iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Supreme Court Takes On Corporate Privacy Case With AT&T

I Am A Man

09/28/10 11:16 AM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is getting involved in an unusual freedom of information dispute over whether corporations may assert personal privacy interests to prevent the government from releasing documents about them.

The court on Tuesday agreed to a request from the Obama administration to take up a case involving claims made by telecommunications giant AT&T to keep secret the information gathered by the Federal Communications Commission during an investigation.

The administration wants the high court to rule that corporations may not claim a personal privacy exception contained in the federal Freedom of Information Act.

The exception may be used only by individuals, the administration said in a brief signed by Elena Kagan, the newest justice who served in the Justice Department until last month.

Kagan will not take part in the case, which will be argued early next year.

AT&T wants the FCC to keep secret all the information it gathered from the company during an investigation into its participation in the federal E-Rate program, which helps schools and libraries get Internet access.

The FCC had released some of the information under an open records request, but withheld some, citing FOIA exemptions that cover trade secrets and humans' right to privacy.

A federal appeals court sided with AT&T.

COMPTEL, a trade group representing some AT&T competitors, filed the FOIA request that led to the court ruling. The trade association and several groups that support transparency in government backed the administration's plea to the court to hear the case.

The case is FCC v. AT&T, 09-1279.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is getting involved in an unusual freedom of information dispute over whether corporations may assert personal privacy interests to prevent the government from rel...
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is getting involved in an unusual freedom of information dispute over whether corporations may assert personal privacy interests to prevent the government from rel...
Filed by T.J. Ortenzi  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,050
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (53 total)
12:42 AM on 10/11/2010
I believe that to save the constitution we as Americans need to use our most power full tool !!!!!!!!!
I believe that at trial "We the people" have the right through and the obligation to the constitution to consider the FACTS and the LAW as Thomas Jefferson once said!!
Here the people can trump unconstitutional statutes. When the court can't make any money from a statute the cops stop enforcing that statute.
We the people have the power through JURY DUTY !!!!!
Why does no one talk about this we know that we can't vote them out but we can make there laws void.
02:06 PM on 09/30/2010
and you people wonder why corporations sometimes have shredding parties rather than turn over information to the government..........now the government can make the turned over info public. digital info is even easier to shred

laughing
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Disciple1
To err is human;To disagree with me is ignorant.
11:08 AM on 09/30/2010
After being PUBLICLY exposed--during the 2009 State of the Union address--as pawns for corporate america, I buy each of you a virgin margarita and a fish taco if you think SCOTUS is going to give Obama a victory anytime soon. Having already ignorantly ruled on Citizens United being a "person", the 5 conservative jurists will ensure that the government loses this one also.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
demsrsilly
Proud supporter of workplace freedom.
06:25 AM on 10/02/2010
I will bet any amount of money that you do not know which side the AFL/CIO supported in Citizens United v. FEC. The AFL/CIO submitted an amicus brief for one side, guess which side, Citizens United or the FEC?

You see, the 5 conservatives, ruled EXACTLY THE WAY THE UNIONS WANTED THEM TO.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Disciple1
To err is human;To disagree with me is ignorant.
09:33 PM on 10/02/2010
Sorry, Amigo, but you're coming from out in left field on this one. Who CARES what the unions "..wanted SCOTUS to do"? The Court was PREDISPOSED to vote on behalf of corporations because the CONSERVATIVE jurists all have vested financial interests in many of the Big Money corporations that HATE OBAMA. More importantly, the POTUS was NOT in favor of this ruling and judging from recent events (Fox donating $1 million to a republican political entity, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce contribution activities, etc.), it appears that Mr. Obama was prescient AND accurate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbeez
KCCO
06:45 AM on 09/29/2010
The root cause analysis of how and why america is so f-ed right now will show that it's because we give our corps too many of the freedoms only "actual" people should enjoy.

If actual individuals weren't protected by the legal fortresses of their corporations I'm sure we wouldn't see the swindling, cheating, and downright mean behavior that got us to where we are right now.

If you need FoIA protection for anything other than trade secrets, which in turn provides the corporation with differentiation or competitive advantage, then something isn't right.
06:53 AM on 09/29/2010
The article above was about trade secrets(according to AT&T, of course). I agree with you though, and would also add bail-outs to the list of problems.
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
11:28 AM on 10/10/2010
So AT&T is then charging Obama with trying to reveal their trade secrets? And if the SC sides with them they can lie about it all they want and claim it was about trade secrets and Obama must therefore be the worst kind of president...what a load...
02:03 PM on 09/30/2010
oh no, those mean corporations are at it again

laughing
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
11:29 AM on 10/10/2010
You sure are in favor of the entities currently destroying our country. Did you say you were a spy who wanted to destroy America?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:47 AM on 09/29/2010
Corporations are NOT people -

If Life Begins At Conception!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rodger leMonde
I call them as I see them.
01:34 PM on 09/29/2010
For corporations life begins at deception.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Disciple1
To err is human;To disagree with me is ignorant.
12:41 PM on 09/30/2010
Fanned for good, accurate, snarky witticism. :0)
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
11:29 AM on 10/10/2010
Nice...
05:37 AM on 09/29/2010
I have an idea which will stop all the corporations in their tracks.

Starting tomorrow every American that has a beef with corporations stop going to work.

Stay Home

Do not let the scourge of society function.

Stay home and they will collapse in days,

(Would government workers take my advice too? Do not really like paying taxes!)
06:36 AM on 09/29/2010
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you are anti-corporation?
07:32 AM on 09/29/2010
No. Sanity
photo
bd7769
I am so often right, that I am a progressive
11:18 AM on 09/30/2010
I hope you are being sarcastic, if we did what you suggest, you are right they would collapse in days, and then shortly thereafter we would as well.
05:09 AM on 09/29/2010
I'm cancelling my AT&T cellphone service and going to Credo.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SigonellaPC3
One Wississippi, two Wississippi...
05:07 AM on 09/29/2010
SO by going to the SCOTUS, we can pretty much be assured AT&Ts personal rights will not be violated.

Protect the strongest at the peril of its citizens; this is our current Supreme Court.
06:37 AM on 09/29/2010
I hope they do not side with AT&T, FOIA was the best thing WE THE PEOPLE still have left
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marijam
Independent
04:12 AM on 09/29/2010
Why can't the supreme court case that decided that corporations have the rights of individuals be challenged somehow?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
IrisMozenter
06:20 AM on 09/29/2010
Isn't that why the administration is pushing this case on them? It's logical that SCOTUS has to see the consequences of their Citizens United ruling.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
noeffect
03:11 PM on 09/29/2010
Because it's the SUPREME court. Its rulings are not subject to appeal. Period.

However, the supposedly co-equal branch, the legislature, can pass laws which tend to reverse the effect of the ruling - with the caveat, of course, that as long as the Supreme Court still has 4 hard-right conservatives and one soft conservative on it, any new law that directly contradicts the ruling can be struck down.
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
11:31 AM on 10/10/2010
I think it is time we reminded the SC about "balance of power" and "checks and balances" and so forth.
photo
clivechristy
Pith and Vinegar
03:40 AM on 09/29/2010
Great, so then if they are found to have been engaged in illegal activities then they won't mind going to prison....right? If their products are found to have caused cancer or killed, and this was done knowingly and with callous disregard for life, then the CEO will gladly accept the death penalty right? If they want the sugar, then they have to take the medicine too.
05:11 AM on 09/29/2010
I'm with you on this, it only makes sense. Take the bitter with the sweet.
06:42 AM on 09/29/2010
I agree (pending the word "knowingly" be without a doubt). Fanned!
03:39 AM on 09/29/2010
What's next? Can corporations assert a right to privacy to prevent inspections for environmental conditions, worker safety and product safety?
06:47 AM on 09/29/2010
They wish! Thank God(or Mr. Biscuit in the sky) for whinny liberals. Stop corporations from putting greed before human life.
photo
ghostrider57
Unable to find reality.sys Universe halted
03:08 AM on 09/29/2010
Just another case of a corporation claiming the same rights as a living breathing individual.

Thanks SCOTUS, you did us so well in that decision.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
demsrsilly
Proud supporter of workplace freedom.
06:27 AM on 10/02/2010
Yeah, it makes me sick that the SCOUTS ruled the way the AFL/CIO wanted it to rule.
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
11:37 AM on 10/10/2010
Who CARES how the AFL-CIO wanted the SCOTUS to rule? Obviously you do but seriously, you are the only one. We aren't on the side of the unions in every case. Only the times when they are right. On this case they were wrong so you don't see many progressives siding with them on this one. Usually, they are on the side of workers versus corporations so we're usually on their side. In Citizen's United, unions also got more power to be treated like a "person" not an "entity". We are opposed to that for both corporations AND unions because it does not make SENSE. They are ENTITIES, not PEOPLE. Get that through your thick teabagging skull!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CAPTAINSKIPPY
from the Far side of Frostbite Falls
02:29 AM on 09/29/2010
Good old Ma Bell, stronger than ever. Opposed to "free" speech, opposed to freedom of information, and FOR corporate speech with dollars.
01:51 AM on 09/29/2010
Corporations political contributions:
Between 2004 to the second quarter of 2008.

Google -- Dems $1,552,708 Reps $196,836
IBM -- Dems $1,283,481 Reps $538,855
Cisco -- Dems $1,728,536 Reps $951,454
Hewlett Packard -- Dems $758,818 Reps $509,441
Microsoft -- Dems $4,819,800 Reps $2,284,272
Yahoo -- Dems $799,885 Reps $364,436
Apple -- Dems $368,397 Reps $30,200
AOL -- Dems $252,633 Reps $123,510
01:56 AM on 09/29/2010
Sun Microsystems -- Dems $448,657 Reps $199,262
Ebay -- Dems $502,750 Reps $441,328
T Mobile -- Dems $397,632 Reps $365,940
Oracle -- Dems $716,309 Reps $553,931
02:49 AM on 09/29/2010
Neat! Now do the Oil industry instead of the computer industry!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Naithom
Estne volumen in toga, an solum tibi libet me vide
03:28 AM on 09/29/2010
Red, can you provide documentation concerning where the information is obtained and what the time period being discussed is? I think it would really help for who want to study the issue. Also, does this include the soft money given by the heads of the companies?

Thanks.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Rachel O
02:03 AM on 09/29/2010
Interesting, but what's your point?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
exile
01:44 AM on 09/29/2010
whether corporations may assert personal privacy interests to prevent the government from releasing documents about them.

WTF
yta gotta be sh*ttin me huh ??
oh yeah
i forgot
this is the usa in 2010
be proud