Back in 2006, one of the most dramatic moments of the “pretexting” scandal at Hewlett-Packard was when a very high-profile board member — legendary Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tom Perkins — quit in indignation over the company’s efforts to obtain the phone records of reporters.

“I resigned solely to protest the questionable ethics and the dubious legality of the chairman’s methods,” he said at the time about HP’s sneaky indiscretions, which included spying on a journalist from The Wall Street Journal.

But yesterday, in an interview with the New York Times, Perkins sounded a very different tone as a current independent board member of News Corp., which owns the Journal (and this site too) and, more importantly, is knee-deep in its own phone-hacking disaster.

Noting that the directors are “fully supportive of the top management,” Perkins added: “There’s no reason to believe top management was lying. That’s my very strong belief.”

Ironic? You bet, but apparently not to Perkins.

“This is not like the HP situation,” he told the Times. “The board supports top management.”

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are seeking records related to Hurd’s departure from HP in August, including a letter that accused him of sexually harassing Jodie Fisher, a sometimes-actress who worked as a contractor for HP. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is also looking into the possibility that Hurd told Fisher about HP’s then-confidential plans to acquire IT services firm EDS.

Hurd has been trying to keep the letter from being made public, and argued to the judge that since it is his personal property, he should be allowed to join the lawsuit as a party to that end. In the motion, Hurd’s lawyers argue that the letter was sent to “achieve private resolution of a potential dispute” between Hurd and Fisher.

“We’ve gone through a period where everyone downloaded everything for nothing and we’ve gone into a grey period it’s much easier to pay for things–assuming you’ve got any money….People only made money out of records for a very, very small time. When The Rolling Stones started out, we didn’t make any money out of records because record companies wouldn’t pay you! They didn’t pay anyone!

Then, there was a small period from 1970 to 1997, where people did get paid, and they got paid very handsomely and everyone made money. But now that period has gone.

So if you look at the history of recorded music from 1900 to now, there was a 25 year period where artists did very well, but the rest of the time they didn’t.”

– Rolling Stones front man Mick Jagger on music downloads

This morning, BoomTown was interviewed on the very terrific National Public Radio talk show, “On Point,” along with Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittrain.

The program, moderated by Tom Ashbrook on Boston’s WBUR station, was titled “From Desktop to the Digital Cloud” and dealt with the increasing move of data of all kinds online and into the so-called “cloud.”

In other words, eventually, a completely virtual life for music, photos, records and more, and the end of packaged software.

Zittrain, who was co-founder of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, also wrote the scary-sounding book, “The Future of the Internet–and How to Stop It”–a kind of ladies-lock-up-your-daughters title it’s hard not to love for its chutzpah.

He also penned an op-ed piece for the New York Times recently, with another corker of a title: “Lost in the Cloud.”

Some of the “real dangers” of the move to cloud computing that Zittrain cited in the piece: Losing control of data, losing data itself, privacy issues, federal government overreaching, even more nefarious governments abroad and a damper on innovation.

Zittrain is a smart cookie, to be sure, although I did not really agree with him at all on the show about pretty much any of his concerns.

For some non-cloud-friendly reason, WBUR does not allow me to embed the show here; you can listen to it in its entirety by clicking here.

Also, here is a posted response by Zittrain after the conversation, in which I failed to assuage him. He remains “still worried.”

But game sales have been weak in 2009, even as movie theaters set box office records. What gives?

I’ll let someone else try to explain the movie side of the ledger (although those box office numbers aren’t always what they seem to be). But it turns out that there’s a simple explanation for game slump: It’s that gamers are huddled in their basements playing Grand Theft Auto over and over and over.

Gamers are indeed spending more time playing videogames, say new data from Nielsen. It’s just that gamers aren’t spending more money on games. Instead, they’re playing the games they have, buying used games, and increasingly turning to game subscription services.

Here’s the argument in chart form–you can get a summary here or download the full report here (PDF). Click on the charts to enlarge:

Hours played:

Used games purchased:

Subscription rate:

All of which explains why Best Buy (BBY) and Wal-Mart (WMT) are both getting into the used game business and why Blockbuster (BBI) and GameFly are expanding their game rental business. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to get back to my game of Hover Kart.

That’s the short version of a followup to a post I wrote earlier this month in which I noted that Google said it was no longer logging data from tracking cookies sent out from WhiteHouse.gov. That move was applauded by the privacy advocates like the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

But there’s a bit of important nuance that I should have highlighted the first time around, and I’m doing so now at a reader’s behest.

Long version: After I wrote my story, I got a note from Daniel Brandt, who runs Scroogle.org, a nonprofit that tries to foil Google’s attempts to track its users’ online behavior. He contended that that Google was still tracking YouTube views on the White House site. “I just clicked on a video at whitehouse.gov…and the YouTube Flash code phoned home to Google about two seconds into the video,” he wrote. “Nothing has changed. What is Google/YouTube talking about?”

I relayed that question to Google (GOOG) spokesman Scott Rubin, who said that Brandt was correct–up to a point. YouTube is still sending viewing data back to the mothership when you watch a video at WhiteHouse.gov. It just doesn’t pay attention to said data.

Rubin’s explanation:”Even though the cookies are still sent as before when playback starts (since we did not change the domains of the video or playback functionality), we no longer log this information.” Just to make sure I wasn’t missing anything, I asked Rubin what exactly becomes of the cookie data that YouTube receives from the site. “We don’t store it anywhere,” he wrote.

Is that an adequate answer? It’s OK with me, but then again, I don’t ever assume that the Web offers real privacy. And if you have a rigid distrust of Google or other institutions in general when it comes to privacy issues, I’m guessing it won’t cut it.

But the EFF, which is about as vocal and aggressive as it gets when it comes to the stuff, is OK with the answer. Pretty much. Here’s legal director Cindy Cohn’s response to me when I relayed Rubin’s explanation:

It doesn’t satisfy us entirely, but it’s a small good thing. The part that is especially troubling here is how difficult it has been to get YouTube to publicly disclose the nature of this change, much less get a clear idea of what logging/tracking is still going on through other means. This information should be in the whitehouse.gov privacy policy, which right now is remarkably vague about what information is going to YouTube, much less what it does with the information it receives. YouTube should also disclose it, at least on their blog if not elsewhere. Basically now citizens won’t know unless they happen to follow EFF’s blog, your blog or one of the other tech media outlets who have followed the story. That’s a real problem. The public deserves to know–clearly and in nontechnical language–what is happening with their viewing information, both on Whitehouse.gov and elsewhere.

To sum up: If you’re the kind of person who’s worried about the information that Google collects about you when you surf the Web, you can feel a little more secure about what happens when you visit WhiteHouse.gov–if you’re the kind of person who’s placated by Google’s assurances. I’m guessing that’s a very narrow Venn diagram.

And in case you’re wondering, All Things Digital has its own cookie policy, which the site breaks out separately from its privacy policy. You can find it here.