Hp Pretexting Scandal

1788 Words8 Pages
Yuri A. Batten Module 2 Case 2: HP Pretexting Scandal ETH501 TUI University Dr. Bonnie Adams Who is ever responsible for the wrong-doings of a corporation? Is it the person who actually commits the crime or the company that hired the person who committed the crime? In today’s world of finger pointing and blame shifting, anyone’s guess is as good as mine. Should Patricia Dunn, former chairwoman of Hewlett-Packard (HP), have been forced to resign? In my mind the answer is yes, without a doubt. This paper will present a background of the company, a brief synopsis of the situation, and explain in utilitarianism and deontology, why she should have been forced to resign for two reasons. First, she hired a law firm to…show more content…
One would hope that it could be done legally, but in most instances people hire an outside firm like this to do their bidding. If a company that is investigating something wants information, they will do whatever it takes to obtain that information and hope they don’t get caught, or in this case just outsource it to another private investigator to continue to shift the blame and create a bigger paper trial. The chairwoman of HP did have access to confidential information through Hewlett-Packards human resource department. This information could have “found” its way into the “unknowing” hands of the investigators. However, this is the exact information needed to perform pretexting. Patricia Dunn was the chairwoman of HP and she, representing HP hired the lawyers, who hired the investigators, who hired other investigators that committed the crimes. (http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/417). Utilitarianism would suggest that her actions were ethically justified because the moral value of hiring someone to stop the leaks, no matter what are justified by the overall utility to the company, its employees, investors, and its share holders because the leaks would stop and the company can prosper. However deontology would suggest that her actions were ethically wrong because the intentions behind her actions were to violate
Open Document