×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HP the Victim of Enterprising Greenpeace Stunt

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the set-phasers-to-ineffective dept.

HP 36

An anonymous reader writes "Employees at Hewlett-Packard in Palo Alto received a shock this morning as they checked their voicemail and found that each and every one of them had received a message from Captain James T. Kirk, AKA William 'The Shat' Shatner, upbraiding the company for abandoning their plans to remove toxins from its hardware. The organization behind this stunt was Greenpeace, who, to underline their point, scaled the building and painted 'Hazardous Products' on the roof with toxin-free paint."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

36 comments

I found this funny (1)

Predathar (658076) | more than 4 years ago | (#28870875)

Now some of their moves are pretty dumb, but I like this one. Would be nice to see that picture end up on Google Earth, but I imagine it would take under 5 minutes before the lawyers would get involved.

Anonymous Coward (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28872361)

Someone should go to jail for trespassing.

Terrorist actions should not be overlooked.

Re:Anonymous Coward (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28881023)

Trespassing, yes.

"Vandalism" would be a stretch IMHO, but heck send the cleaning bill to Greenpeace.

"Terrorist actions"? WTF you fucking crazy brainwashed american dumbass.

Re:Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28926659)

This is clearly vandalism, and Greenpeace are even admitting to it on their web site. It should be fairly simple for HP to gather the evidence and have Greenpeace charged (both in a financial and criminal sense) for the act.

And personally, I'd like to see it happen. I'm sorry. There are acceptable ways to protest, and lame stunts like this are one of the reasons people do not take Greenpeace seriously. They would do much more good if they would be a little more responsible. As it is, they're like a bunch of spoiled brats wh

Re:Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28935879)

It should be fairly simple for HP to gather the evidence and have Greenpeace charged (both in a financial and criminal sense) for the act.

Even easier would be to buy a gun and discharge a few rounds into their corporate feet!

Do you really think HP is stupid enough to give even more publicity to the fact that they've renegged on their public promise?

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998283)

How on earth would vandalism be "a stretch"??? Scaling a building and DEFACING IT WITH GRAFFITI is the very definition of vandalism.

Re:Anonymous Coward (4, Insightful)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 4 years ago | (#28883611)

"Terrorist actions?" WTF are you talking about? The term is completely meaningless as it is, but then to apply it to someone painting something on a roof? That is called 'vandalism'. This sort of thinking is well on its way to being the downfall of our society -- people like you have sacrificed more of our freedoms on the altar of safety in the past 8 years than the past 3 generations combined. So, please, give the terrorism thing a rest. The rational world thanks you.

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 4 years ago | (#28884217)

This isn't terrorism you twat. It's not even a hate crime. It's trespassing and vandalism.

Re:Anonymous Coward (3, Funny)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 4 years ago | (#28893743)

Someone should go to jail for trespassing.
Terrorist actions should not be overlooked.

Can't you just hang, draw and quarter them as an expression of traditional American respect for dissenting opinion and tea parties?

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#28920501)

No, no hangings after the fact, but if i caught them on my roof, they would be coming back down in body bags. I don't care who they are, or what they thought they were doing, as they were trespassing and a unknown personal threat.

Re:Anonymous Coward (2, Insightful)

enrevanche (953125) | more than 4 years ago | (#28921565)

Killing somebody for trespassing is murder, both morally and legally. If you really are worried about your safety, you would call the police first and only confront them when directly threatened. By purposely confronting them you increase the threat to yourself and anyone with you if they happen to really be dangerous.

On top of this, you're commenting about something that has happened to commercial property, not your private residence.

Please, stay in Texas

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#28927767)

I don't believe Greenpeace (or rather their affiliated extremist organizations) is above threatening the lives or safety of those they disagree with.
I remember them burning a housing development on the outskirts of Phoenix with no regard for any homeless who may have been squatting inside.
Extremist factions must be delt extreme measures. I guess it proves you would die for your ideas. If I owned a business Greenpeace disagreed with and they sent their toadies (who they would deny have anything to do with them) around to "shut me down" I'm afraid they would be recycled in parts deep in an injection well where no one would ever ever ever find them. How's that for green?
          Murder is unjustifiable death. Killing for self preservation is natural and honorable. Protecting others from future strong arming by extremists is priceless.

Paranoia (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28935433)

I don't believe Greenpeace (or rather their affiliated extremist organizations) is above threatening the lives or safety of those they disagree with.

Greenpeace does not have any "affiliated extremist organizations." There is the issue of Greenpeace UK, an anarchist group who trademarked (ironic?) the name in Britain before GP could, they certainly are not above violence (even against GP itself). But GP's non-violence is a core corporate policy, and the reason, for example, that Paul Watson left GP to found Sea Shepard.

This particular belief of yours is not founded in reality. Or perhaps you are getting GP confused with Earth First!?

I remember them burning a housing development on the outskirts of Phoenix with no regard for any homeless who may have been squatting inside.

Not GP nor any affiliated organization, sorry.

If I owned a business Greenpeace disagreed with and they sent their toadies (who they would deny have anything to do with them) ...

If these people don't id as GP, how would you know they had anything to do with GP? Or do the voices tell you?

... around to "shut me down" I'm afraid they would be recycled in parts deep in an injection well where no one would ever ever ever find them.

Yeah, sure you would tough guy. You know after dealing with softies like the DGSE, I'm sure GP activists must be shaking in their boots just to know you're out there! Have you considered surgery for that enlargement problem?

Protecting others from future strong arming by extremists is priceless.

Got a mirror handy?

Self defense (0, Troll)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 4 years ago | (#28960165)

Killing somebody for trespassing is murder, both morally and legally. If you really are worried about your safety, you would call the police first and only confront them when directly threatened. By purposely confronting them you increase the threat to yourself and anyone with you if they happen to really be dangerous.

On top of this, you're commenting about something that has happened to commercial property, not your private residence.

The World Trade Center was commercial property.

Greenpeace and PETA are nothing more the eco-terrorists and deserve to be hit with both RICO and Patriot Act.

Re:Self defense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28968749)

The world trade center was destroyed, not spraypainted.

Your reference to RICO and the Patriot Act are nonsensical, and it would be extremely unlikely for provisions of either act to be used to prosecute Greenpeace, even if they were killing people. In reality, you are making yourself appear to be dangerously crazed or seriously misinformed as to the nature of those Acts.

This act was not intended to incite terror, nor was it terribly political in nature. Therefore Greenpeace cannot be labelled as terrorists of any flavor. Were there any demands issued? Ransoms? Threats? Did anyone get hurt?

You may not like them, and frankly you're not alone. But calling them terrorists makes you look bad, not them. This is just a clever stunt---it doesn't even rise to the level of civil disobedience.

I really must emphasize that you are working against yourself here. Your vehemence drives reasonable people away from your position, regardless of its merit. Howard Dean was a prime example of this.

Re:Self defense (0, Troll)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 4 years ago | (#28974249)

The world trade center was destroyed, not spraypainted.

Is still an attack on private property, where people work for ideological purposes.

Your reference to RICO and the Patriot Act are nonsensical, and it would be extremely unlikely for provisions of either act to be used to prosecute Greenpeace, even if they were killing people. In reality, you are making yourself appear to be dangerously crazed or seriously misinformed as to the nature of those Acts.

RICO can be used to go after the money; in the fact that the organization is a criminal enterprise.

The Patriot Act can be used in the fact that even an eco-terrorist, it still a terrorist.

This act was not intended to incite terror, nor was it terribly political in nature. Therefore Greenpeace cannot be labelled as terrorists of any flavor. Were there any demands issued? Ransoms? Threats? Did anyone get hurt?

The demand was simple, stop using certain chemicals; HP did not comply.

Eco-terrorism is defined by the FBI as "the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature."

They broke in and vandalized the building because HP would not give into their demands. By doing what they did they made a point beyond just the writing on the roof; they told HP that they can do whatever they wanted to. Kind of like leaving a dead horses head for somebody.

You may not like them, and frankly you're not alone. But calling them terrorists makes you look bad, not them. This is just a clever stunt---it doesn't even rise to the level of civil disobedience.

What they did goes beyond civil disobedience. As I said earlier, if HP does't comply with their demands to stop using poisonous chemicals, what's next arson?

I really must emphasize that you are working against yourself here. Your vehemence drives reasonable people away from your position, regardless of its merit. Howard Dean was a prime example of this.

Reasonable people don't tolerate this BS.

Re:Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28995371)

I don't know if anyone ever told you this, but killing people should be avoided.

Let me clarify: The legal situation should not be your first consideration when asking yourself it is an option to kill someone. Even if you have the legal right, you should still avoid killing people.

Let me repat this - if you have the opportunity to kill people: Don't do it!

"Don't kill people" is a basic heuristic that should be applied to your daily decisicion making processes.

You are also kindly requested to tell your children about this rule.

Re:Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29007219)

Dont bother replying to this guy, he is a complete asshole all the time.

But that black paint... (3, Funny)

cattrain (1450183) | more than 4 years ago | (#28873991)

... would cause more heat. That white roof is designed to reduce the amount of heat produced. When they added black to the roof, it just caused the roof to be inefficient. Looks like greenpeace is trying to increase the amount of carbon produced by air conditioning.

Re:But that black paint... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28874323)

I see these comments come up all the time, and they demonstrate faulty thinking. Of course Greenpeace uses electricity, fuel, materials and money to make their point. The point is not that anyone can live on the Earth without breathing or eating or drinking or using energy. The point is that most people, especially in the developed world, use far too much energy and other resources. Worse, the rich dump their toxic waste in the poorest countries, on women and children who suffer. If the corporate-controlled gov'ts don't make or enforce laws to protect the weak and the Earth, I applaud Greenpeace for standing up for them! Complaining that they used black paint and so increased global warming is idiocy. They used black, non-toxic paint to communicate that HP, as the largest computer maker in the world, must lead and not follow toward a healthier future. Why don't you inform yourself or take a moment to view some short investigative articles in video:
60 Minutes last fall: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4586903n
Frontline/PBS this spring: http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/ghana804/video/video_index.html

Greenpeace alerted the world to the eWaste problem in the first place. Now they are holding HP to their word. Maybe HP will thank them in a few years. Apple now sells products because they are the greenest.

Re:But that black paint... (2, Funny)

fridaynightsmoke (1589903) | more than 4 years ago | (#28874495)

Apple now sells products because they are the greenest.

[Citation needed]

Re:But that black paint... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28875441)

One month ago:
http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolbox/green-computing/vendor-watch/news/index.cfm?newsid=15338&pn=1

Re:But that black paint... (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#28876539)

Looks to me that Dell is accusing them of greenwashing, GP are buying it, I can't be bothered digging to see if there is any truth to it, there are bigger fish to fry [sourcewatch.org] .

Re:But that black paint... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28876717)

Guess you didn't read it, or your reading comprehension is low:

NAD stated that Apple has high EPEAT ratings across its entire line of laptops, while no other manufacturer has "comparable high ratings for all of the notebooks it produces."

Apple "elected to only produce computer notebooks that meet the highest EPEAT ratings," NAD said in its Thursday ruling. ...
"The NAD's ruling is a clear victory for Apple. The case challenged our claim to the 'world's greenest family of notebooks,' and NAD has confirmed that MacBooks are in fact the world's greenest notebook computers when compared to other manufacturers' product lines as a whole," the spokeswoman said.

Dell did not respond to a request for comment.

Apple also gained ground in Greenpeace's ranking of green electronics companies issued in March this year, while competitors including Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Lenovo lost points.

Re:But that black paint... (2, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#28878059)

You guessed right, I got the Dell thing by googling "apple greenwash" and lookig at the headlines, then I lost interest. GP link thier causes to Apple and other high profile brands for publicity.

I've been a greenie since the 70's, GP's political ideologists took over their scientific foundations decades ago. Many of the founders have left in disgust, particularly after they started campaingning against chloride in the late 90's. You still hear people say chlorine in water should be banned after GP's stupid campaign against what is probably the most effective heath measure of the 20th century in terms of number of deaths prevented. Personally I blame GP for many people's conflation of greenies and ludites.

Re:But that black paint... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28891001)

If you look at Greenpeace victories and campaigns, you'll find inspiring and effective results. Anti-nuclear testing, whales, toxics, fish, global warming, forests. I can bet behind all that. GP is usually a couple of decades ahead of other greenies.

Re:But that black paint... (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#28894487)

I agree that GP has done some great things in the areas where the science matches their dogma. I don't find GP's current psuedo-scientific nonsense inspiring, I find it dissapointing given it's roots. Thier opposition to GM food is total fucking nonsense and their opposition to reactors is a couple of decades behind other greenies.

Greenpeace SUCKS! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 4 years ago | (#28896057)

GP's anti-nuclear stance is the worst thing they've done, by far. They're largely responsible for the general public's irrational fear of nuclear power. Without them, there would be many more nuclear plants all over the world and especially in the States (maybe even efficient designs like the French have) and less coal plants, which literally create lakes of hazardous waste that are a lot harder to contain (you might remember last year's toxic sludge tsunami in Tennessee, for example, but there are many more, you can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_spill [wikipedia.org] ) and reuse (partially depleted nuclear materials can be reused by more efficient reactors. Also depleted uranium is used in armor and munitions in the military...that one's pretty questionable but it IS reusable). Nuclear would have been an excellent stopgap measure in the transition to renewable power, so much for that.

Apart from that they've generally done an excellent job of making environmentalism look like a fringe nutjob cause by pulling childish publicity stunts such as this. Yay Greenpeace.

Re:Greenpeace SUCKS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28935331)

GP's anti-nuclear stance is the worst thing they've done, by far.

I used to work for GP, and I agree. I remember well sitting in a meeting in about 1989 when the issue of Global Warming was raised. In the meeting was one of our trustees a biology prof from Adelaide who said something along the lines of "this could be very serious and it means that we may have to rethink our position on nuclear energy ..."

Well, if looks could kill! There was no verbal response to what he said at all, to looks were enough to shup him up, but I was sitting there thinking "he's right you know."

Apart from that they've generally done an excellent job of making environmentalism look like a fringe nutjob cause by pulling childish publicity stunts such as this.

I beg to differ. Look I was sacked by them twice! So more than anyone I should join the chorus of ex-Greenpeacers who bag the company out at every available opportunity. But I decline the temptation. They have done good work and these childish stunts do help to raise awareness of issues (as well as donations). On some issues such as whaling or French atmospheric nuclear testing (which unlike civil power generation I'm no fan of), they are the organisation that actually puts boats in the water and feet on the ground. In fact I think GP have rather lost their way by becoming too involved in "helping corporations find green solutions" (greewashing) and abandoning the Quacker roots of "bearing witness" somewhat. It's good to see this sort of thing still being done.

They do make an easy target, however, if sniping from the sidelines is your bag. Personally, I just find it beneath me, YMMV.

[Posting anonmously so that anything else I write won't be discounted on the mere basis that I once (well twice) worked for GP.]

Re:Greenpeace SUCKS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29007269)

Personally, I applaud greenpeace's stance on nuclear power.

Despite the ravings of its sycophantic slashdot supporters, nuclear power is too dangerous.

You can rant on all you want,

Re:But that black paint... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28909203)

Just like almost everything enviromental wackos do, it usually ends up causing more energy consumption than if they just left alone.

Ignore: Undoing comment mod (1)

jcaplan (56979) | more than 4 years ago | (#28916221)

Just mistook sarcastic response to troll as a troll. That will teach me never to mod while browsing above -1.

Guess what Greenpeace? You lose! (0, Troll)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 4 years ago | (#28960033)

Hey Greenpeace, guess what, the paint thinner and sealant they're going to use to undo your vandalism is toxic!

Lusers!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...