PressEthic

While the public questions the ethical behavior of our various media outlets in obtaining information and protecting sources, Hewlett Packard (HP), one of the nation’s largest technology companies, is facing possible criminal charges for using a process called pretexting to access the phone records of nine journalists.

The story began unfolding early last week (September 6th and 7th) when news broke that HP had used an outside firm to obtain the phone records of members of its Board as part of an investigation to identify directors leaking information to the press. On September 8th, an article on the front page of the Business Section revealed that journalists’ records were also targeted.

Pretexting essentially means someone posing as a customer to get a company, such as a phone company, to disclose confidential information. The process is typically used by private investigators and is also available through multiple online sites.

HP issued a statement last week saying, it was "dismayed that the phone records of journalists were accessed without their knowledge." In response to the situation, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said,

A crime was committed. It is unclear how strong the case is. Who is charged and for what is still an open question.

CNN reported today that,

The investigation into tactics Hewlett-Packard used during an internal company probe has widened to include an inquiry from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California.

Why did HP need the records in the first place? In April or May of 2005, the Board suspected that information was being leaked to the press. They launched an investigation after an article appeared on CNET in January containing information discussed during a management meeting. The General Counsel’s office hired an outside consulting firm who ultimately sub-contracted with another firm to identify the leak.

Articles from September 9th through today focus more on what should happen to current Chairwoman, Patricia C. Dunn, rather that the investigation or ethical questions surrounding the situation.

HP is also refusing to identify the private investigation firm that used this questionable, if not illegal, technique. In an unlikely turn of events, will HP be forced to identify what one could consider their “protected” source of information or face contempt charges as journalists have in the past for keeping sources anonymous?

Journalists are under constant scrutiny about their reporting techniques. Do they cross the line to get the information they need or want? Do they rationalize morally questionable acts in pursuit of a higher public good? It would seem, in this ongoing story, the nine journalists HP targeted should question how this corporate giant infringed on their rights using unethical and possibly illegal tactics. If the tables were turned and a journalist was the one who had used pretexting to get private information, we would be in the throws of another media scandal.

Please note: links to online articles in the New York Times may require a login.