Supreme Court rejects AT&T corporate privacy rights

[Gonad the Barbarian]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – AT&T Inc and other corporations do not have personal privacy rights to prevent disclosure of federal government records about them, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

The justices unanimously overturned a ruling by a U.S. appeals court for the telecommunications company that corporations can assert personal privacy in claiming the records should be exempt from disclosure.

The high court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, agreed with the Obama administration's argument that the personal privacy exemption under the Freedom of Information law applied only to individuals, not to corporations.

Public interest groups supported the government.

They said that under AT&T's position, government records could be withheld about coal mine safety violations, offshore oil rig problems, dirty conditions at food manufacturing plants and questionable investment bank financial dealings.

Business groups supported AT&T and said corporations have long enjoyed a range of rights, including privacy rights.

AT&T argued the Federal Communications Commission should keep secret all records about it during an investigation into its participation in the federal E-Rate program, which helps schools and libraries get Internet access.

AT&T told the FCC in 2004 that an internal investigation had revealed certain irregularities in the company's billings to a Connecticut school under the program.

AT&T TO PAY $500,000

The FCC launched an investigation that led to a December 2004 settlement in which AT&T agreed to pay $500,000 and to adopt a two-year compliance program.

CompTel, a trade association representing some of AT&T's competitors, requested all records in the FCC's file under the Freedom of Information Act.

The FCC decided to release some of the records, but AT&T said that disclosing any information violated its right to personal privacy, and the appeals court agreed.

Roberts in the Supreme Court's opinion overturned that decision.

He said the word personal ordinarily referred to individuals and dictionary definitions also suggested that it does not usually relate to corporations. Roberts said AT&T provided scant support that personal denoted corporations.

The Supreme Court case is FCC v. AT&T, No. 09-1279.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110301/tc_nm/us_att_privacy

Comment: Whew.

 

[Scotteq]

Sometimes they piss me off


Sometimes I want to hug them



/hugs, in this case.

 

[Thump553]

A ficticious person has a right to personal privacy? Rather imaginative stretch on AT&T's part, and apparently something even this Court wouldn't bend over and accept.

 

[sactoking]

Glad about the result. Surprised it got an 8-0 vote; I would have thought 6-2 or so would have been the outcome.

 

[CycloWizard]

I think they should be able to claim a right to withhold trade secrets, but not regulatory violations. Otherwise, competitors would have powerful motivation to lobby for investigations to simply extract information about competitors.

 

[werepossum]

I think they should be able to claim a right to withhold trade secrets, but not regulatory violations. Otherwise, competitors would have powerful motivation to lobby for investigations to simply extract information about competitors.

This.

 

[alphatarget1]

The current supreme court is pretty sane IMO.

 

[wuliheron]

Corporate law is just getting weird. Now they have the same rights to free speech, but not privacy. Something tells me the whole concept of "spin" is about to spin out of control.

 

[Craig234]

The current supreme court is pretty sane IMO.

Hardly, but it's good to see the occassional boundary. What was the appeals court thinking to rule where this Supreme Court all disagreed?

 

[Phokus]

A ficticious person has a right to personal privacy? Rather imaginative stretch on AT&T's part, and apparently something even this Court wouldn't bend over and accept.

I'm kind of surprised because corporations are considered 'legal persons' in this stupid country.

 

[Craig234]

I'm kind of surprised because corporations are considered 'legal persons' in this stupid country.

There have always been some rights that apply and others that don't. The problem is that there are too many that do.

The big one, 'legal persons', was won under mysterious circumstances after years of the corporations losing the battle in court in case after case.

In fact, the Supreme Court heard more 14th amendment cases about corporate rights, which the amendment was not written for, than cases about blacks, which it was.

 

[dmcowen674]

I'm kind of surprised because corporations are considered 'legal persons' in this stupid country.

Only a "legal person" when it comes to money

 

[PokerGuy]

A good ruling, I don't see how a corporation having a right to "personal privacy" makes sense.

 

[Thump553]

I'm kind of surprised because corporations are considered 'legal persons' in this stupid country.

To the best of my knowledge corporations are considered legal persons in every country in the world. It's an issue that became settled law about 500-600 years ago.

 

[trenchfoot]

I find it so interesting how , in our judicial system, an "opinion" has, at the highest level, near omnipotence, unlike an "opinion" from anywhere else.

 

[Wreckem]

The also ruled against the father in the Westboro case.

However, the court doesn't make a ruling on the constitutionality of state prohbition of protesting within a certain distance of a funeral(there was no such statute at the time so they couldn't rule on it).

That said, the court's opinion makes it seem like they very much lean towards the prohibition being constitutional.

IE: Westboro won the battle, but looks like they will ultimately lose the war.

 

[werepossum]

To the best of my knowledge corporations are considered legal persons in every country in the world. It's an issue that became settled law about 500-600 years ago.

Agreed, it's only a question of where the various lines are drawn in each country.