Why Public Interest Trumps Trade Secrecy
from the what-the-frack? dept
Most companies have a natural tendency to keep details of their activities secret -- the fear being that competitors might be able to exploit for commercial advantage the information that they obtain. But it may be in the public interest for some details to be released, even if this might prove inconvenient for the company concerned. That's the background to a letter sent by ten law professors, including Larry Lessig, to the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, pointed out to us by infojustice.org.
The letter (pdf) concerns proposed new regulations for hydraulic fracturing (fracking). As the academics point out, whatever your views on this form of energy extraction, there are important general principles at stake here:
We, the undersigned law professors who teach and write about intellectual property and trade secrets, write in support of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) proposed hydraulic fracturing regulations that would provide for the disclosure of information that might in other contexts be deemed trade secrets that cannot be disclosed to the public, under proposed regulation 20 ACC 25.283(h).
The letter offer three reasons why they support the new regulations calling for disclosure of information that might otherwise be regarded as confidential.
While businesses engaged in hydraulic fracturing may have legitimate trade secrets, the public's interest in assuring that hydraulic fracturing is managed in a manner that addresses all significant risks may legitimately outweigh commercial concerns. To impede debate and discussion of the use of public natural resources in the name of commercial secrecy is to put commercial interests above the prior and more general interest in careful stewardship of the environment.
Put simply, some trade secrets must give way when broader public interests are at issue.First, it is a basic principle in a democracy that the public shall conduct informed debate and discussion of public matters.
Without the facts, it's not possible to have a meaningful debate about important issues, which undermines the entire premise of democratic decision making.
Second, effective environmental management requires broad disclosure of specific data that describes any discharges into the environment -- including chemical identity, volume and locations of each chemical discharged -- and data on health and ecological effects.
Without detailed information about chemicals that are being used it is hard, if not impossible, to deal with any problems they cause. The letter quotes the following disturbing example:
in 2009, Cathy Behr, a nurse in Colorado, fell seriously ill after treating a worker who had been injured in a chemical spill. Her doctors diagnosed chemical poisoning, but the manufacturer of the product she was exposed to would not disclose its full ingredients, because it considered them proprietary. Ms. Behr has partially recovered, but she continues to have respiratory problems.
That certainly seems a pretty extraordinary state of affairs -- that someone should be unable to find out what she was exposed to in the course of her work, purely because a company deems it confidential information, and she is thus forced to live with the uncertainty of what the long-term consequences might be.
Third, trade secrecy law should not be used as a means to impede public access to EHS [environmental, health and safety] information.
That's because trade secrecy law is purely about keeping secrets from competitors: it is not about limiting access for other reasons, notably those of public health and safety. As the letter points out:
Trade secret law does not and should not exempt a firm from participation in the larger legal system, including warning and harm
prevention.
In a sense, trade secrecy law only applies insofar it does not conflict with broader principles of law, such as the preservation of public health or the environment. The present case involving fracking usefully highlights that contrast, but it is always present, even in less contentious areas.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
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: fracking, public interest, trade secrets
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ah, a subject I care about a lot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to draw the line
I also believe that trade secrets are abused, as in the examples given, and others.
Therefore the issue becomes about what information a company may protect. Should they be allowed to refuse disclosure of a formula that will poison something or someone? Should the drug companies be able to refuse disclosure of ALL test results, not just the ones that make their case?
Public or private, there needs to be a way to force disclosure of things that impact neighbors, or customers, or suppliers, or, for that matter, Mother Earth. (We currently have a weak (mesh quantum physics with the demanded dimensions that are unknown) understanding of the physical world. Why should we believe current engineers who say fracking is safe and wont hurt the water table or cause earthquakes or whatever.
The stuff companies will need to keep quiet under a trade secret only system will be their development plans and actions, not what they release into the wild, or like fracking companies, start doing it. The ability to be first to market, listen to the marketplace, maintain innovation, and maintain the cycle of great new products into the stream (quietly until its public) will be the keys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to draw the line
I don't.
Trade secrets predate patents. The patent system was intended to reduce the harm caused by everyone keeping their discoveries and inventions a secret: that the knowledge gained is never actually introduced to society at large and gets lost. Patents encourage sharing discoveries so they can be built on by others.
Our current patent system has major, major problems. But in my opinion the idea behind patents is a good one, and keeping everything a secret would be a great loss to everybody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How to draw the line
Patents aren't the problem. Patent blocking and trolling is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How to draw the line
But since they refuse to disclose the patent numbers, it would seem that they are trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How to draw the line
The advent of reverse engineering, a better education system, and other technological advances may just overcome that importance. This is why I would be ok with trade secrets in lieu of patents.
Of course, since trade secrets already exist, my solution would to be just take away patents entirely.
In a world without patents, what would companies do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How to draw the line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great idea! Let's apply it to Google!
Here's a far better article and better decision too on generally same topic:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/15721-pennsylvania-court-deals-blow-to-secrecy-obsessed -fracking-industry#13660412613331&action=collapse_widget&id=3511955
This from an activist:
�It is that disobedience, of entire communities sitting at lunch counters demanding to be served, that is our only hope of salvation in a world increasingly commandeered by a small handful of corporate decisionmakers intent on remaking the world as their own,� he said. �A revolution that subordinates the powers and rights of corporations to the rights of people and nature now waits in the wings.�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Great idea! Let's apply it to Google!
You can't just assume a double standard when they're arent' even enough deltails to decide if the situation is the same or not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Great idea! Let's apply it to Google!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Great idea! Let's apply it to Google!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Great idea! Let's apply it to Google!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This. A thousand times this.
Fuck your profit if it will give me cancer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other areas
I can only agree. One such area would be plastics and their impact on the environment, health, etc. - see for example Plastic Planet: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1292648/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OSHA
MSDS
Right To Know
Lawsuit
EPA
Fines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Money
Power
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreement that disclosure of basically everything is required before any hearings can proceed. The should just toss out the case/proposal. If they don't want to talk about it then fine but please go away and don't ask for anything.
If anyone wants a license or permit then please submit detailed operations and environmental impact studies. There have been a lot of complaints about fracking so something must be bad about it. Its normal to want to know more with research about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Those drugs are patented, your competitors should not be able to do it already, so what is the point of all the secrecy?
Easier would be to strip the patents of those drugs since they were not fully disclosed.
This is a breech of a social contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No worry, the folks over in oil and gas have an outstanding safety record and would never endanger the lives of those in the communities they serve. If an incident would to ever occur, they would be the first to offer assistance to those affected and would be very forthcoming with information updates - there would no cover up at all. Trust us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]