Editor's Blog: HPgate?

Disclaimer: Several of the reporters related to the ongoing leak scandal involving HP's board and private investigators write for CNET News.com, a sister publication of silicon.com - both are published by CNET Networks. A disclaimer is necessary for that reason.

But I should also say two other things upfront: I and other silicon.com writers are in a position of privilege - it's not hard for us to pick up the phone or email the CNET News.com staff involved and ask for their version of events, not that I have, yet.

And it means I can say I can vouch for the writers in question, Dawn Kawamoto, Tom Krazit and Stephen Shankland, as first-rate journalists whose copy regularly appears on these pages. (Content from CNET publications is often shared across sites.) That's my bias but at least it's my bias out the way.

'Dunn down', the deck beneath our latest headline reads. But is it fair to refer to this whole affair as 'HPgate'? Probably not.

For one thing, I doubt we'll see the HP chairman leave in a helicopter à la Nixon. More seriously, much as this is a Big Deal for the media, most obviously the reporters and publications in question, many out there will fail to see this as earth-shattering: there was a leak at board level - do whatever it takes to plug it, some would say. Not me, you might have guessed.

Plus let's not forget that issues around the legality and possible criminal and/or civil charges remain unanswered (more on that in a moment).

But there is an air of incredulity about the whole affair. Many questions I can't begin to fathom:

How many probes of HP's actions will there be? On Monday a Congressional committee got involved. Add it to a list that already includes California state prosecutors, federal prosecutors and the FBI, not to mention scrutiny from the media (naturally) and internal investigation (again, naturally) and possibly shareholder action.

Have any laws been broken? You would think this'd be clear. It's not. It's possible the practice of pretexting - impersonating someone when contacting, say, a telco, to find other information - is illegal under California ID theft laws but it's not clear whether any charges will be brought against HP or companies/persons it has employed. All agree, however, that while there's a debate over illegality, what happened was wrong.

How does this affect HP? The company has been on a good ride since Mark Hurd took over as CEO. In contrast to archrival Dell, HP's stock has been on an upward journey for more than a year and there has been a turnaround in long-problematic areas such as PCs. But HP's share price hasn't been dented. In fact, at a glance, it seems to have closed Tuesday at its highest point under Hurd.

Is it a good idea for Hurd to take on the role of chairman? He is already president and CEO and recent years have seen a trend in the other direction at many large public companies. Part of the criticism of his predecessor, Carly Fiorina, was that she occupied the chairman and CEO offices. Could they find no one else?

How come Dunn gets to stick around? She will only step down as chairman in January and then remain as a director. I can see HP's desire not to rush into any decisions but some will be looking at how quickly it moves beyond this episode, as it inevitably will.

Let's not expect HP to be out of the headlines anytime soon. There is a lot of playing out to be done.

One early conclusion: can we not come up with better safeguards for accounts at places such as telcos to make improper access by third-parties very difficult but customer service still workable?