Should Companies Have A 'Privacy' Right To Shield The Release Of Damaging Info?
from the if-a-company-is-a-person... dept
Should companies have privacy rights? With recent legal rulings suggesting that companies have similar legal rights to individuals, does that include privacy rights? A bunch of groups, including Public Citizen and the EFF, have filed an amicus brief in a case that looks into that question. The lawsuit is between the FCC and AT&T. It seems that the FCC had done an investigation where it determined that AT&T -- the same company that has "helped out" the government by explaining how the feds could get around pesky oversight rules by using post-it notes -- has been over-billing the government.That seems like pretty interesting information, and some others thought so -- which is why a Freedom of Information Act request was made to the FCC, and the FCC agreed to hand over the documents concerning the investigation. AT&T, in response, sued the FCC, saying that releasing this info would violate the company's "personal privacy." Huh? It's hard to see how a company has "personal privacy." You can understand not releasing confidential information that involves a trade secret, or other such information. But claiming that details of an investigation of how you may have bilked the government is "private" info seems a bit absurd. If that was the case, then any company could demand that any embarrassing information never be released.
Unfortunately, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with AT&T, suggesting that the exemption in the Freedom of Information Act for "personal privacy" does, in fact, apply to AT&T as well. The new brief urges the Supreme Court review the case:
Unless the Supreme Court takes the case and reverses the Third Circuit decision, records about safety violations at a coal mine, environmental problems at an offshore oil rig, filthy conditions at a food manufacturing plant, financial shenanigans at an investment bank and many other records like these may be the subject of so-called corporate privacy claims that could result in agencies withholding those records from the public under FOIA.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: companies, freedom of information act, privacy
Companies: at&t, fcc
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since the FOIA already protects trade secrets, I don't know how they have a leg to stand on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shocking.
I bet these are the same types of people that would find your wallet at a restaurant and take the cash before giving it to the matradee. Who is responsible for this? I want names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can of worms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, uh, why can't we know who is doing a good job bilking again?
Shocking.
I bet these are the same types of people that would find your wallet at a restaurant and take your cash before giving it to the matradee.
There seems to be this idea that we live in Mao's China and workers have the luxury of being able to hide behind a brand name. I really hope we learn who is responsible for this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, uh, why can't we know who is doing a good job bilking again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://worstphoneever.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sky won't fall
So the way the FOIA personal privacy exemption works, I think, is that the government agency has to balance the public interest in seeing the information released vs. the privacy interest of the person who's information is released.
The Third Circuit's decision (582 F.3d 490) did NOT say that AT&T's right to privacy was greater than the public's interest in seeing the information released. All it said was that the FCC has to actually do the balancing test, rather than assume, as a matter of law, that companies automatically have no right to personal privacy under FOIA.
That's not super crazy. First, the FCC can still release the documents. It just has to say "after thinking about this a while, we think the public's interest in knowing this outweighs AT&T's interest." Second, you can think of hypotheticals where there might be some embarrassing information not related to the investigation that AT&T might not want leaking out -- e.g. 80% of its middle managements looks at porn on company computers during lunch breaks. Stuff like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sky won't fall
A brief summary of this case can be found at:
http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/10/att_v_fcc_3rd_circuit_rules_th.html
Since I am unable to read the opinion I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the summary. Nevertheless, it is not at all difficult to craft various scenarios where the disclosure of some information may very well be inappropriate, and especially if such disclosure may have a chilling effect on future investigations of this type.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sky won't fall
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sky won't fall
There are some important facts underlying this matter that I believe are quite relevant and should not go unmentioned.
This matter pertains to a contract with the US Government, and the matter came to light when a routine internal audit at AT&T revealed a possible conflict between the charges submitted and the incredibly arcane US Government's Ccost Accounting Standards (CAS). This is not a situation where the USG auditors reviewed submittals, raised questions, and began an investigation. This is a situation where AT&T discovered a possible problem, reported it to the contracting officer, and then worked in cooperation with the government to ascertain if in fact there was a problem with what is known as "mischarging".
In the conduct of investigations on such matters a contractor is expected to basically give the government free rein and access to documents in the possession of a contractor, many of which eventually turn out to have absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand. Doubtless, it is these type of documents that are of concern to a contractor, and especially when these documents have a real relationship to the privacy interests of individuals. It is not at all difficult to conjure up situations where non-disclosure truly is in the public interest for any number or reasons, not the least of which is that it fosters an environment where a contractor cooperates fully and openly.
Merely as a matter of interest, the summary to which I referred states that the FOIA request was submitted by a group of AT&T's competitors. In my extensive experience with FOIA not once have I seen a request by a competitor(s) made for any purpose other than trying to get a leg up on future contracts. It is all about gathering information concerning one's competitor, with not the slightest thought given to further disclosure to the public at large and the interests that may be served by such disclosure.
Quite frankly, in my view this is a clear abuse of FOIA in which the government is being used as a proxy for facilitating the abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sky won't fall
Ahah. Very useful information. Thanks!
That's not super crazy. First, the FCC can still release the documents. It just has to say "after thinking about this a while, we think the public's interest in knowing this outweighs AT&T's interest.
That does make some sense...
Second, you can think of hypotheticals where there might be some embarrassing information not related to the investigation that AT&T might not want leaking out -- e.g. 80% of its middle managements looks at porn on company computers during lunch breaks. Stuff like that.
This is where I'm not sure. I'm having trouble thinking of non-trade secret hypos that make sense. The one you bring up doesn't seem like it should be required to be kept secret.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sure they can...
More sanely, any dealing with the government are/should be available to all citizens/taxpayers, trade secrets(real ones, not client lists) excepted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re
According to the founding fathers, rights are granted to us by God, because we are living human beings. The Constitution does not create or destroy these rights - it merely affirms them. Companies are not human (although some might say they are inhuman). Does anyone really think God was thinking about corporate rights?
Granting companies Constitutional rights was one of the worst things the courts ever did. You see what that hath wrought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should Companies Have A 'Privacy' Right To Shield The Release Of Damaging Info?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]