Supreme Court: Corporate privacy does not trump Freedom of Information Act

Originally published 3/4/11 on lubbockonline.com/glasshouses

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reports that the Supreme Court denied corporations the same privacy rights as individual citizens when the government is responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. This might seem like a no-brainer, but legally corporations are considered persons, so it was only a matter of time before a FOIA request came into conflict with a corporations 'personal' rights.

AT&T's lawyers argued that as a corporate citizen it was provided the same exemptions as a private citizen. A coalition of groups ranging from the EFF to the National Security Archive filed an Amicus brief explaining why corporations were not, and should not be, considered persons under FOIA. The Court obviously agreed with them. In agreeing with them, the Court picked apart the term "personal privacy," using definitions, precedents, and a little horse sense to overturn the lower courts decision. One of my favorite passages was the last paragraph of page 7 continuing onto page 8:

AT&T’s argument treats the term “personal privacy” assimply the sum of its two words: the privacy of a person.Under that view, the defined meaning of the noun “person,” or the asserted specialized legal meaning, takes on greater significance. But two words together may assume a more particular meaning than those words in isolation. We understand a golden cup to be a cup made of or resembling gold. A golden boy, on the other hand, is one who is charming, lucky, and talented. A golden opportunity is one not to be missed. “Personal” in the phrase “personal privacy” conveys more than just “of a person.” It suggests a type of privacy evocative of human concerns—not the sort usually associated with an entity like, say, AT&T.

The Supreme Court explains that the real meaning of a phrase can be more than the sum of it's parts, and shows that while a corporation may be a citizen on paper, it is not one in fact, and does not deserve the same privacy considerations as a living breathing person. They probably didn't need to go to all that trouble. As they explain, the FOIA already has protections for corporations. 

This was a good decision, and there was even some (perhaps ill advised) humor at the end. The concluding line of the decision said, "We trust that AT&T will not take it personally." While it seems obviously tongue in cheek to me, Lyle Denniston at the SCOTUSblog feels that the sentence contradicts the ruling. I would say he's just being contrary, but law is all about words, their meanings, and the way they're used in a document. That little joke could cause privacy advocates  and Supreme Court justices headaches in the future.

Facebook Twist: Anti-social networking

The Times Online reports that Colin Gunn, a notorious British godfather, has had free access to the internet, and has been using it to intimidate and terrorize via Facebook. He claims to have been given permission for it by prison officials. The suspicion is that they gave him access fearing refusal would be called a human rights violation. On the face of it, this seems silly, but it was only last June that the French version of the Supreme Court declared Internet access to be a fundamental human right. I'm sure they never intended for convicted felons to be able to access the internet from prison and continue to run their gangs. That is exactly what Gunn did, using his Facebook account to send intimidating messges, such as:

“It’s good to have an outlet to let you know how I am, some of you will be in for a good slagging, some have let me down badly, and will be named and shamed, f****** rats.”

Such an endearing character.

This actually isn't a post against Facebook. Facebook had no control over this, and probably shouldn't. The problem here is the idea that internet use is a "human right." If it is any kind of right at all, it is a citizens right, and like many other citizens rights, can be lost once you are convicted of a crime. Matt Asay makes some good points on the subject in his article, "Is Internet access a 'fundamental right'?" from May of last year. As Matt points out, there are rights and responsibilities. It's important not to confuse the two.

Lot-o-links: Articles on Facebook, Google, Supreme Court and more

From Businessweek:  New EU Privacy Laws Could Hit Facebook - Mark Zuckerbergs mouth paints a target on Facebook

Exchangemag.com: Google Social Search Hits Privacy Snag on Facebook - Maybe Facebooks privacy settings are better than we thought.

Mediapost.com: Google Scores Partial Victory In Street View Lawsuit - Google streetview photographing view of house ok. Entering private drive to do it, not so much.

U.S. News: Should Supreme Court Uphold the Quon Case on Worker Privacy? Should workers expect email and other electronic communication on company equipment be private? Take the poll.

PCWorld.com: EFF:Browsers Can Leave a Unique Trail on the Web - Find out how much information your browser gives without even being asked. With suggestions on how to obscure your trail.

RDMag.com: How Can Policymakers Promote Innovation and Strengthen Privacy? - Policy always lags behind technology, trick is protecting privacy without stifling innovation.

Hope you find the reading interesting.