illegal.
If the question is whether the board of directors should be monitored, then the answer is also a firm no. The board appoints the CEO, who then oversees the rest of the corporation. There is a strong conflict of interests if the CEO then monitors them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's okay to monitor at-work behavior and usage of company resources. Asking third parties to snoop on employees at home -- and obtain phone records under false pretenses -- is pretty clearly actionable.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I thought HP standed for Harry Potter at first and someone was trying to steal the final manuscript or something Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So did I!
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"I thought HP standed for Harry Potter at first..." Harry Potter is a known security risk. Fortunately, it helps to have a billionaire friend.
"Asking third parties to snoop on employees at home...is pretty clearly actionable"
Tell that to the folks who hafta undergo drug tests, medical checkups, background screening, and credit checks before hiring. And random drug testing afterwards; as well as possibly having to sign away other privacy rights to continue working.
More to the point, your home computer is probably running on software laced with security holes designed to allow corporations to spy on ya. As well as plant malware: eg unrequested pop-ups and redirects; eg Sony's rootkit ta shut down your CD-ROM; eg refusal to reload Windows if ya swap (what Microsoft claims are too many) components in your computer system; etc ad nauseum. Heck without those security holes, the RIAA couldn't break inta folks' home computers for the information which allows their lawyers to practice blackmail-by-court-action. And similar blackhats couldn't go phishing and pharming
Like Microsoft says: It's not a bug, it's a feature!
[ September 22, 2006, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Tell that to the folks who hafta undergo drug tests, medical checkups, background screening, and credit checks before hiring. And random drug testing afterwards; as well as possibly having to sign away other privacy rights to continue working.
If the board members had agreed to do those things in their contracts, none of these things would be a problem.
If they had also signed a contract saying that HP could ask for their phone records, this also would not have been a problem.
But HP (Edit: hiring PIs to)impersonate them in order to aquire those records is still illegal, no matter who it was done on.
I fail to see any hypocrisy.
quote:More to the point, your home computer is probably running on software laced with security holes designed to allow corporations to spy on ya. As well as plant malware: eg unrequested pop-ups and redirects; eg Sony's rootkit ta shut down your CD-ROM; eg refusal to reload Windows if ya swap (what Microsoft claims are too many) components in your computer system; etc ad nauseum. Heck without those security holes, the RIAA couldn't break inta folks' home computers for the information which allows their lawuyers to practice blackmail-by-court-action. And similar blackhats couldn't go phishing.
Like Microsoft says: It's not a bug, it's a feature!
Even if most of that is true, I fail to see how it has anything to do with the issue at hand.
[ September 22, 2006, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I believe that is Sterling's point: ya have one class of people for whom giving up privacy is a condition of employment -- or even using a home computer -- and another class of folks who are held to be above suspicion.
How long do ya think that the RIAA would last if the public were allowed to spy on their executives and lawyers in the manner that they are allowed to spy on the public? How long would corporate executives and board members last if they were spied upon as heavily as other employees?
[ September 22, 2006, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I thought the question would be how the government can have a law against spying on people.
It is funny that Rowling had a tussle with the TSA over being able to take her manuscript of Book VII on the plane with her. Maybe it was just a conspiratorial grab for the book. Maybe John Ashcroft is a closet HP fan. Not that he's over the TSA, it's just funnier thinking of him.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I thought it was funny that Rowling's first thought inregards to an alternative to having her manuscript confiscated was sailing home. She can afford to buy a 747 as a private jet to avoid TSA screening. And she could lease such a private jet for far far far less than the taxes she'll end up paying on her royalties for just writing the seventh book. Of course it's tough to get used to being a billionaire.
[ September 22, 2006, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
I can't possibly feel bad for anyone that has that problem.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Hewlett-Packard Chairwoman Patricia Dunn took the fall Tuesday after admitting she authorized an investigation that relied on "inappropriate techniques" to uncover who was leaking boardroom secrets to the media.
The first thing I thought after reading this was, "Oh no...there was torture involved. Tell me there there wasn't torture involved." I'm not sure if that's more sad than funny, or vica-versa.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
I personally would be in favor of sticking bamboo splinters under the fingernails of every HP board member... not necessarily to get information, but on general principles.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: I believe that is Sterling's point: ya have one class of people for whom giving up privacy is a condition of employment -- or even using a home computer -- and another class of folks who are held to be above suspicion.
Pretty much. Again, I certainly don't condone the illegal actions, or the whole mentality that constant monitoring of people is somehow okay. I just don't understand this attitude that we should be shocked- shocked!- that monitoring is occurring at the upper levels as well.
Nor do I accept the premise that the CEO, who is responsible for the greater good of the company, should have no recourse when her board of directors may be doing that company harm.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Nor do I accept the premise that the CEO, who is responsible for the greater good of the company, should have no recourse when her board of directors may be doing that company harm.
How did we get from "you can't spy on and defraud people" to "you have no recourse?"
I'm not sure I understand why there's no other option here.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Nor do I accept the premise that the CEO, who is responsible for the greater good of the company, should have no recourse when her board of directors may be doing that company harm.
How did we get from "you can't spy on and defraud people" to "you have no recourse?"
I'm not sure I understand why there's no other option here.
Looking back, I may have misconstrued an earlier point. Mea culpa.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)