Bea V. Larsen . . . .Commentaries |
|
|
Bea V. Larsen is a Senior Mediator at the Center for Resolution of Disputes in |
|
|
|
But, I Didn't Know . . . This entry was posted on 10/14/2006 6:40 PM and is filed under Generally Speaking. In our youth, did we all pose the question: if you had the chance to steal a million
dollars, knowing you could avoid being caught, would you? Does the social
contract depend upon the risk of discovery?
The drama of the Hewlett-Packard spying case is beginning to unfold. The indicted CEO, and company counsel, present the defense of ignorance, that although they contracted for the investigation, they did not micromanage it. They allege no knowledge of any illegal means used to invade the privacy of board members and journalists. This brings to mind the fatally flawed maxim: don't ask, don't tell. Avoid the risk of discovery. A misguided policy for the Armed Forces. Wrong too for corporate America? Anticipation of plea bargaining hangs in the air. At the bottom of the chain of authority, is the hired sleuth who misrepresented himself (pretexting) to phone companies, to obtain calling records of those suspected of leaking information to the press. He is, no doubt, the most vulnerable person charged. And, the most likely to cut a deal? Query: which of his employers had knowledge of his methods? Did anyone ask? Who did he tell? Who did they tell? Robert Proctor, a Stanford professor and a technology watcher, at a press interview in August, described the increasing resistance on the part of corporations to investigate when things go wrong. One example: The College Board's SAT exams produced mistaken scores on more than 5000 tests? No significant investigation followed. Why? The short answer: investigations can result in assigning blame and provide ammunition for lawsuits. "There is a lot more protectiveness than there used to be," said Proctor, who is shaping a new field, the study of ignorance, which he calls agnotology. "It is often safer not to know." Outside the courtroom in which the Hewlett-Packard defendants were arraigned, the lawyer for Mr. Hunsaker, the corporate counsel, said his client's defense is based on a good faith belief that the investigator's conduct was legal. But, an email message has surfaced that Hunsaker is said to have written, in response to a note from his investigators saying that a ruse had been used to obtain phone records. He wrote back that he "shouldn't have asked." To quote the prosecutor, "it sums up the case in a single sentence." Few are so naive as to believe that this spying venture is unique to Hewlett-Packard. Will a new social contract evolve from these criminal prosecutions? A new balancing act to protect both group confidentiality and privacy? Hopefully, not "don't ask, don't tell." CommentsDisplay comments as (Linear | Threaded)
|
|
|