Pretexting When Secrets Regarding Corporate

Pretexting

When secrets regarding corporate strategy began appearing in the press, former chairman of the board at Hewlett Packard, Patricia Dunn, decided to take action. Unfortunately, the actions she took would have detrimental consequences - not only for her, but also for her company.

Someone from the board had been leaking valuable company info to the press - not only about HP corporate strategy, but about whom the board was considering for CEO as well as the company's interest in buying another tech company. The majority of the board asked Dunn to investigate the source of the leak. The investigation went a bit too far, and Dunn was eventually indicted on charges of pretexting - that is, using false pretenses in order to obtain the personal information of board members and journalists connected with the leaks.

There is no doubt that pretexting violates the norms of ethics that our society has been built on. The problem with the Dunn scandal is that it is not clear whether or not Dunn herself was aware that pretexting was being used in the course of the investigation.

The issue is all the more complicated by the fact that one or more of the HP board members utilized pretexting - an unethical method - as a means of investigating another unethical practice that was being used. Shortly before being indicted, Dunn defended the decision to launch an investigation into the leaks, as she claimed that the leaks had been highly destructive for HP. As sensitive material discussed in meetings was ending up in the Wall Street Journal, among other publications, trust between board members was withering away. and, as Dunn was correct to point out, a board that does not have trust among its members cannot function properly. Thus, this was detrimental to the company as a whole.

Dunn claims that she was never given a chance to review the methods being used by the investigation company that was hired to look into the source of the leaks. After she was removed and indicted for charges of pretexting, Dunn stated that she had relied on senior lawyers working for HP throughout every step of the investigation. HP officials, however, claimed that Dunn had largely instigated the illegal maneuvers taken.

After the investigation began to turn up evidence pointing to board member Jay Keyworth as the source of many of the leaks to the press, Dunn then made the board aware of this fact - despite the fact that Keyworth's best friend and fellow board member, Tom Perkins, disapproved. Perkins felt that Keyworth should be reprimanded behind the scenes. But Dunn wanted to let the other board members, who had instigated the investigation, know what the results had been. Once it was announced, the board asked Keyworth to resign. At that point, Perkins also quit in a huff. But that was not all. He also launched a campaign in order to try and discredit Dunn, who he believed had betrayed his trust.

It seems that the charges brought against Dunn are largely the result of Perkins's disinformation and discrediting campaign against her. Perkins is an enormously wealthy, powerful individual, who not only sent out a mass e-mail attempting to discredit Dunn - an e-mail that was said to have influenced the media - but also went to law enforcement officials alongside his lawyers in order to convince them that she had orchestrated an investigation that included the use of pretexting as a method. In the words of Dunn, "If you have enough money and you're willing to spend enough, you can buy and sell somebody's reputation." Apparently, this is what Perkins did.

But is the situation really that cut and dry? Perkins was clearly enraged and took measures to have Dunn removed from the board, which is what he wanted to accomplish. But by taking the matter to law enforcement, he took the issue one step further.