Armitage Says Sorry...Yeah, Right.

Richard Armitage says he's really sorry for leaking Valarie Plame's identity. To me, it's all crocodile tears.

The original Bob Novak news article naming Plame as a CIA operative was printed July 14, 2003. A major investigation was launched, a grand jury was convened. Several charges were handed out and only in September of 2006 did Armitage finally come forward and 'fess up.

Still, the original question that Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation was to answer remains unanswered: was the leak illegal? Sure, he handed down some charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying against Lewis Libby to look busy but if the answer is "No" then it was all a waste of time. Libby, of course, has had to spend money on a lawyer and has been steadfast in his claims of innocence. This seems to be largely borne out by the revalation and subsequent admission by Armitage of his role in the whole deal.

But hey, he's really sorry and he feels just terrible. I can only imagine what Libby must be saying to people and I'm sure it's not printable here.

SOURCE

When Good Boardrooms Go Bad

Not only did HP launch an investigation to find out which board member was leaking information to the press, the private investigators posed as board members to get access to those board members phone records.

This bit of action is known as pretexting. Here is how the federal government defines pretexting:

Pretexters use a variety of tactics to get your personal information. For example, a pretexter may call, claim he's from a survey firm, and ask you a few questions. When the pretexter has the information he wants, he uses it to call your financial institution. He pretends to be you or someone with authorized access to your account. He might claim that he's forgotten his checkbook and needs information about his account. In this way, the pretexter may be able to obtain personal information about you such as your Social Security number (SSN), bank and credit card account numbers, information in your credit report, and the existence and size of your savings and investment portfolios.

In other words, this is a major tool used by identity thieves and under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, is a federal crime.

Unfortunately, the P.I.s didn't stop there, they went after the phone records of journalists who were talking with the moles.

The state of California is investigating the crime and we'll see if arrests are made. This could lead all the way to the top.

A top Hewlett-Packard official indicated earlier this week that the effort to obtain phone records had begun in January 2006 after an article appeared on CNET with accounts of a Hewlett-Packard management meeting. Those revelations prompted H.P.’s chairwoman, Patricia C. Dunn, to order an investigation of leaks, and the company has conceded that subterfuge was used by a subcontractor to gain phone records in the investigation.

More than likely, we'll probably see Dunn announce that she will step down. And this is after the mess with the previous CEO. Oh so very messy.

In May, that investigation identified the board’s longest-serving member, George A. Keyworth II, as the source of the leak. He rebuffed a request to resign, but the company said he would not be renominated. Thomas J. Perkins, another board member, resigned in anger over the way the investigation was conducted. His efforts to get the company to acknowledge the reason for his departure led to this week’s disclosures.
[...]
CNET said Thursday that phone records of two of its reporters, Dawn Kawamoto and Tom Krazit, had also been obtained. It said access to Ms. Kawamoto's records had been gained from the same Internet address used by the person who accessed the phone records of Mr. Perkins. A caller used the last four digits of her husband's Social Security number to establish an online account with AT&T to view the records. Access was gained on one date, in late January 2006, it said.

A CNET spokeswoman, Sarah Cain, said: "These actions not only violated the privacy rights of our employee, but also the rights of all reporters to protect their confidential sources."

Help take a bite out of crime, stop the pretexters!

Read

Woo Hoo, Woo Hoo-Hoo

Last Friday afternoon, I finally jumped on the Vonage bandwagon and signed up for service. Tuesday afternoon, I recieved the special hardware to connect between my computer and cable modem internet service. Tuesday night, everything was operational.

For roughly $27 per month (after taxes), I have unlimited local and long distance (U.S., Puerto Rico, Canada and some European locations) along with voicemail, caller ID and some fancy call forwarding options.

To get roughly the same service from my telephone service provider, Verizon, I would have to pay $50, and most of that fee was made up by local, state and federal taxes. Granted, it remains to be seen how long Vonage and other Voice over IP services will be able to keep their fees low but for now, I can deal.

So far, voice quality is great and even though Vonage supplied me with a virtual phone number for people to dial while my old phone number is ported from Verizon, I can dial to my old phone number and it will ring through.

Conceivably, I can take my Vonage router on the road with me and connect with a high-speed internet access point in the hotel or someone's house and still use the same phone number. Conceivable but not practical, especially since my cell phone provides unlimited long distance across the country. Then again, if I go overseas, this would be a cool thing. I really wish though, that a "soft phone" which would allow me to use my computer as a phone through the service was available without having to set up a whole new account.

My big question though is whether or not Verizon, while it still has ownership of my phone number, will try to tack on a charge for when I dial a long distance phone number from my Vonage service.

I decided to go with Vonage because some people I know already have the service and love it, there's lots of positive user reviews about voice quality at Cnet.com and other places and they are probably the most common consumer VoIP provider.