Hp Case Study
HP
1.What was the problem or problems facing HP’s board of directors?
The main problem was how the board of directors dealt with finding the source the leaking of information. The board chairman lead a private investigations using pretexting methods to investigate other board members to find the source of the leaking. Pretexting in the form of calling phone companies, pretending to be someone else and requesting private information on their account. This method of investigation was highly intrusive of the personal lives, which contradicts HP’s commitment to privacy.
2.What stakeholders were affected by the actions of HP’s board and chairman, and how were they affected? * Congress: They had to deal with the legal portion of the case, in addition to reform previous definitions of what is “pretexting” and what is legal and what is not. * Reporters: Some were involved in the leaking and worked closely with HP board of directors. Their jobs could have been in the line for getting themselves in such scandal. However, they had more material to write about. * Public: They got to witness the entire scandal go down. They might feel distrust towards the company, since HP didn’t follow their commitment to privacy. They could wonder if they are being spied as well. * Investigators: They were hired to complete a job that can be considered as unethical. High-risk job that could land them on jail if they push the limits of law, in this case what is considered pretext or not. * Board of Directors: Most of them had their privacy rights violated, some lost their jobs for leaking information or witnessed the leaking, others spearheaded investigations of questionable legality. However, the board did get insight on how to strengthen their security against future leakings. * HP: Their reputation was highly damaged. Their board of directors broke HP’s commitment to privacy by abusing the privacy of their peer board members. Customer loyalty might have been
1.What was the problem or problems facing HP’s board of directors?
The main problem was how the board of directors dealt with finding the source the leaking of information. The board chairman lead a private investigations using pretexting methods to investigate other board members to find the source of the leaking. Pretexting in the form of calling phone companies, pretending to be someone else and requesting private information on their account. This method of investigation was highly intrusive of the personal lives, which contradicts HP’s commitment to privacy.
2.What stakeholders were affected by the actions of HP’s board and chairman, and how were they affected? * Congress: They had to deal with the legal portion of the case, in addition to reform previous definitions of what is “pretexting” and what is legal and what is not. * Reporters: Some were involved in the leaking and worked closely with HP board of directors. Their jobs could have been in the line for getting themselves in such scandal. However, they had more material to write about. * Public: They got to witness the entire scandal go down. They might feel distrust towards the company, since HP didn’t follow their commitment to privacy. They could wonder if they are being spied as well. * Investigators: They were hired to complete a job that can be considered as unethical. High-risk job that could land them on jail if they push the limits of law, in this case what is considered pretext or not. * Board of Directors: Most of them had their privacy rights violated, some lost their jobs for leaking information or witnessed the leaking, others spearheaded investigations of questionable legality. However, the board did get insight on how to strengthen their security against future leakings. * HP: Their reputation was highly damaged. Their board of directors broke HP’s commitment to privacy by abusing the privacy of their peer board members. Customer loyalty might have been