10/4. The State of California's Department of Justice (CDOJ) released a document [7 page PDF scan] titled "Felony Complaint" that charges Patricia Dunn, Kevin Hunsaker, Ronald DeLia, Matthew DePante, and Bryan Wagner with violation of four California criminal statutes in connection with their participation in a scheme to spy on reporters and HP people by fraudulently obtaining their confidential phone call records from wireless carriers.

The complaint was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The prospective jury pool will thus include many employees and shareholders of HP, and their families, and persons familiar with HP.

The defendants range from Dunn, the former Chairman of the Board of Hewlett-Packard (HP), who set in motion the scheme to acquire the confidential personal information of reporters and HP people, to twenty-nine year old Wagner, who made fraudulent phone calls to a wireless carrier.

Dunn has already resigned in disgrace from the HP board. Kevin Hunsaker, a former senior attorney at HP, has also resigned in disgrace.

The CDOJ alleges that DeLia runs the Massachusetts based investigation firm, Security Outsourcing Solutions (SOS), that Dunn hired to run the investigation. DePante is associated with another firm, Action Research Group (ARG), to which SOS subcontracted out pretexting activities. ARG, which is based in Florida, in turn hired Wagner to make phone calls to AT&T customer service to obtain under false pretenses information about Tom Perkins (the former HP Director most responsible for leading Dunn and others to justice), Richard Hackborn (who remains a HP Director), and Pui-Wing Tam, a Wall Street Journal reporter.

(There are two DePantes of note. Joseph DePante owns ARG. He was subpoenaed to testify before the House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight on Investigations on September 28. He appeared, invoked the Fifth Amendment, and then left the hearing room. Matthew DePante is his son. The CDOJ has charged Matthew.)

The CDOJ also released a second document [17 page PDF scan] titled "Declaration in Support of Felony Complaint and Arrest Warrant". It contains detailed factual allegations.

The CDOJ also held a news conference and issued a release, which contains hyperlinks to video of the event.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer (at left) stated in this release that "In this misguided effort, people inside and outside HP violated privacy rights and broke state law. On behalf of Californians, who cherish privacy so much they enshrined the right in our state Constitution, those who crossed the legal line must be held accountable. That is my duty, and I will perform it in a manner that reflects the gravity and importance of this case."

This release adds that "The complaint and supporting declaration detail how Dunn and Hunsaker knew the outside investigators obtained phone records through false pretenses. After acquiring that knowledge, the complaint and declaration allege, both Dunn and Hunsaker facilitated the continued use of the illegal means to obtain phone records, making both culpable for the crimes."

Wire Fraud. The criminal complaint alleges that all five defendants committed a felony violation of Section 538.5 of the Penal Code of the State of California (PCSC). This is the state wire fraud statute.

It provides that "Every person who transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio or television communication any words, sounds, writings, signs, signals, or pictures for the purpose of furthering or executing a scheme or artifice to obtain, from a public utility, confidential, privileged, or proprietary information, trade secrets,
trade lists, customer records, billing records, customer credit data, or accounting data by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, personations, or promises is guilty of an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year."

Identity Fraud. The criminal complaint also alleges that all five defendants committed a felony violation of Section 530.5(a) of the PCSC. This is the state identity fraud statute.

Subsection 530.5(a) provides that "Every person who willfully obtains personal identifying information, as defined in subdivision (b), of another person, and uses that information for any unlawful purpose, including to obtain, or attempt to obtain, credit, goods, services, or medical information in the name of the other person without the consent of that person, is guilty of a public offense, and upon conviction therefor, shall be punished either by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that imprisonment and fine, or by imprisonment in the state prison, a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both that imprisonment and fine."

Subsection 530.5(b) provides that "``Personal identifying information,´´ as used in this section, means the name, address, telephone number, health insurance identification number, taxpayer identification number, school
identification number, state or federal driver's license number, or identification number, social security number, place of employment, employee identification number, mother's maiden name, demand deposit account number, savings account number, checking account number, PIN (personal identification number) or password, alien registration number, government passport number, date of birth, unique biometric data including fingerprint, facial scan identifiers, voiceprint, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation, unique electronic data including identification number, address, or routing code, telecommunication identifying information or access device, information contained in a birth or death certificate, or credit card number of a person, or an equivalent form of identification."

Computer Fraud. The criminal complaint also alleges that all five defendants committed a felony violation of Section 502(c)(2) of the PCSC. This is a part of California's state computer fraud and abuse statute.

It provides, "502 ... (c) Except as provided in subdivision (h), any person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a public offense: ... (2) Knowingly accesses and without permission takes, copies, or makes use of any data from a computer, computer system, or computer network, or takes or copies any supporting documentation, whether existing or residing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network."

Subsection (h) provides as follows:
  "(h) (1) Subdivision (c) does not apply to punish any acts which are committed by a person within the scope of his or her lawful employment.  For purposes of this section, a person acts within the scope of his or her employment when he or she performs acts which are reasonably necessary to the performance of his or her work assignment.
   (2) Paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) does not apply to penalize any acts committed by a person acting outside of his or her lawful employment, provided that the employee's activities do not cause an injury, as defined in paragraph (8) of subdivision (b), to the employer or another, or provided that the value of supplies or computer services, as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b), which are used does not exceed an accumulated total of one hundred dollars ($100)."

Criminal Conspiracy. Finally, the criminal complaint charges that all five defendants participated in a criminal conspiracy to commit the above listed crimes.

This complaint does not charge either Mark Hurd, the CEO of HP, or Ann Baskins, who last week resigned from her position as General Counsel. Publicly released documents suggest that both were aware of, and involved in, the HP spying scandal.

Tony Gentilucci also is not named in this criminal complaint.

This complaint does not address the whole of HP's spying activities. Rather the facts alleged in the supporting affidavit indicate that this complaint primarly pertains to one individual pretexter's (Wagner) efforts to access records from one carrier (AT&T) for three targeted individuals.

Thus, as the CDOJ continues its investigation, it may bring further charges.

9/29. Cingular Wireless filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (NDGa) against CAS Agency, Inc., Charles Kelly, and John Doe and XYZ corporation defendants alleging various state and federal law claims in connection with pretexting to fraudulently obtain customer phone records.

The complaint states that "Defendants do not have authorization from Cingular, from its customers, or from validly issued subpoenas or court orders to access Cingular's confidential customer information. Thus, Defendants CAS Agency, Charles Kelly or their agents cannot lawfully obtain from Cingular the confidential customer information and records that, according to the House Energy Commerce Congressional Committee on September 28, 2006, they obtained from Cingular customer and CNET news.com reporter Ms. Dawn Kawamoto, and provided to Hewlett-Packard as part of its leak investigation."

The complaint further alleges that "In an attempt to circumvent Cingular's safeguards, Defendants CAS Agency and Charles Kelly or their agents wrongfully obtain and disseminate confidential customer information, such as customer's call records, through fraud and deception by engaging in `pretexting´´ or ``social engineering´´ and/or unauthorized access to online account information stored in Cingular's computer network. For example, upon information and belief, Defendants CAS Agency and Charles Kelly, or their agents call Cingular's customer service representatives and dishonestly pose as customers seeking information about his or her own account, pose as fellow employees facing an urgent access problem in accessing a customer account, and/or access customers' online accounts fraudulently, user customers' passwords without their knowledge or consent."

The complaint alleged the following:

• common law fraud
• civil conspiracy
• trespass to chattels
• violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1030
• violation of the federal RICO statute, which is codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968
• violation of the Georgia RICO statute

The federal claims are more tenuous than the state common law causes of action. Cingular may have pled the federal claims in part to obtain federal jurisdiction.

Cingular is on solid ground in alleging fraud and trespass to chattels. However, the CFAA private right of action, which is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g), provides relief only under very limited circumstances, which Cingular has not yet pled. That is, Cingular has alleged fraudulent phone conversations, but not online accessing of customer account information from electronic databases. Nor has Cingular alleged damage to a protected computer. If this claim is not amended, it might be dismissed following a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

The RICO statute, which is codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, includes a private right of action. However, it requires that an underlying federal crime be involved. The relevant enumerated crimes (such as wire fraud, mail fraud, access device fraud, and identification fraud) all require an interstate nexus. It should be noted that both Cingular and CAS Agency are in the state of Georgia. Thus, it appears that HP and/or its outside contractors might have structured their scheme with the purposes of asserting the argument that interstate commerce is lacking, and defeating diversity jurisdiction.

This case is Cingular Wireless LLC v. CAS Agency, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. Cingular is represented by David Balser and Nathan Garroway of the Atlanta, Georgia, office of the law firm of McKenna Long & Aldridge.

9/28. Cellco Partnership, dba Verizon Wireless, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (DNJ) against John Doe defendants alleging various federal and state law claims in connection with their fraudulently obtaining confidential customer records from its customer service representatives (CSRs) over the phone, and by obtaining online access to accounts.

The fraud alleged in the complaint includes obtaining confidential customer information, and adding or changing user id and password information, and blocking of text message's to the HP Director's cell phone.

This is significant. The testimony of HP witnesses at the hearing of the House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation on September 28, 2006, the documents produced by HP and its attorneys, the criminal complaint filed by the California Department of Justice on October 4, 2006, and other records, mostly reflect phone calls to obtain account information. This Verizon Wireless complaint provides details regarding fraudulent online access, and the changing information in databases. This complaint pleads facts that support a computer fraud and abuse violation.

The complaint is verified (made under penalty of perjury) by an investigator at Verizon Wireless.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, "whose identities and addresses are presently unknown to Verizon Wireless, are individuals or entities who: (a) were retained, directly or indirectly, by the Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP") in 2005 and 2006 to investigate any leaks of confidential information from HP's Board of Directors and have attempted to obtain confidential information on Verizon Wireless customers by making "pretexting" calls to Verizon Wireless customer care centers or by illicitly accessing Verizon Wireless' protected computers and data storage facilities; and/or (b) received proceeds from the sale of confidential Verizon Wireless customer information."

Methods for Obtaining Access to Account Information. The complaint states that "``pretexting´´ is a method used by data brokers or other "investigators" to gain access to confidential information through deceit, often by impersonating a Verizon Wireless customer or employee. In general, data brokers collect private information about subscribers from various sources, and then fraudulently and deceptively use that information to trick customer service representatives into providing other private information, such as call detail records. The most common ruse involves posing as the customer or as an employee of Verizon Wireless. In addition, data brokers may use customer information to access Verizon Wireless computer system (such as the system that provides online access to account information) to obtain private information on an account."

The complaint further alleges that "Verizon determined that account records of an HP Director ... were subject to unauthorized access by one or more Defandants in May 2005, January 2006, and February 2006. Moreover, Defendants attempted to gain, and may have successfully gained, unauthorized access to the account of the HP Director's spouse."

It alleges that "On or about May 17, 2005, a Verizon Wireless CSR received a call from a person posing as a fellow Verizon Wireless employee (Jane Doe I). During the call, Jane Doe I indicated she was attempting to obtain access to the HP Director's account but was unable to do so. On information and belief, Jane Doe I attempted to gain confidential information about the account during that call."

It alleges that "On May 20, 2005, another call was made to Verizon Wireless customer service relating to this account. This call resulted in the blocking of text messages to the HP Director's wireless phone."

It alleges that "Minutes later, on May 20, 2005, records demonstrate that someone obtained online access to the account by meeting the necessary verification procedures. The user then changed both the user id and the e-mail address associated with the account. Verizon Wireless cannot determine what account information was accessed during this online session. On information and belief, the May 20 phone call, which resulted in the blocking of text messages, was an effort to prevent any text message alert from being sent to the customer's wireless phone."

It alleges that "Although the HP Director terminated Verizon Wireless service on November 1, 2005, the account remained active with a secondary line. A second instance of unauthorized access occurred on or about February 1, 2006. On that date, a call was made to a CSR indicating that the second line user lost her phone, could not remember her phone number because it had been changed, and wanted to call the phone before suspending service. In fact, the phone number had never been changed since the line was established. Accordingly, the purpose of this call was apparently to obtain the phone number of the secondary line."

It alleges that "Records further indicate that, also on or about February 1, 2006, someone obtained online access to the HP Director's account by meeting the necessary verification procedures and changing the password on the account. A different IP address was used to access the account on February 1 than had been used to access the account in the past. This same IP address was later used to access the online account on February 17. Verizon Wireless cannot determine what account information was accessed during these online sessions."

It alleges that "At least three attempts were made to gain unauthorized access through customer service to the account of the HP Director's spouse. These attempts appear to have been unsuccessful, but online access my have been obtained."

It alleges that "Verizon Wireless records show that, on February 2, 2006, a person posing as a Verizon Wireless representative called a CSR seeking information on the account. The CSR added a "hot remark" on the account stating that the other CSRs should not give out any information without verifying the caller's information."

It alleges that "Minutes later, this account was registered online by establishing a user name and password. The IP address used to establish this account is the same IP address that was used to access the HP Director's online account on February 1, 2006."

It alleges that "Another call was made to customer service on March 1, 2006. The CSR noted that the caller had the customer's social security number but not the mobile telephone number. The CSR then called the customer's number and determined that the customer's voicemail did not match the caller's voice. The CSR then updated the warning that was already in place on the account."

Finally, the complaint alleges that "A final call to customer service occurred on March 14, 2006. The caller posed as a Verizon Wireless employee and requested information on the account. When the CSR stated that she would not provide any information, the caller hung up."

Legal Theories. The complaint alleges the following:

• violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which is codified at which is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1030
• violation of the New Jersey Computer Related Offenses Act
• common law fraud
• common law conversion
• unfair competition and trade practices
• civil conspiracy
• replevin

Unlike the complaint in Cingular Wireless v. CAS Agency, this complaint alleges facts in support of each element of a civil action under the CFAA. See, story in this issue titled "Cingular Sues Pretexting Firm Involved in HP Scandal".

Request for Relief. Verizon Wireless seeks an accounting, disgorgement of profits, damages, punitive damages, costs, attorneys fees, an injunction against obtaining any information from Verizon Wireless regarding Verizon Wireless customers, and an injunction against possessing any confidential customer information obtained from Verizon Wireless.

This case is Cellco Partnership, dba Verizon Wireless v. John and Jane Does I-XX, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Verizon Wireless is represented by Philip Sellinger and Ian Marx of the Florham Park, New Jersey, office of the law firm of Greenberg Traurig.

9/28. Hewlett-Packard (HP) filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), on September 28, 2006, that discloses details regarding Ann Baskins resignation from HP on September 28.

Baskins, who was the General Counsel of HP throughout its pretexting related spying operations, will receive vested stock options valued at $3,658,807, and accelerated options of $1,000,000. Moreover, HP will continue to pay for her defense in any civil or criminal matter, and indemnify her for any loses.

Several members of the House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations described this agreement as a "golden parachute" at the hearing on September 28, 2006.

Baskins appeared at the hearing, invoked the 5th Amendment, and then left the hearing room.

The Form 8-K states that "On September 28, 2006, Ann O. Baskins resigned as Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”).  In connection with Ms. Baskins’ resignation, the HR and Compensation Committee of the HP Board of Directors has reviewed and approved certain benefits to be provided to Ms. Baskins."

It states that she "will have until the close of the market on November 22, 2006 to exercise her outstanding options to purchase 465,858 shares of HP’s common stock that are vested as of September 28, 2006, which options have a value of $3,658,807 based on the closing price of HP's common stock on September 27, 2006.

It also states that her "unvested outstanding stock options as of September 28, 2006 will expire on November 22, 2006. On November 20, 2006, the vesting of a number of Ms. Baskins’ unvested outstanding stock options, beginning with the stock options with the lowest exercise price and continuing with stock options having increasingly higher exercise prices, will be accelerated so that the aggregate intrinsic value of the accelerated stock options equals $1,000,000 on November 20, 2006, with the intrinsic value of an accelerated option calculated as the excess of the average of the high and low prices of a share of HP’s common stock on November 20, 2006 over the exercise price of such accelerated option. Ms. Baskins will have until the close of the market on November 22, 2006 to exercise such accelerated options."

This disclosure form also states that "the Release Agreement provides for a release by Ms. Baskins of any claims against HP and its directors, officers, agents and employees relating to her employment with HP or the termination of her employment with HP".

It also includes "an agreement by Ms. Baskins to cooperate with HP in connection with any internal investigation and the defense or prosecution of any claims that may be made by or against HP or in connection with any ongoing or future investigation, dispute or claim of any kind involving HP".

Finally, in what could prove to be the largest compensation, HP agrees to pay for her defense, and indemnify her for any loses. The Form 8-K states that the Release Agreement includes "an agreement by HP to indemnify Ms. Baskins to the fullest extent permitted under HP’s Bylaws and applicable law; an agreement by HP to advance expenses actually and reasonably incurred in connection with any civil, criminal, administrative or investigative action, suit or other proceeding, with certain exceptions; mutual non-disparagement provisions; ... and an agreement by HP to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by Ms. Baskins in connection with negotiating the Release Agreement."

Baskins will likely spend considerable sums on legal fees. Moreover, it is possible that persons whose personal information was wrongfully obtained, and news businesses, will obtain large judgments against her.

10/5. TLJ has been researching and writing stories about the Hewlett Packard spying scandal since Thursday, September 28, 2006, when the House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (SOI) began two days of hearings on HP and pretexting.

This issue contains the first installment of articles. The articles and other items in this issue are as follows:

• Persons Involved in the HP Scandal
• Bibliography
• California Charges Patricia Dunn and Others With Four Felonies
• Cingular Sues Pretexting Firm Involved in HP Scandal
• Verizon Wireless Files John Doe Complaint Against HP's Pretexters
• HP Discloses Terms of Ann Baskins' Resignation Agreement

Forthcoming articles will address the HCC/SOI's hearing of September 28, the HCC/SOI's hearing of September 29, the content and status of HR 4943, FTC actions against data brokers, federal criminal statutes implicated by the pretexting activities of HP or others, federal civil statutes implicated by pretexting, federal statutes that create a private right of action, categories of state statutes that create criminal or civil liability, categories of state common law actions, and exemptions for pretexting by law enforcement agencies.

10/5. The following is a partial list of persons involved in the HP spying scandal.

HP's Investigators.

Mark Hurd. CEO of HP. He approved the second investigation (involving CNET), including HP staff support. He received a written report on the nature of the investigation, but claims he never read it. He also approved a spyware plot against CNET, but denies knowing details. He testified before a House Subcommittee on September 28.
Patricia Dunn. Former Chairman of HP. She ordered the first investigation (involving Business Week). She asked for and received Hurd's support for the second investigation (CNET). Despite extensive conversations and briefing regarding the operation which she ordered, she now claims that she thought that everybody's phone records are a matter of public information. She testified before a House Subcommittee on September 28, evasively, with asserted memory lapses, and sometimes without credibility. Subcommittee members expressed disbelief. The California Department of Justice (CDOJ) charged her with four felonies on October 4.
Ann Baskins. Former SVP and General Counsel of HP. She left HP last week, and received a multi-million dollar golden parachute. She invoked the 5th Amendment at the House Subcommittee hearing on September 28.
Kevin Hunsaker. Former Senior Counsel at HP, responsible for ethics. He left HP last week. He invoked the 5th Amendment at the House Subcommittee hearing on September 28. The CDOJ charged him with four felonies on October 4.
Anthony Gentilucci. Former manager of global security investigations at HP, perhaps based in Boston, Massachusetts. He left HP last week. He invoked the 5th Amendment at the House Subcommittee hearing on September 28.
Frederick Adler. HP investigator. He testified before the House Subcommittee on September 28.
Vince Nye. HP Senior Investigator. He wrote to Gentilucci (his boss) and Hunsaker on February 7, 2006, to state that HP's spying and pretexting is "very unethical at the least and probably illegal". HP did not follow his advice.

HP's Outside Pretexters.

Ronald DeLia. Managing Director of Security Outsourcing Solutions (SOS), a Massachusetts firm that worked for HP. SOS subcontracted actual pretexting to ARG in Florida. He invoked the 5th Amendment at a House hearing on September 28.
Joseph Depante. Owner of Action Research Group (ARG), a Florida business, that conducted fraudulent phone calling to phone companies for DeLia's SOS. He invoked the 5th Amendment at a House hearing on September 28.
Matthew Depante. Son of Joseph DePante. The California Department of Justice (CDOJ) charged him with four felonies on October 4.
Cassandra Selvege. Eye in the Sky Investigations, Florida. She invoked the 5th Amendment at a House hearing on September 28.
Darren Bross. Austin, Texas. He invoked the 5th Amendment at a House hearing on September 28.
Valerie Preston. In Search of Inc., Florida. She invoked the 5th Amendment at a House hearing on September 28.
Bryan Wagner. Now in Littleton, Colorado. He invoked the 5th Amendment at a House hearing on September 28. The CDOJ charged him with four felonies on October 4 for pretexting AT&T while living in Omaha, Nebraska, to obtain the phone records of Tom Perkins, Richard Hackborn, and Pui-Wing Tam.
Charles Kelly. Principal of CAS Agency in Georgia. Cingular Wireless has sued him alleging that he fraudulently obtained Dawn Kawamoto's phone records from Cingular. He invoked the 5th Amendment at a House hearing on September 28.

HP People Targeted by the Investigations

George Keyworth. Former HP Director whose phone conversations with reporters drove Patricia Dunn over the edge.
Martha Keyworth.
Thomas Perkins. Former HP Director whose resignation and subsequent demands compelled HP to file the Form 8-K with the SEC that disclosed a board dispute over pretexting.
Lawrence Babbio. VCh/P of Verizon, and Director of HP. His cell phone account was with Verizon Wireless. However, the pretexters sensed that calling up Verizon customer service, claiming to be Larry Babbio, and asking for help with his cell phone service, might not fool anyone.
Robert Knowling. Former HP Director.
Lucie Salhany. HP Director.
Richard Hackborn. HP Director.
Carleton Fiorina. Former CEO of HP.
Shane Robinson. HP CTO.
Michael Moeller. HP media relations.
Brigida Bergkamp. HP media relations.

Reporters Targeted by the Investigations.

Dawn Kawamoto. CNET reporter. She used her cell phone to talk with Geoge Keyworth. She wrote (with Tom Krazit and Stephen Shankland) an article about HP that CNET published on January 23, 2006.
Tom Krazit. CNET reporter.
Stephen Shankland. CNET reporter.
Thomas Shankland. Physicist, and father of Stephen Shankland.
Rachel Konrad. Associated Press reporter married to Stephen Shankland.
Roger Crockett. Business Week, based in Chicago.
Ben Elgin. Business Week writer, based in Silicon Valley.
Peter Burrows. Business Week's computer editor, based in Silicon Valley.
Pui-Wing Tam. Wall Street Journal reporter.
George Anders. Wall Street Journal reporter
John Markoff. New York Times writer, Stanford lecturer, and author of What the Dormouse Said: How the 60s Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry and other tech books.

Pretexted Wireless Companies.

Cingular Wireless. Provided service for Dawn Kawamoto. It has sued CAS Agency in federal court in Georgia.
Verizon Wireless. Provided service for Larry Babbio and others. It has filed a John Doe complaint in federal court in New Jersey
AT&T. It provided service to Tom Perkins, Richard Hackborn, and Pui-Wing Tam. Information provided by AT&T to the California Department of Justice serves as the basis for its criminal charges against Dunn, Hunsaker, Delia, DePante, and Wagner.

10/5. The following is a partial list of documents, other than statutes, all of which have been, or will be, published or released to the public, which TLJ has relied upon in writing the articles in this issue and forthcoming issues. TLJ has acquired most of its copies of documents paper format. These are listed in chronological order.

Security Outsourcing Solutions, Inc.'s (SOS) investigative report sent to Patricia Dunn (former Chairman of the Board of HP), 7 pages, dated June 14, 2005.

Petition for rulemaking filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) regarding pretexting and 47 U.S.C. § 222, August 30, 2005.

E-mail message from Anthony Gentilucci (HP) to Kevin Hunsaker (former Senior Counsel at HP), dated January 30, 2006.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [34 pages in PDF] issued by the FCC regarding pretexting and 47 U.S.C. § 222, released February 14, 2006.

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (WSGR) memorandum falsely labeled "To: HP Securities Litigation Team", regarding interview of Hunsaker, 9 pages, dated August 21, 2006.

WSGR memorandum falsely labeled "To: HP Securities Litigation Team", regarding interview of Hunsaker (HP), 2 pages, dated August 22, 2006.

WSGR memorandum falsely labeled "To: HP Securities Litigation Team", regarding interview of Hunsaker (HP), 1 page, dated August 25, 2006.

WSGR memorandum falsely labeled "To: HP Securities Litigation Team", regarding interview of Ron Delia (SOS), 5 pages, dated August 25, 2006.

HP's Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), that first disclosed the pretexting, September 6, 2006.

HP's Form 8-K, filed with the SEC, disclosing further details of its pretexting, use of social security numbers, spyware, and surveillance of individuals, September 27, 2006.

HP's Form 8-K, with attached release agreement, filed with the SEC, disclosing the benefits that Ann Baskins, its former General Counsel, will receive following her resignation, September 28, 2006.

Complaint filed in U.S. District Court (DNJ) by Verizon Wireless against John Doe defendants, 39 pages, September 28, 2006.

Prepared testimony [33 pages in PDF] of Jennifer Dunn (former HP Chairman) before the House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (SOI), September 28, 2006.

Prepared testimony [1 pages in PDF] of Larry Sonsini (WSGR) before the HCC/SOI, September 28, 2006. (The document in the HCC web site is only a part of the written testimony submitted by Sonsini.)

Prepared testimony [12 pages in PDF] of Mark Hurd, CEO of HP, before the HCC/SOI, September 28, 2006.

Hearing record (not yet published) of the HCC/SOI hearing on September 28, 2006. (TLJ attended, and audio recorded the 7 hour hearing, but produced no transcript.)

Complaint filed in U.S. District Court (NDGa) by Cingular Wireless against CAS Agency, 30 pages, dated September 29, 2006.

Prepared testimony [8 pages in PDF] of Kris Monteith (Chief of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau) for the HCC/SOI hearing on September 29, 2006.

Prepared testimony [13 pages in PDF] of Joel Winston (Federal Trade Commission) for the HCC/SOI hearing on September 29, 2006.

Prepared testimony [14 pages in PDF] of Christopher Byron (New York Post writer whose phone records were obtained by pretexting) for the HCC/SOI hearing on September 29, 2006.

Prepared testimony [4 pages in PDF] of Thomas Meiss (Associate General Counsel of Cingular) for the HCC/SOI hearing on September 29, 2006.

Prepared testimony [4 pages in PDF] of Rochelle Boersma (VP Customer Service at US Cellular) for the HCC/SOI hearing on September 29, 2006.

Prepared testimony [9 pages in PDF] of Michael Holden (Senior Counsel at Verizon Wireless) for the HCC/SOI hearing on September 29, 2006.

Prepared testimony [8 pages in PDF] of Charles Wunsch (Vice President for Corporate Transactions
and Business Law at Sprint Nextel) for the HCC/SOI hearing on September 29, 2006.

Prepared testimony [9 pages in PDF] of Lauren Venezia (VP and Deputy General Counsel at T-Mobile USA) for the HCC/SOI hearing on September 29, 2006.

Prepared testimony [8 pages in PDF] of Gregory Schaffer (Associate General Counsel of AllTel) for the HCC/SOI hearing on September 29, 2006.

FCC's Eleventh Report  [127 pages in PDF] regarding the state of competition in wireless services, September 29, 2006.

Hearing record (not yet published) of the HCC/SOI hearing on September 29, 2006. (TLJ attended, and audio recorded the 4 hour hearing, but produced no transcript.)

California Department of Justice document [7 page PDF scan] titled "Felony Complaint", 7 pages, dated October 4, 2006.

California Department of Justice document [17 page PDF scan] titled "Declaration in Support of Felony Complaint and Arrest Warrant", 17 pages, dated October 4, 2006.

Complaint [7 pages in PDF] filed in U.S. District Court (EDVa) by the FTC against Integrity Security and Investigation Services, May 3, 2006, and Stipulated Final Order [13 pages in PDF], October 5, 2006.

The House will not meet. It may return from it elections recess on Monday, November 13, 2006. The adjournment resolution (HConRes 483) provides for returning on Thursday, November 9, at 2:00 PM.

The Senate will not meet. See, HConRes 483.

8:00 AM - 11:30 AM. The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA), Kirkpatrick Lockhart Nicholson Graham (KLNG), and Washington Metropolitan Area Corporate Counsel Association (EMACCA) will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Media, Telecom & Technology Convergence". The speakers will be Joe Bogdan (World Wrestling Entertainment), Lawrence Cooper (BET Holdings), Susan Fox (The Walt Disney Company), Anne Hoge (Yahoo), Kevin Kuzas (Comcast Interactive Media), Ross Vincenti (Sprint Nextel), and Ted Stern (Amazon.com). See, notice. For more information, contact Nikki Stevens at 202-778-9341 or nstevens at klng dot com. Location: KLNG, 1601 K St., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Safeclick v. Visa International Service Association. This is an appeal from the U.S. District Court (NDCal) in a patent infringement case involving a patent pertaining to authentication of the identity of a payment cardholder in an online transaction. This is case is App. Ct. No. 2006-1227 and D.C. No. 03-5865. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Dolby Laboratories v. Lucent Technologies. This is an appeal from the U.S. District Court (NDCal) in a patent infringement case involving Dolby’s AC-3 technology. This is case is App. Ct. No. 2006-1053. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Department of State's (DOS) Advisory Committee on International Communications and Information Policy will meet. The agenda includes (1) the USG telecommunications/ICT consultations in Tokyo on October 16-18, 2006, and in Beijing on October 19-20, 2006; (2) the International Telecommunication Union Plenipotentiary Conference on November 6-24, 2006; (3) the Internet Governance Forum on October 30-November 2, 2006; (4) the U.S.-India Working Group Meeting on December 14-15, 2006; and (5) the U.S. domestic public safety radio communications coordination in United States border regions. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 22, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 184, at Pages 55542-55543. Preregistration by 5:00 PM on October 2 is a prerequisite for attending this meeting. Location: Loy Henderson Auditorium, Truman Building, 2201 C Street, NW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "Developments in U.S. Policies and Procedures Concerning Exports to the PRC". The speakers will include Matthew Borman (Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security), William Reinsch (National Foreign Trade Council), Stephan Becker (Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman), and Debra Cheng (McGuire Woods). The price to attend ranges from $15 to $35. For more information, call 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding its Draft Special Publication 800-76-1 [33 pages in PDF] titled "Biometric Data Specification for Personal Identity Verification".

Day one of a two day conference hosted by the Association of American Publishers' (AAP) School Division and the Software & Information Industry Association's (SIIA) Education Division titled "School Technology Summit on K-12 Digital Content: Evolving Models and Markets". See, notice. Prices vary. Location: Renaissance Hotel, 999 Ninth St., NW.

2:00 - 3:30 PM. The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) will host a panel discussion event titled "Warehousing Consumers' Online Travels to Catch Child Predators and Terrorists". The panelists will include Jim Halpert (DLA Piper) and David Sobel (Electronic Freedom Foundation). For more information, contact Danielle Yates at dyates at netcaucus dot org or 202-638-4370. Location: Mike Mansfield Room, U.S. Capitol Building.

Day two of a two day conference hosted by the Association of American Publishers' (AAP) School Division and the Software & Information Industry Association's (SIIA) Education Division titled "School Technology Summit on K-12 Digital Content: Evolving Models and Markets". See, notice. Prices vary. Location: Renaissance Hotel, 999 Ninth St., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division regarding its Draft Special Publication 800-45A [143 PDF], titled "Guidelines on Electronic Mail Security".

Columbus Day.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and other federal offices will be closed. See, Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) list of federal holidays.

10:00 AM. The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Global Crossing v. Metrophones, Sup. Ct. No. 05-705, a case regarding whether 47 U.S.C. § 201(b) creates a private right of action for a provider of payphone services to sue a long distance carrier for alleged violations of the FCC's regulations concerning compensation for coinless payphone calls.

1:30 - 4:30 PM. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) will hold a meeting. The agenda includes an item titled "Convergence of Physical and Cyber Technologies and Related Security Management Challenges". The speakers will include John Chambers (P/CEO of Cisco Systems), George Conrades (Executive Chairman of Akamai Technologies), and Gregory Peters (former P/CEO of Internap Network Services). The NIAC also accepts written public comments. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 27, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 187, at Pages 56541-56542. Location: National Press Club, 529 14th Street, NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [22 pages in PDF] in a new proceeding titled "In the Matter of Amendment of Section 90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules". This is a reaction to Lojack's petition for rulemaking relating to the use of spectrum for stolen vehicle recovery systems (SVRS). The FCC proposes to revise section 90.20(e)(6) of its rules "to permit increased mobile output power, to permit digital emissions in addition to the analog emissions currently authorized by the Rules, and to relax the limitations on duty cycles", among other things. The FCC adopted this item on July 19, 2006, and released it on July 24, 2006. It is FCC 06-107, in WT Docket No. 06-142. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 23, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 163, at Pages 49401-49405.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service in response to the FCC's public notice [PDF] requesting comments regarding the use of reverse auctions to determine high cost universal service funding to eligible telecommunications carriers. This proceeding is WC Docket No. 05-337 and CC Docket No. 96-45. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 25, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 165, at Pages 50420-50421.

6:00 - 8:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "FCC's Media Ownership Rules". Registrations and cancellations are due by 5:00 PM on October 9. The price to attend ranges from $50 to $125. See, registration form [PDF]. Location: Dow Lohnes, Suite 800, 1200 New Hampshire Ave., NW.

9:00 AM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Deemed Export Advisory Committee (DEAC) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 22, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 184, at Pages 55429. Location: main lobby of the DOC's Hoover Building, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, NW.

9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. The event will be webcast by the FCC. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room).

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in BellSouth Telecommunications v. FCC, App. Ct. No. 05-1032. The case pertains to whether BellSouth discriminated in favor of its long distance subsidiary in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 272. However, the precise nature of either the facts or issues in this proceeding is not public information. See for example, heavily redacted brief [81 pages in PDF] of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Judges Tatel, Kavanaugh and Williams will preside. Location: Courtroom 20, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

2:00 - 3:00 PM. The President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) will hold a partially closed meeting by teleconference. The open portion of the meeting will pertain to the Emergency Communications and Interoperability Task Force (ECITF). The closed portion of the meeting will include a discussion of, and vote on, the Global Infrastructure Resiliency (GIR) Report. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 2, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 190, at Page 57991.

Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free subscriptions are available for journalists, federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and executive branch. The TLJ web site is free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription information page.

Contact: 202-364-8882.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2006 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.