HP's dilemma with the law?

off late, there has been a lot of "hue and cry" about HP's independent probe into the alleged leak of information of its board meetings to the media. The HP board inducted a vendor to look into these, and also to look for the source of the leaks. The HP director assigned to oversee these, Patricia Dunn, appeared to have been unaware of the use and methodology of pretexting. Gathered from various news reports, I figured that Dunn, would not have ordered the use of such means, considering the high profile of this case as well as the unethical nature of the method. However, why is there such a hue and cry?

I want to find out what is happening in my house, I ask someone to check, they give me the results. I don't want to know how they did it. I find out what's wrong, I fix it. I am happy, no one knows.

how different is this from what governments of countries do to ensure "security"? Except this is a government organization. In all fairness, people are jumping onto this "lets get at HP and prove a point" bandwagon. However, the bigger picture is not being seen.

this is quite unfair for people to be pouncing. If my security and my trade secrets are at stake, I will use any means in order to resolve these issues.

in today's information world, where the technologies and needs are changing so fast that they can be clocked with an egg timer, guarding secrets is the greatest necessity of the corporation.

so what is the difference between a company and a country? One is guarding the people, and one is guarding the economy. Which is more important? Well, neither. They both require each other to survive. The economy requires the company to survive, and the company requires people to survive, and the people require the economy to survive. So the government, should allow the company to survive, as putting a spoke in the wheel might lead to greater consequences that might spiral out of control.