Hewlett-Packard has a policy, which asserts "we make privacy protection integral to our business operations." In 2005, extensive reports of confidential board meetings appeared in prominent newspapers. H.P. decided to hire investigators to find out how the confidential information got to the newspapers. The investigators (not H.P. itself) made false representations which enabled them to get copies of phone records for suspect board members and news reporters; additionally, the investigators surveilled certain people. Eventually, the investigation became public knowledge and several people resigned including the "leaker" (H.P.'s longest serving board member who claimed he had always spoken with reporters and no one had ever objected before) and H.P.'s chairwoman, who had ordered the investigation, but claimed to not know the tactics employed by the investigators. H.P.'s new CEO, Mark Hurd, stated, "... inappropriate investigative tactics will not be employed again. They have no place at H.P."
- On what grounds can an illegal investigation ever be justified?
- Do you agree with the "slippery slope" argument that if we are trying to find who is responsible for a potentially illegal situation, that we do not have to avoid using illegal means ourselves?
- Should third parties such as the telephone companies be held liable for falling for the ruse used by unscrupulous investigators? If so, will this affect our ability to act over the phone or by computer, rather than in person, and is such an inconvenience balanced by the need to protect privacy?