For the purposes of this examination, let's set aside the fact that you can find reliable clinical research that shows that tobacco smokers cost the insurance industry less over their lifetimes than svelte nonsmokers do. This is simply due to the fact that we tend to die sooner. But that's a matter of insurance industry/government/pharmaceutical hijinx, to possibly discuss another time.

That aside, the item I'm bringing forward today is how the issue of lying smokers should be pursued by Whirlpool Corp.(NYSE: WHR). I'll not take issue against Whirlpool's insurance plan demanding a different level of premium payment from smokers. I'll not take issue against Whirlpool asking smokers to document their participation in the addiction. I'll not take issue against Whirlpool taking action against smokers who lied when claiming that they don't smoke. What I do argue against is the ludicrous notion that Whirlpool employees have turned on one another. It appears that's what the company expects us to believe.

Whirlpool management wants you to believe that they had 39 instances of one employee reporting another for serving their nicotine addiction in violation of what should be a confidential declaration of status. Whirlpool expects you to believe that these company "rats" know which smokers lied on their paper work and which didn't. Whirlpool expects you to believe that all policy violators are of hourly status and that violations by management staff either don't exist or aren't yet worth pursuing. Whirlpool expects us to believe that the company itself wasn't at the root of this all.

This morning's Wall Street Journal reports on its reporter, Pui-Wing Tam's, report on how Hewlett-Packard Company (NYSE: HPQ) spied on her.

There are many levels of irony in this story. Reporters do all sorts of investigations on their subjects. I don't know how they cultivate their anonymous sources to dig up the details that they report. But my hunch is that while they're often snoops -- peering into places where their targets would prefer they did not -- reporters don't resort to the kind of tactics (pre-trash inspections or monitoring phone calls and IM sessions) to which Tam was subjected.

But I can't help but think that Tam's subjects share some of the same fears of being investigated that she must have felt when she began to realize that HP was placing her under surveillance. Her article's cool, almost tongue-in-cheek tone does not reveal these fears explicitly, instead leaving them to the reader's imagination.

But I imagine that former HP Chair Patricia Dunn must have felt a similar fear when she realized that someone on HP's board was leaking to the media. I'm not defending what HP did; I think it's a 1984-like invasion of privacy for which HP will suffer significant consequences.

With deference to Prussian General Von Clausewitz -- who famously said war is "a continuation of politics by other means" -- I see HP's tactics as investigative reporting by other means.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates, a management consulting and venture capital firm, and a Professor of Management at Babson College. He has no financial interest in HP.