|California Charges Patricia Dunn and Others
With Four Felonies
10/4. The State of California's Department of
Justice (CDOJ) released a
[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
[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.
|Cingular Sues Pretexting Firm Involved
in HP Scandal
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.
|Verizon Wireless Files John Doe
Complaint Against HP's Pretexters
9/28. Cellco Partnership, dba Verizon Wireless, filed a complaint in
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
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
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
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
and Ian Marx of
the Florham Park, New Jersey, office of the law firm of
|HP Discloses Terms of Ann Baskins'
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
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
spying scandal since Thursday, September 28, 2006, when the
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
- 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.
|Persons Involved in the HP
10/5. The following is a partial list of persons involved in the HP spying scandal.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
lecturer, and author of
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.
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
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.
Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), that first disclosed the pretexting, September 6, 2006.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
|Thursday, October 5
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,
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
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),
Becker (Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman), and
(McGuire Woods). The price to attend ranges from $15 to $35. For more information, call
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)
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,
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
|Tuesday, October 10
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
1:30 - 4:30 PM. The
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS)
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.
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
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
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
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
|Wednesday, October 11
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
registration form [PDF]. Location: Dow Lohnes,
Suite 800, 1200 New Hampshire Ave., NW.
|Thursday, October 12
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
[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
|About Tech Law Journal
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
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Copyright 1998 - 2006 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All