The "pre-texting" scandal at Hewlett-Packard rolls on, with chairwoman Patricia Dunn resigning on Friday. CEO Mark Hurd steps in as chairman of the HP board, but he too is tainted by allegations that he was involved in the dirty deeds.

Last Thursday, the Washington Post reported that Mark Hurd approved an elaborate "sting" operation targetting reporters in the Bay Area/San Francisco, in order to plug leaks.

The question now is, if Hurd set that particular operation in motion, what else did he do? Can Hewlett-Packard really afford to have a chairman like Hurd, who has now been shown as having taking part in the spying?

It's good to see Hewlett-Packard's appalling actions blow up in their faces but my money is that all large corporations do this to some extent. They pay PR agencies big money to keep detailed files on journalists, files which contain personal information as well as professional data. Many companies also record phone calls and video interviews, which is why if you speak to a company executive at their premises, you should try to look your best - you're on camera!

This isn't paranoia on my part, but on the companies in question. They and their PR trolls see you as the enemy, unless you report their corporate message almost verbatim of course. If you get a scoop of any kind, you can be sure that there will be witch-hunts conducted inside the companies, and discrete enquiries made to your editors and colleagues, often over informal lunches.

That kind of surveillance, open and clandestine, is par for the course for journalists. However, what HP has done went well beyond that and I for one will exercise particular care if I go near the Palo Altoans in the future.