Supreme Court Says AT&T Has No Right To 'Personal Privacy'

from the don't-take-it-personally dept

Tue, Mar 1st 2011 12:39pm — Mike Masnick

Last year, we wrote about an important case in which AT&T bizarrely claimed that it had personal privacy rights over information the FCC collected in an investigation concerning AT&T overbilling the government. An organization had made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on the info, but AT&T protested that, as a corporation, it had a personal right to privacy. As we noted, that seemed like a pretty ridiculous claim, but the appeals court accepted it. We were therefore happy to see the Supreme Court pick up the case last fall, and now it has unanimously ruled against AT&T (8 - 0, with Kagan not taking part, since she filed the original brief for the federal government in support of the FCC). Considering the complaints some have made about the Supreme Court taking the idea of "corporate personhood" too far, I think plenty of people (who don't work for AT&T) will agree that this ruling makes plenty of sense. A corporation has a right to keep certain information secret and confidential, but the idea it has a "right to privacy" makes no sense.

The actual ruling (embedded below) is quite interesting in noting, while corporations may be "persons," that does not automatically afford them "personal" rights.

Adjectives typically reflect the meaning of corresponding nouns, but not always. Sometimes they acquire distinct meanings of their own. The noun "crab" refers variously to a crustacean and a type of apple, while the related adjective "crabbed" can refer to handwriting that is "difficult to read," Webster's Third New International Dictionary 527 (2002); "corny" can mean "using familiar and stereotyped formulas believed to appeal to the unsophisticated," id., at 509, which has little to do with "corn," id., at 507 ("the seeds of any of the cereal grasses used for food"); and while "crank" is "a part of anaxis bent at right angles," "cranky" can mean "given to fretful fussiness," id., at 530.

Even in cases such as these there may well be a link between the noun and the adjective. "Cranky" describes a person with a "wayward" or "capricious" temper, see 3 Oxford English Dictionary 1117 (2d ed. 1989) (OED), which might bear some relation to the distorted or crooked angular shape from which a "crank" takes its name. That is not the point. What is significant is that, in ordinary usage, a noun and its adjective form may have meanings as disparate as any two unrelated words. The FCC's argument that "personal" does not, in fact, derive from the English word "person," but instead developed along its own etymological path, Reply Brief for Petitioners 6, simply highlights the shortcomings of AT&T's proposed rule.

"Person" is a defined term in the statute; "personal" is not. When a statute does not define a term, we typically "give the phrase its ordinary meaning." Johnson v. United States, 559 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 4). "Personal" ordinarily refers to individuals. We do not usually speak of personal characteristics, personal effects, personal correspondence, personal influence, or personal tragedy as referring to corporations or other artificial entities. This is not to say that corporations do not have correspondence, influence, or tragedies of their own, only that we do not use the word "personal" to describe them.

Certainly, if the chief executive officer of a corporation approached the chief financial officer and said, "I have something personal to tell you," we would not assume the CEO was about to discuss company business. Responding to a request for information, an individual might say, "that's personal." A company spokesman, when asked for information about the company, would not. In fact, we often use the word "personal" to mean precisely the opposite of business-related: We speak of personal expenses and business expenses, personal life and work life, personal opinion and a company's view.

Justice Roberts, who wrote the decision, then goes on to pick apart each argument made by AT&T as to why it should be allowed "personal" privacy, leading to the rather obvious punchline that you have to think the Justices had in mind to use from the very beginning:

We reject the argument that because "person" is defined for purposes of FOIA to include a corporation, the phrase"personal privacy" in Exemption 7(C) reaches corporations as well. The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations. We trust that AT&T will not take it personally.

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: corporations, fcc, foia, personal privacy, personhood, privacy, supreme court
Companies: at&t, fcc

30 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

WDS (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 12:56pm

Court Humor
Nice to see a sense of humor coming from the bench.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
johnjac (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 1:05pm

Someday
This ruling will be sited to prevent the decadents of Watson and Deep Blue from gaining personal rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- johnjac (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 1:05pm
  
  Re: Someday
  or descendants
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 1:31pm
    
    Re: Re: Someday
    or cited
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 1:12pm

Buwahaha
We trust that AT&T will not take it personally.

Masterfully done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sehlat (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 1:23pm

To quote Poul Anderson
"I'm sure God likes to laugh."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 1:26pm

can i up-vote the article itself as being funny for the weekend post? :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greevar (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 1:30pm

I think granting "personhood" to any intangible entity such as a corporation is a dangerous mistake. Look at how they've corrupted our government. Calling a corporation a "person" is like calling the Justin Bieber fan club a "person".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matthew, 1 Mar 2011 @ 1:55pm
  
  Re:
  Okay, I'll give you the punch line you were looking for...
  
  But the Justin Bieber fan club really is just one natural person!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greevar (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 5:20pm
    
    Re: Re:
    BONG!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 1:35pm

... clever judges ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don, 1 Mar 2011 @ 1:43pm

OK, so...
So why wouldn't the Supreme Court come to the same conclusions on "free speech" in regards to campaign finance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 1:48pm
  
  Re: OK, so...
  How do you think they got their jobs? By being brilliant? No, by being on the right team. It's the only way that Judge Thomas can keep his job now.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 7:10pm
  
  Re: OK, so...
  They didn't base their Citizen's United decision on corporations being "persons". They based their decision on the fact that the government was shutting down political speech from a group of persons merely because they had pooled their money and incorporated.
  
  Big difference, and both decisions were correct.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Joe Publius, 2 Mar 2011 @ 6:37am
    
    Re: Re: OK, so...
    Big difference, and both decisions were correct.
    
    Good point, and it makes me wonder if that leaves a legal opening to allow disclosure of a corporation's political contributions. Just because they are allowed as a collective to engage in political speech, doesn't mean that they're allowed to keep it a secret. I for one would like to know just how 'bought' my congressmen are.
    
    Then again, such a bill would have to get passed first, and IIRC it hasn't yet.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris, 1 Mar 2011 @ 2:35pm

Unchartered Territory
Wouldn't personal acts and activities be outside the corporation's chartered purpose? And possibly outside Art. 2 of NY Business Corp law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mojo, 1 Mar 2011 @ 4:10pm

As much as I like this ruling, from where I'm sitting the Supremes are being dangerously inconsistent.

Can you blame AT&T for thinking it has "personal privacy" rights after the court rules a company could be considered an individual and contribute to political campaigns?

So help me out here, in what situations can a company claim "personal rights" and in which ones can they not?

Did the court issue a handy checklist?

Of course not. I REALLY think they screwed up in that campaign finance ruling. Not only because saying a company can act like a person is silly, but why on EARTH would they want to help create a world where corporations can now easily and flagrantly buy politicians?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 7:14pm
  
  Re:
  Again, I feel the need to clarify because so many people have the wrong impression of Citizen's United: The Supreme Court did not say that corporations can donate as much as they want to political campaigns; they still cant.
  
  The court only said that the government can't stop people from publishing actual speech on political issues just because they are grouped as a corporation.
  
  It was tremendous blow for free speech, and doesn't deserve to be vilified as it has been in the press.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charles Scalfani (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 5:03pm

In other news...
... AT&T purchases Oxford University and begins editing several key definitions in the world renowned Oxford English Dictionary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rinald J Roley, 1 Mar 2011 @ 5:54pm

This Verdict Must Be Overturned
Their whole judgement needs to be thrown out. It�s clear they only ruled the way they did so they could make that joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TAMTroll, 1 Mar 2011 @ 6:40pm

"A corporation has a right to keep certain information secret and confidential, but the idea it has a "right to privacy" makes no sense. "

So you're completely against anyone having any privacy rights at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 6:46pm
  
  Re:
  (because you know someone's gonna say it, so I figure I might as well get it out of the way in advance so we can move on earlier).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2 Mar 2011 @ 12:55am
  
  Two Can Play The Strawman Game
  So you�re completely against anyone agreeing with any court verdicts at all?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Joe (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 5:00am
    
    Re: Two Can Play The Strawman Game
    Or does it depend on if Mike likes the verdict or not?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alias (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 7:26pm

Personal
"We trust that AT&T will not take it personally."

Zing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 9:13pm

Now... If only we could actually get some information on the darn illegal wire taps that everyone pretends does not exsist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 2:32am

Maybe I'm being picky
All very laudable, and I'll admit I dind't bother to read the full ruling so maybe that is different, but the bits quoted seem to effectively rely on the dictionary definition and common usage of the word "personal" to refute the claims. Is a specific use of language a good way to right laws (which seems to be effectively what's being done here this being the first test of this area)? Wouldn't a careful consideration of, well logic and/or societical "good" for example, be a better gauge for how much privacy a corporation should have "personal" or otherwise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CourtJester, 2 Mar 2011 @ 6:01am

Jerry Seinfeld for supreme court justice
What the hell was all that "corny" and "cranky" stuff in the ruling? It's irrelevant to the question of whether ATT should have personal privacy. Your personal rights dont flow from your "adjective". They flow from your personhood. And if corporations are legally "persons", we would expect them to have rights. Should corporations be subject to cruel and unusual punishment? Should government be allowed to establish religion with respect to a corporation? The ruling plays word games and avoids the important question of how personal protections should apply to corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Publius, 2 Mar 2011 @ 6:51am
  
  Re: Jerry Seinfeld for supreme court justice
  I can understand how that looks like a bit of semantic legerdemain, but the court is making a point about how words mean things.
  
  Just because "person", and "personal" have many of the same letters in them doesn't mean that they are the same thing in a legal, business, or even social context.
  
  We can understand that as a business arrangement a corportation is treated like an individual in some important ways. At the same time, we can still understand that a corporation is not actually an individual, but a collective. This means that a line has to be drawn at a point where the corporation tries to claim its individual protections in contexts where it shouldn't apply, like information about that corporation gathered by the government in relation to an investigation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 7:31am
    
    Re: Re: Jerry Seinfeld for supreme court justice
    We can understand that as a business arrangement a corportation is treated like an individual in some important ways. At the same time, we can still understand that a corporation is not actually an individual, but a collective.
    Then wouldn't a judgement that said something like:
    Don't be so damn stupid. As a corporation you're not a person and while the law may afford you certain specific rights as if you were a person it still doesn't make you a person and never will and this isn't one of those rights so stop trying it on."
    ... have been a tad more accurate? :-)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]