Patricia Dunn, Hp, and the Pretext Scandal Essay Example

customer (or a close relative) and asked for a copy of the telephone toll records - records of calls made and received.

The reason Patricia Dunn directed that the telephone records of the directors, to include herself, be collected is because Hewlett-Packard had a problem with their information being leaked to the media. Once again referencing www. securityforce. com, “The HP board of directors has long been a leaky ship.

During the embattled reign of Fiorina--HP's flashy CEO who was forced out nearly two years ago--a blow-by-blow account of a board retreat, held off-site to discuss the company's most sensitive problems, appeared in The Wall Street Journal.Furious, Fiorina laid down the law to board members: the leaks had to stop. For a time it appeared that the leakers, whoever they were, had gotten the message. ” Apparently, that message was forgotten as soon as Fiorina turned in her keys to the executive washroom.

In January 2006, “the online technology site CNET published an article about HP's long-term strategy... it quoted an anonymous HP source and contained information that could've come only from a director. ” (www. securityforce.om). This incensed Patricia Dunn, and the decision was made that the source of the leak would be discovered, even though she supposedly did not direct the method that would be used, as mentioned earlier. At this time, Ms. Dunn’s decision to begin to pursue the source(s) of the leak can be examined, as compared to the utilitarian and deontological ethics theories. Regardless of the method that was used, or if she knew about the pretexting, Ms. Dunn had a responsibility to share holders, employees, and other board members of Hewlett-Packard.

Based on

this statement, the most logical point to begin our comparison is with the deontological theory. Although one could argue her ‘right’ to be in the position she was in, one cannot argue against the fact that members of Hewlett-Packard listed previously do have a right to expect certain things. The share holders have a right to expect a positive return on their investment. The employees have a right to expect that they will continue to remain employed by HP, and the board members have a right to expect that the company will continue to thrive so that they can remain on the board. Ms. Dunn had a responsibility to those people.

Whoever leaked the information to CNET was putting all those people’s rights in jeopardy by potentially giving competitors an advantage. Ms. Dunn had a duty to protect the company, and as long as she did things legally, she was meeting the tenets of deontological ethics. As for the utilitarian ethics model, she did the right thing by trying to find (and presumably eliminate) the barrier to the long term happiness of those involved in the company. In that regard, she also met the concepts of the utilitarian ethics model.

The next part of the discussion will focus on the investigators who retrieved the telephone records of the board members.They were hired by the Hewlett-Packard general council office, through third party security experts. It’s important to note that the investigators were not listening in on the private calls that were being made. They simply acquired the call records of the board members home telephone numbers so that they could be audited to determine if any calls were

made to known news outlets.

According to a Newsweek magazine article written by David A. Kaplan, “It is not uncommon for companies to monitor the phones and computers of their employees. Indeed, in the wired age, most employees don't realize how much privacy they sacrifice.But pretexting goes a step beyond. The investigators use your ID--typically, the last four digits of your Social Security number--to obtain your phone records from unwitting phone companies.

” (Newsweek) If this had been all that the investigators did, the ethics comparisons would be somewhat easy. Unfortunately, they did not stop with the board members. According to www. securityfocus.com, “…HP reportedly went even further, attempting to plant “spyware” onto a CNET reporter’s computer. According to The New York Times, private investigators working for HP, “...epresenting themselves as an anonymous tipster . . . e-mailed a document to a CNET reporter... embedded with software that was supposed to trace who the document was forwarded to. ” (www. securityfocus. net) The actions of the investigators can now be broken into two distinct parts, and compared to the two ethics concepts we’ve been discussing.

First, did their actions meet utilitarian ideals with regards to the information they received about the board of director members? In a very loose since they did. The information they retrieved did, in fact, identify the person who had been leaking the information.By discovering who that person was, Hewlett-Packard could then discipline him accordingly, keep sensitive information from the media, and ensure that they could continue producing products and keep people employed. Did they meet deontological ideals? Since they were being paid to do a job, they did have a duty to do

whatever was necessary to complete that job. However, it could be argued that they had no right to do what they did.

There may have been other ways to acquire the needed information, other than pretexting, but that is hard to determine without more research.In my opinion, their actions as compared to deontological ethics were sketchy, at best, and could very well have been in conflict with them. As for their reported attempts to find out who CNET was conversing with, they violated both ethics principles. There was no way that the ‘spying’ they attempted to do was going to bring happiness to most people over the long term (utilitarian ethics). In fact, it could have done the exact opposite if they had discovered information that was unrelated to HP, but could have compromised a competitor.

They also had no right or duty to pursue information from that source. They were hired to gather information on HP employees. Even if we made the connection all the way back to HP, they had no rights or duties associated with CNET. As such, they violated the deontological ethics principles in that arena. Now that the investigators who attempted to plant spyware in CNET have been taken to task, we can discuss CNET itself. How do their actions compare to our ethics principles? They failed to meet the utilitarian ethics test.

The information they reported was unlikely to bring happiness to any people at HP, much less the largest amount. With that being said, the impact would surely be felt over the long term. However, they did meet deontological ideals, but only with regard to their own employer. If the person

who leaked the information contacted them of his own accord, the reporters at CNET had a right to publish the story, if they deemed it important enough.

Not only did they have a right, but they also had a duty to their publisher and their own board members. They are supposed to be impartial with the stories they publish. They aren’t concerned if an anonymous source is providing information that could potentially doom a company, as long as that information is determined to be accurate and factual. Since they had no rights or duties with regard to HP, there were no deontological ethical challenges with them reporting the information given. Finally, what about the person who leaked the information? In my opinion, he is responsible for violating both sets of ethical ideals.

As discussed previously, because of his position as a board member of HP, his actions could have caused severe reactions across the business community, and could have impacted HP adversely. This had huge potential to allow competitors to beat HP to the punch on secret projects, and in turn could have caused them to lose profits and potentially release workers. There is no doubt this was contrary to utilitarian ethics. In addition, the person providing the leak had no right or duty to report any of the behind the scenes goings on to any outside agency.

His allegiances, rights, and duties should have been to the company that was providing him employment. His actions violated deontological ideals. In conclusion, there were several different angles to consider when discussing the ethical repercussions of this incident. Should Patricia Dunn have been forced to resign? Comparing her actions to

just the utilitarian and deontological ethical models, I say absolutely not. She did her duty (deontological ethics) to find the source of the leak, and made sure that vital information was not disclosed to the general public, which could have impacted the company negatively and possibly put people out of work (utilitarian ethics).

The people conducting the investigation satisfied utilitarian ideals because they were working for HP, and was thus trying to achieve the same results as Ms. Dunn.However, the methods they used to gather the information was questionable when compared to deontological ethics. The writers at CNET had no ethical considerations involved with HP, but their actions did have an impact. Their actions did not meet the utilitarian ethics model, with regard to HP, because they could have potentially put HP out of business.

They had no rights or duties to HP, but they did to their own company. By pursuing the story, they met the criteria for deontological ethics, but only within their own arena. Last but not least, we have the source of the leak. As an HP employee, he violated both ethical concepts. His actions did not ensure the most happiness for the most amount of people over the long term, and it certainly was not his duty or right to expose company secrets to outside sources.

References

1. Rasch, M. (2006, 19 September) Liar, Liar, and Pretexting. Retrieved July 27, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www. securityfocus. com/columnists/417/4
2. Kaplan, D. (2006, September 18) Suspicions and Spies in Silicon Valley [U.S. Edition Edition] Retrieved July 27, 2008 from Newsweek via the World Wide Web. New York: Sep 18, 2006. Vol. 148, Iss. 10; pg.40