Wal-Mart admits spying on employees, critics, and vendors

Retail giant Wal-Mart has admitted to spying on its employees, critics, and vendors. [AP]

Comments

[Glenn Raucher]

Surprise, surprise. I don't know if anyone saw the most recent episode of "Penn & Teller," but, after a few years of somewhat respecting them for being contrary and thought-provoking, their 30-minute infomercial of Wal-Mart made my guts ache. They of course took the most inarticulate or pompous anti-Wal-Mart people (Robert Greenwald excepted), and made them look stupid.

Wonder how they'll explain this away? With their proud Libertarianism, their heads might explode balancing "guess it's OK if the bottom line comes out right" with the right to privacy...

[parse]

It's not hard to believe that Wal-Mart would spy on employees, critics, and vendors, but I don't see an admission by the company that they did in the story you link to. It says Wal-Mart defended its security practices and declined to comment on a claim by a former employee that the company had spied. Where do you get "Wal-Mart admits spying" out of that?

BENTONVILLE, Ark. --Wal-Mart's normally low-profile security efforts were thrust into the limelight Wednesday when a fired technician alleged he had been part of a large surveillance operation that spied on company workers, critics, vendors and consultants. The company defended its security practices.

The world's largest retailer declined to comment on specific allegations made by 19-year veteran Bruce Gabbard to the Wall Street Journal in a report published Wednesday.

[CatManDu]

This doesn't bode well for the walruses who run Wal-Mart, who themselves are being spied upon. Ironic, isn't it?

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

So that's why that greeter had a blowgun!

[mudkitty]

I never have, and I never will, set foot in the place. Does that make me an elitist?

[John Lucid]

No, mudkitty. It makes you sane. Though I do my best to avoid Wal-Mart like a Pajamas Media gathering (scroll down a little for the money shot of Pammy and Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds), every once in a blue moon I'm forced to stroll its scabby halls in search of an item that I can find nowhere else in town, usually a toy for my son. And every time I make this sad journey I swear I will never do it again. I'm not fond of standing in line for 1/2 an hour just to check out, and I hate having to park forty nautical miles away from the entrance because there's nothing closer. And it's so fucking depressing seeing the octogenerian "greeters" at the entrance; I wonder if that will be my lot in my declining years.

Go to Kmart; and if you can't stand that, THEN you're an elitist. Target doesn't count; many snobs like to shop there for their delightful Choxie Belgian truffles and Wine Cubes. (Helpful hint: Store boxed wine on its side. This will keep the plastic seal on the bag's spigot from drying out.)

[Jeff]

They probably wouldn't want your sort mudkitty.

[Chris O.]

Finding really inarticulate people to make fools out of is ALWAYS what Penn & Teller do on that show. It's just that sometimes they take a godless libertarian stance we might agree with, and sometimes they don't.

[Eric Jaffa]

Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" doesn't need to interview inarticulate people to make them look bad.

The interviews are pre-taped, and so they can just select whatever sentence(s) from someone will make him or her look bad.

[cfrost]

Walmart can be defeated sometimes. We did it in Hood River, OR where they wanted to build a superstore in addition to the regular big-box store they already have here. I took years of Herculean effort, and rumor has it that they may still try to get their megabox here, but for now we’ve told them exactly where they can shove their superstore. As it is, they managed to torpedo several local businesses. If I want to buy a pair of non-walmart socks for instance, I literally have to drive over a hundred miles to do so. You definitely don’t want those creeps in your neighborhood.

[herbert browne]

It must cost money to spy like that... if they'd just give it up, they could lower their prices, a little... I might go inside Walhalla some day- it just hasn't happened, yet- that's all... Hell WILL probably freeze over, despite global warming, I imagine... ^..^

[parse]

Lindsay,, I was asking a genuine question. Where in the story does it say that Wal-Mart admitted spying?

[Jeff]

Here is what I don't get: if Wal-Mart says somthing in its defense they are creeps but others can throw all the s**t they want on them and still be the best of friends.

[Count Zero]

parse, the answer would be...Cum tacent, clamant.

[parse]

Count, cum tacent, clamant might explain a headline reading "Wal-Mart spys on employees," but I don't think it justifies one saying "Wal-Mart admits spying." Lindsay, should we read you headline as Count Zero suggests, "Wal-Mart admits spying-and by that I mean, they didn't deny it"? Or is there something more substantive in the story that I missed to support your report that not only is Wal-Mart credibly accused of spying, the company has admitted it?

[Count Zero]

Gabbard told the Journal he recorded the calls to the New York Times reporter on his own, but added many of his activities were approved by Wal-Mart. The Journal said other employees and security firms confirmed parts of his account.

This paragraph shows that Walmart has knowledge, and condones their actions.

"Like most major corporations, it is our corporate responsibility to have systems in place, including software systems, to monitor threats to our network, intellectual property and our people," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Sarah Clark said.

To summarize what they are saying, they tactily admit they are spying without directly stating such. "have systems in place", "software systems, to monitor threats to our network, intellectual property, and people". How do you monitor threats? What systems do you have in place? What people exactly are you protecting in doing this? It's similar to the Republican claim that "the enemies will come here if we don't fight them there." What enemies? Where will they go and how will they get here? The Republicans never have a straight and definitive answer to these questions, they're left open ended because the imagination is more of a power in justifying their actions than reality. Walmart is using a blanket system of proactive, aggressive spying, all justified by a nebulous statement of defending Walmart from all enemies seen and unseen, foreign and domestic.

That is their admission to spying, whether they specifically say those very words or not.

[parse]

Count Zero, the question I'm asking doesn't have anything to do with whether Wal-Mart spied or not, so your claim that Gabbard's account was confirmed by others proves that Wal-Mart was aware of the surveillance isn't relevant. I am asking what information in the story supports the headline claim that Wal-Mart has admitted spying. I wouldn't regard the statement that the company has systems in place to monitor threats to be a tacit admission of spying, because the statement could be true whether or not those systems involved spying.

The fact that Wal-Mart doesn't admit that they have been spying doesn't justify the kind of surveillance Gabbard is reporting or prove that his claims are untrue. But I don't think Lindsay enhances her credibility as a journalist if she posts a headline saying the company has admitted spying and links to a story that doesn't include such an admission from Wal-Mart.

[Count Zero]

Count Zero, the question I'm asking doesn't have anything to do with whether Wal-Mart spied or not, so your claim that Gabbard's account was confirmed by others proves that Wal-Mart was aware of the surveillance isn't relevant.

How are their actions not relevent? The fact was that Gabbard was asked take actions most would consider spying, with the full knowledge of Walmart, something others can confirm. How is that not relevent?! I know what you were asking, which was "where did they state they were spying.". Do rapists say "well yes, I raped and sodomized her," or do they say "it was consensual sex." Which sounds better to the public? Do you honestly think Walmart is going to come out and blatantly state they spied and thus repeat another HP dissaster?

I am asking what information in the story supports the headline claim that Wal-Mart has admitted spying. I wouldn't regard the statement that the company has systems in place to monitor threats to be a tacit admission of spying, because the statement could be true whether or not those systems involved spying.

If you're not going to take their admission as a tacit admission to their spying after reading that article, then what would it take? Do you think you're going to get a straight and direct answer from Walmart regarding this? Do you think their public relations department would allow such a statement to be released to the public? Do you think Verizon, or any of the other teleco's involved in providing phone numbers to the government ever would say they were "spying" on their customers?

The fact that Wal-Mart doesn't admit that they have been spying doesn't justify the kind of surveillance Gabbard is reporting or prove that his claims are untrue.

Reading the context of their statement, and the actions taken on behalf of the company, I would say without a doubt one might consider it spying. The legality of their spying is in question, however, the fact that they are doing so is not. Therefore, I think Lindsay's title is 100% accurate. You're claiming that there should be an admission of some guilt in part by Walmart, when there doesn't need to be in describing their actions as spying. Illegal spying or legal spying is still spying.

But I don't think Lindsay enhances her credibility as a journalist if she posts a headline saying the company has admitted spying and links to a story that doesn't include such an admission from Wal-Mart.

How does it make her less credible, is he claiming something that patently isn't true? Did Walmart not make a press release stating they do things that could be consituted as spying without saying the word directly? If they say we use verbage such as "montitor threats to our network", how is that any different than using the word spying? I don't think this has a single thing to do with her credibility, as much as your disagreement on what constitutes spying and what doesn't. If someone is using a keylogger, you can definetly say you are being monitored, but you can also say it's spying, they are synonymous.

[parse]

Reading the context of their statement, and the actions taken on behalf of the company, I would say without a doubt one might consider it spying. The legality of their spying is in question, however, the fact that they are doing so is not. Therefore, I think Lindsay's title is 100% accurate. You're claiming that there should be an admission of some guilt in part by Walmart, when there doesn't need to be in describing their actions as spying. Illegal spying or legal spying is still spying.

You are right when you say there does not need to be an admission of guilt by Wal-Mart in order to describe their actions as spying. If Linday's headline was "Wal-Mart spys on employees," the question I was asking wouldn't make sense. But there does have to be an admission of guilt by Wal-Mart to justify the headline "Wal-Mart admits syping on employees." I'm sure you understand the difference between saying "Wal-Mart spies" and "Wal-Mart admits to spying."

If you re-read my first post, you will see this comments: It's not hard to believe that Wal-Mart would spy on employees, critics, and vendors. I am not defending Wal-Mart or challenging Gabbard's charges--I'm asking whether Wal-Mart admitted the charges were true. Since Lindsay's headline reported that Wal-Mart admitted syping, the test of her credibility is not whether Wal-Mart is guilty or not, but whether Wal-Mart has admitted it or not. You regard their statement as a tacit admission of guilt, and I don't. Reasonable people could disagree. But even if I were to stipulate that Wal-Mart had made a tacit admission, I'd suggest that the headline claiming "Wal-Mart admits" without a suggestion that the admission was not expressed but merely implied would be enough to damage the credibility of a journalist. And I certainly don't think it would best be described as "100% accurate."

[Count Zero]

However, if you look at their press release, you could very well see it as an admission if you were to substitute the word "monitor" for "spy on". If that were the case then yes, what she said was 100% correct. You disagree with the symantics of what Walmart said and Linsays interpretation, I don't. I think the symantics of what they said was an admittance, as maybe Linsay does as well. Either way, it's Lindsay's call on how she see's it.

[Count Zero]

Sorry, I know it's Lindsay, I'm dyslexic today.

[parse]

You are right, Count Zero, that if Wal-Mart had said "We have systems in place to spy on threats to our network" instead of "we have systems in place to monitor threats," it would be "100% accurate" to write that Wal-Mart admits spying. But as we both know, they didn't say that, so as you point out, the question we need to answer is the one you pose: if they say we use verbage such as "montitor threats to our network", how is that any different than using the word spying?

I think the difference is that "to spy" is commonly used to mean (per Merriam Webster) "to watch secretly usually for hostile purposes" whereas "to monitor" simply means "to watch, keep track of, or check usually for a special purpose." Since by admitting monitoring threats Wal-Mart has admitted neither secrecry nor hostile intent, I don't think they've admitted spying.

I'd guess that at least some of Wal-Mart's monitoring was secret and did have hostile intent--so I think they are probably guilty of spying. But I don't think they've admitted it, at least in the story linked under the headline Lindsay posted. (It's also worth noting something you pointed out yourself; Wal-Mart didn't identify the targets of its monitoring, so even if you decide they have admitted to spying, where do they even come close to admitting to spying on employees or vendors?)

As for your conclusion that "it's Lindsay's call"--well, yes, I would like to see her explain why she thinks the headline is justified, but to date she hasn't done so, although she's posted once here since I originally asked.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Wal-Mart admits to covert monitoring, which I consider to be spying.

Wal-Mart also admits that one of their employees, Gabbard, intercepted a NYT reporter's pager messages and committed other acts of espionage on company business, for which he was fired. Wal-Mart and Gabbard disagree about whether Wal-Mart initially authorized Gabbard to do those interceptions, but not that these interceptions occurred.

[parse]

Lindsay, I see where Wal-Mart confirmed that they have systems in place to monitor threats, but I didn't see an admission by Wal-Mart that they engaged in covert monitoring. Can you point me to that? If they said they engage in covert monitoring, I agree it would be accurate to say they admitted spying. But I'm still missing a reference by Wal-Mart, rather than Gabbard, to covert monitoring.

[argh]

If Wal-Mart engaged in covert monitoring than its very dishonorable. I've a feeling many people on the internet are up to similar crap.