Supremes: AT&T Can't Use 'Personal Privacy' To Hide USF Data Unanimous Vote Prevents AT&T From Using Law To Block FOI Requests Last fall we noted that AT&T was trying to keep FCC-collected data on AT&T's involvement in the e-Rate program a secret. The program, which takes about 40% of all USF funds for wiring schools, has seen significant fraud and abuse thanks in large part to poor FCC oversight. AT&T, which settled charges of e-rate over-billing the government (aka, you) for $500,000 in 2004, has been trying to bury FCC AT&T-specific data gleaned during that investigation by arguing they benefit from "personal privacy" laws. Today the Supreme Court struck down AT&T's efforts, arguing that in this case, AT&T was distorting fairly clear legal language: The Supreme Court said companies cant challenge the release of government documents on corporate privacy grounds, ruling against AT&T Inc. in a case stemming from a probe of the telecommunications provider. The justices today unanimously barred corporations from invoking a provision in a federal document-disclosure law that protects against invasions of "personal privacy." AT&T argues that the information they're trying to suppress involves "competitively sensitive" data. However, keep in mind the company is also hard at work lobbying for USF "reform" that could involve AT&T getting significantly more USF funding, something possibly hampered by data suggesting previous subsidies were abused. Getting a unanimous, 8-0 rejection from this particular corporate-cozy Supreme Court suggests just how hard AT&T was pushing their luck. We're still waiting for the Supreme Court to hear another AT&T case, involving the company's efforts to legally void your right to participate in class actions via small print embedded in your contract.
|
 VanPremium join:2009-07-08 New Orleans, LA | Justice Roberts absolutely tore apart AT&T in every way possible excluding his ending which was a bit weird (saying AT&T shouldnt take it personally)
Great opinion | |
|  |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN kudos:5 Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
| Re: Justice Roberts absolutely tore apart said by Van:AT&T in every way possible excluding his ending which was a bit weird (saying AT&T shouldnt take it personally) I think it was just a play on words. AT&T was basically slapped down saying that "personal" doesn't exist for a corporation. And since "personal" doesn't exist, they shouldn't take it personally. | |
|  |  |  VanPremium join:2009-07-08 New Orleans, LA | Re: Justice Roberts absolutely tore apart Ah, I read over it several times and didn't get that. Makes sense considering his take down.
Doh! | |
|
 decifal join:2007-03-10 Bon Aqua, TN kudos:1 | Thank Thank goodness.. But this is a very wealthy company. They'll buy someone else in time... This sorta practice should be stopped however.. Its slowly (more fast now actually ) killing our economy. One penny at a time. | |
|  | | Can't wait... to see the truth about what makes this so competitively important.
It's like playing Texas Holdem. If you have never played with a guy and never get to see his cards, then you have no idea how he plays the game. Once his hands are forced you get to see the deceit being laid out before you and can start to gather the tells.
I bet the same competitive excuse they used here can be applied to them not wanting to say exactly what locations are being served, what speed they are being served, and at what price. In the end, it is them just trying to cover up their "corruption". | |
|  |  |  HarddriveProud American and Infidel since 1968.Premium join:2000-09-20 Phone Room kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: big change for AT&T people have actually wondered how much money the NSA has given AT&T for this level of access to internet data. i guess the movie 'Enemy of the State' starring Will Smith and Gene Hackman might have some validity. -- "Linux is only free if your time has no value" - Jamie Zawinski | |
|  |  |  Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium join:2004-12-10 Lorton, VA kudos:1 Reviews:
·Bright House
·Sprint Mobile Br..
| Re: big change for AT&T said by Harddrive:people have actually wondered how much money the NSA has given AT&T for this level of access to internet data. I'd bet money wasn't the commodity-of-choice in this transaction.
I'm thinking federal favors and power trades are used to pay for the access needed to monitor us.
NV -- Any Goal that is Driven by Animosity, is Empowered through Deceit. | |
|  |  |  |  Stumbles join:2002-12-17 Port Saint Lucie, FL | Re: big change for AT&T That would be my guess. Money would leave some kind of accounting trail even if it might be obscured. | |
|
 decifal join:2007-03-10 Bon Aqua, TN kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
| Fine Audit them, fine them.. If no fines are currently implace.. K, make rules about fines. Keep it simple.. Prove your use of the USF for soo called purpose. Failure to comply = fines depending on amount unaccounted for.. Definately make it a little higher than the amount in question.. Otherwise it would be pointless.
If you told me that per million I stole, i'd have to pay them 50k.. Heck, i'll gamble with that :-P Right now, its all imaginary.. Cept for the amounts on the bills we pay towards the fund. | |
|  Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Distrubing precedent? It seems like a disturbing decision to me. I haven't read it, but from the news article:
quote: A federal appeals court had sided with AT&T, saying the statute’s definition of “person” suggests that “personal includes corporations.
Roberts today rejected that reasoning, devoting much of his 12-page opinion to discussing the finer points of grammar. He said words like “corny,” “crabbed” and “cranky” have distinct meanings from nouns that come from the same roots -- “corn,” “crab” and “crank.”
What next? "Privacy" has a distinct meaning from the nouns coming from the same root "private?"
It seems to me like the lower court took the SC's decision seriously, giving corporations unlimited political rights of people. Now the SC stepped back from its earlier decision without saying so, and played word games that "personal" doesn't pertain to "person."
That seems like a dangerous precedent. | |
|  |  |  |  |  Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Distrubing precedent? said by fatness:I'm reading it much the same way you are. From Justice Roberts: quote: When it comes to the word personal, there is little support for the notion that it denotes corporations, even in the legal context,
That's quite a blow against "corporate personhood", which in my opinion is a good thing. It's a blow to corporate personhood. But, he (they) didn't really address whether corporations are persons. Instead, as quoted in my earlier post, they detached the word "personal" from the word "person."
That seems like a cheap way of dealing with the topic. Without directly clarifying their earlier political-contribution decision, we're left in some strange no-mans-land where "personal" doesn't apply to "persons" and "freedom" isn't related to "free."
What Roberts tried to do is good. But, the way he did it seems Orwellian. | |
|  |  |  |  fatnesssubtleJanitor join:2000-11-17 fishing kudos:13 | Re: Distrubing precedent? Or Homerian (as in Simpson).  | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Distrubing precedent? It's weird. Instead of defining what a corporate entity is, how it isn't a person (contrary to the previous decision). They redefined the English language.
I especially like this part:
quote: "Personal" ordinarily refers to individuals. People do not generally use terms such as personal characteristics or personal correspondence to describe the characteristics or correspondence of corporations.
People don't usually use terms like "person" to describe corporations. That's what the SC talked around.
quote: In fact, "personal" is often used 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 companys view.
Doesn't that naturally lead to: "we speak of persons, and business?"
There's something wrong with the way the Chief Justice position is a political appointment, not based upon seniority. The youngest person on the court gets the senior title for potentially the longest tenure? When he appears to be a complete dope? | |
|
 | |
|
|