SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
"Privacy" Protections for Corporations Undermines Government Transparency
Nov 18, 2010
EFF and a coalition of public interest groups urged the U.S. Supreme Court in an amicus brief Tuesday to reject so-called "privacy" protections for corporate entities under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The case, Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, started when the company tried to block disclosure of records about its participation in the federal government's E-Rate program. AT&T, invoking FOIA exemptions that were created to protect an individual's private data like physical address or email address, argued that it was a "corporate citizen" entitled to "personal privacy."
Surprisingly, a federal appeals court agreed with AT&T, setting up this Supreme Court battle with unusually high stakes for transparency and accountability. In the amicus brief filed Tuesday, EFF and co-amici argue that the intent of FOIA's privacy provisions are unmistakably to protect individuals, not corporations, and that is how the law has always been interpreted. If AT&T is allowed to expand the law's privacy protections to "corporate citizens" then broad new swaths of previously public records will be hidden from view. It's not hard to imagine how documents on the BP oil spill, or coal mine explosions, or the misdeeds of Bernie Madoff's investment firm might be significantly harder to find if AT&T's misguided arguments prevail.
But this is only the most obvious problem with the idea of "personal privacy" for "corporate citizens." Currently, government agencies routinely post reports and data about corporate activities on their websites without a specific FOIA request. But under the appeals court decision, this kind of free flow of information will be chilled by the fear of a lawsuit. Additionally, this interpretation of the FOIA would require government agencies to consult with corporations before the release of any information that arguably implicated their "privacy" interests. This would create more delays in an already lengthy FOIA process, and allow even more opportunities for corporations to block important records from the public eye. Tellingly, corporate entities would end up enjoying more privacy protections than the law currently affords individuals, who are not given any notice about potential record releases under FOIA.
FOIA already grants substantial protection to corporations' interests, allowing for corporations to protect trade secrets and other confidential information. Expanding the Act's exemptions in the extreme manner urged by AT&T is not what lawmakers intended -- instead of facilitating transparency and accountability, it would morph into a broad shield preventing the public from knowing what the government is up to.
For EFF, the FOIA is a critical tool for exposing the government's expanding use of new technologies that invade Americans' privacy, and we are very proud of the breadth of information EFF's transparency work has brought to light. We hope the Supreme Court protects open government and Americans' right to know in this case.
The other organizations joining Tuesday's amicus brief include the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the American Library Association (ALA), the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), the National Security Archive, and OpenTheGovernment.org.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Rebecca Jeschke
Rebecca Jeschke is EFF's Media Relations Director and a Digital Rights Analyst, covering a broad range of issues including privacy, free speech, and intellectual property matters.
EFF and a coalition of public interest groups urged the U.S. Supreme Court in an amicus brief Tuesday to reject so-called "privacy" protections for corporate entities under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The case, Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, started when the company tried to block disclosure of records about its participation in the federal government's E-Rate program. AT&T, invoking FOIA exemptions that were created to protect an individual's private data like physical address or email address, argued that it was a "corporate citizen" entitled to "personal privacy."
Surprisingly, a federal appeals court agreed with AT&T, setting up this Supreme Court battle with unusually high stakes for transparency and accountability. In the amicus brief filed Tuesday, EFF and co-amici argue that the intent of FOIA's privacy provisions are unmistakably to protect individuals, not corporations, and that is how the law has always been interpreted. If AT&T is allowed to expand the law's privacy protections to "corporate citizens" then broad new swaths of previously public records will be hidden from view. It's not hard to imagine how documents on the BP oil spill, or coal mine explosions, or the misdeeds of Bernie Madoff's investment firm might be significantly harder to find if AT&T's misguided arguments prevail.
But this is only the most obvious problem with the idea of "personal privacy" for "corporate citizens." Currently, government agencies routinely post reports and data about corporate activities on their websites without a specific FOIA request. But under the appeals court decision, this kind of free flow of information will be chilled by the fear of a lawsuit. Additionally, this interpretation of the FOIA would require government agencies to consult with corporations before the release of any information that arguably implicated their "privacy" interests. This would create more delays in an already lengthy FOIA process, and allow even more opportunities for corporations to block important records from the public eye. Tellingly, corporate entities would end up enjoying more privacy protections than the law currently affords individuals, who are not given any notice about potential record releases under FOIA.
FOIA already grants substantial protection to corporations' interests, allowing for corporations to protect trade secrets and other confidential information. Expanding the Act's exemptions in the extreme manner urged by AT&T is not what lawmakers intended -- instead of facilitating transparency and accountability, it would morph into a broad shield preventing the public from knowing what the government is up to.
For EFF, the FOIA is a critical tool for exposing the government's expanding use of new technologies that invade Americans' privacy, and we are very proud of the breadth of information EFF's transparency work has brought to light. We hope the Supreme Court protects open government and Americans' right to know in this case.
The other organizations joining Tuesday's amicus brief include the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the American Library Association (ALA), the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), the National Security Archive, and OpenTheGovernment.org.
Rebecca Jeschke
Rebecca Jeschke is EFF's Media Relations Director and a Digital Rights Analyst, covering a broad range of issues including privacy, free speech, and intellectual property matters.
EFF and a coalition of public interest groups urged the U.S. Supreme Court in an amicus brief Tuesday to reject so-called "privacy" protections for corporate entities under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The case, Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, started when the company tried to block disclosure of records about its participation in the federal government's E-Rate program. AT&T, invoking FOIA exemptions that were created to protect an individual's private data like physical address or email address, argued that it was a "corporate citizen" entitled to "personal privacy."
Surprisingly, a federal appeals court agreed with AT&T, setting up this Supreme Court battle with unusually high stakes for transparency and accountability. In the amicus brief filed Tuesday, EFF and co-amici argue that the intent of FOIA's privacy provisions are unmistakably to protect individuals, not corporations, and that is how the law has always been interpreted. If AT&T is allowed to expand the law's privacy protections to "corporate citizens" then broad new swaths of previously public records will be hidden from view. It's not hard to imagine how documents on the BP oil spill, or coal mine explosions, or the misdeeds of Bernie Madoff's investment firm might be significantly harder to find if AT&T's misguided arguments prevail.
But this is only the most obvious problem with the idea of "personal privacy" for "corporate citizens." Currently, government agencies routinely post reports and data about corporate activities on their websites without a specific FOIA request. But under the appeals court decision, this kind of free flow of information will be chilled by the fear of a lawsuit. Additionally, this interpretation of the FOIA would require government agencies to consult with corporations before the release of any information that arguably implicated their "privacy" interests. This would create more delays in an already lengthy FOIA process, and allow even more opportunities for corporations to block important records from the public eye. Tellingly, corporate entities would end up enjoying more privacy protections than the law currently affords individuals, who are not given any notice about potential record releases under FOIA.
FOIA already grants substantial protection to corporations' interests, allowing for corporations to protect trade secrets and other confidential information. Expanding the Act's exemptions in the extreme manner urged by AT&T is not what lawmakers intended -- instead of facilitating transparency and accountability, it would morph into a broad shield preventing the public from knowing what the government is up to.
For EFF, the FOIA is a critical tool for exposing the government's expanding use of new technologies that invade Americans' privacy, and we are very proud of the breadth of information EFF's transparency work has brought to light. We hope the Supreme Court protects open government and Americans' right to know in this case.
The other organizations joining Tuesday's amicus brief include the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the American Library Association (ALA), the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), the National Security Archive, and OpenTheGovernment.org.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.