The Patricia Dunn HP pretexting case and business ethics

Business ethics has become a serious subject of discussion the world over because of the rather intricate complexities attached to it. There are so many different facets to business related ethical problems that everyday something new emerges that needs to be tackled in the light of current legal structure or philosophical framework. The case of Patricia Dunn from HP might also sound like one of those complicated cases of ethics that need to be studied closely to reach a more reasonable solution. This case also highlighted the issue of pretexting which is strictly prohibited under California state law. Many people who had no way of knowing what pretexting meant learned about this ethical issue and hence something new was learned during the hearing of the case. We must understand that while each new major business ethics case might seem more complicated than the last one or even unique in some respects, the fact remains that each case brings us closer to reaching an ideal ethical environment for doing business in today's highly globalized world.

The case outline:

Patricia Dunn knew someone was leaking important company information and she decided to find out who was it. She hired an investigator who posed as HP director or a journalist to get information. It was found and Dunn was made to resign. Was it correct to ask her to resign even though she had company's best interest at heart? Let us discuss this according to deontological and utilitarian framework. We shall also see why this case had legal repercussion because of the practice of pretexting used in the case. We shall discuss what is pretexting and how California law strictly prohibits it.

Deontological

Deontology says that it is the action itself that matters and not the consequences. So even if the consequences are good, action can still be considered wrong if it was wrong according to the universal laws. For example lying is wrong, even if it helped in saving someone's life. Here we see that Patricia Dunn had everyone's well being at heart but she made a mistake by not taking the top directors into confidence. She decided to take action on her own and the person posed as director and journalist to root out information. While the action could lead to some good solid information, the method chosen to exact the same was not ethical. Dunn could have contacted other important members and sought their approval or she could simply blow the whistle about it without naming anyone. It is more critical to contact someone directly and tell them what is happening, instead of sneaking around the place looking for information. This was something downright naive to put it mildly…."the California attorney general calls "colossally stupid," no matter how well intentioned, and may well result in criminal charges." (Kaplan, Scandal at HP). So the action should be properly discussed to understand how it became unethical and how it completely blew off the ethical facade of a huge company. No one is allowed to pose as a director asking for his own records or pose as a journalist unless there is clear understanding among top officials that this can be done and it is allowed by company rules.

Deontological view makes it easier to identify a wrong action and to separate it effectively from heaps of confusing views. It says that as long as the action itself was wrong, it wouldn't matter what the intentions were or what consequences emerged. Keeping this view in mind, we can see why what Patricia Dunn did was considered punishable by HP board members. No one is above law and hence no matter how saintly the person claims to be, the fact remains that if wrongful means were used to extract information than Dunn's actions were definitely punishable.

Why is it a legal issue?

Having already discussed the case in the light of philosophical and ethical framework, we may think that this is enough. But business ethics problems cannot be solved in this manner. They may often turn into legal issues because of the violation of law involved. In the case of pre-texting, we need to understand that this is very much a legal issue because federal government takes false claims of identity very seriously and has formulated laws to protect your privacy by prohibiting the use of pre-texting.

Federal law defined pretexting as "the practice of getting your personal information under false pretenses. Pretexters sell your information to people who may use it to get credit in your name, steal your assets, or to investigate or sue you. Pretexting is against the law."

Read the last line, it clearly states that pretexting is against the law. Thus the law was broken by Patricia Dunn when she tried to get information through pretexting. No matter how good was your intention, if the means to achieve those goals violated the law then you can be prosecuted in the court of law. It is as simple as that.

It is important to understand how pretexters work and this will help us better understand why Dunn's actions were unethical in the true legal sense. "Pretexters use a variety of tactics to get your personal information. For example, a pretexter may call, claim he's from a survey firm, and ask you a few questions. When the pretexter has the information he wants, he uses it to call your financial institution. He pretends to be you or someone with authorized access to your account. He might claim that he's forgotten his checkbook and needs information about his account. In this way, the pretexter may be able to obtain personal information about you such as your SSN, bank and credit card account numbers, information in your credit report, and the existence and size of your savings and investment portfolios."

Regardless of the intentions, if someone calls you and asks for your social security and credit information pretending to be a loan officer or something similar, how would you feel? You will feel violated and intruded upon. That is exactly what happened at Hewlett Packard and we cannot blame the officials for feeling the way they did.

A claim of identity which is fraudulent is punishable by law. So which law deals with this issue? The law is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and according to this Act, it is illegal for any person to:

" * use false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or documents to get customer information from a financial institution or directly from a customer of a financial institution.

* use forged, counterfeit, lost, or stolen documents to get customer information from a financial institution or directly from a customer of a financial institution.

* 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."

The law sides with the victim and hence no matter how Dunn tried to explain it, she couldn't possibly prove that it was all legal. This was an illegal activity which is punishable by law and hence she was asked to resign. We may argue that since the action itself was wrong but intention was good, Dunn could be excused. But that is not how law sees it. The law is concerned with the means and not exactly the intention in mind. Dunn should have been more mindful of the legalities involved with such actions. It is strange that a woman at her position was not aware of the laws.