1.

On March 15, 2006, a meeting was arranged where Hurd met the
investigating team to know who was leaking the information.
2. Perkins had been of the view that the board member who was
leaking the information should be warned and that the board need
not be informed of the details.
3. On May 17, 2006, Ryan spoke to Keyworth about the investigation.
Keyworth then admitted that it was he who had leaked the
information.
4. On May 18, 2006, Ryan presented to the board a summary of the
findings without disclosing the identity of the leaker, in order to
enable the board to carry out a fair discussion on the matter.
5. Keyworth admitted that he had indeed leaked information to the
press, but refused to resign from the Board.
6. On June 19, 2006, Perkins questioned the HP Board about the way
the investigation had been carried out.
1. The planned approach and actions taken on the part of
Hewlett-Packard (HP) for the purpose of determining where
the internal leak occurred have been greatly questioned
throughout our society and legal system. The primary action in
question is known as “pretexting” and has raised some very
significant ethical and legal issues.
2. Pretexting is the process of impersonating someone else, in an
effort to access another individual’s personal information
(Mullins, 2006).