Does A Company Deserve the Same Privacy Rights As You? 379
An anonymous reader writes "The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an important case to determine whether or not AT&T deserves 'personal privacy' rights. The company claimed that the FCC should not be allowed to distribute (under a Freedom of Information Act request) data it had collected concerning possible fraud and overbilling related to the e-rate program. The FCC argued that the information should be made public and that companies had no individual right to 'personal privacy,' the way individuals do. As it stands right now, the appeals court found that companies like AT&T do deserve personal privacy rights, and now the Supreme Court will take up that question as well. Given the results of earlier 'corporation rights' cases, such as Citizens United, at some point you wonder if the Supreme Court will also give companies the right to vote directly."
Since when are rights deserved? (Score:5, Interesting)
Rights exist or don't exist. Once you start to use the term "Do X deserve the right to Y?" you have already lost.
Conflict of Interest (Score:3, Interesting)
No org, corporate or not, will have privacy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Since when are rights deserved? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
I say even then, no. The reason we protect the privacy of individuals is because we recognize a need for human dignity, and that people have a right to private lives outside of the public sphere. Businesses, however, are public entities. They don't have "private lives". They don't go home to wives and children at the end of the day.
Public (Score:4, Interesting)
The next step... (Score:0, Interesting)
Abolish trademarks!
Trademarks are intended to build brand recognition for goods or services. The idea is that a consumer has an honest perception of the source they are interacting with. It benefits both the producer and the consumer that their good name is defended from impersonators. It allows a company to build an honest reputation (good or bad). If we limit categories of negative information that can be disclosed for a particular brand - then how can a consumer reach a fair or balanced opinion? It follows that public perception of a trademarks is a farce, so trademark protection should no longer be enforced.
Does anyone really want that?
Corporations aren't people (Score:5, Interesting)
Recently on August 23rd this year, UNITED STATES v. HAVELOCK concluded that mailing threatening communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. 876(c), which makes it a felony to mail a communication addressed to any other person, does not apply to companies and corporations like news organizations. So since they are not persons, they should not be bound by personal privacy laws.
Talk-radio style argument against (Score:4, Interesting)
.
Re:Public Company (Score:3, Interesting)
Currently, you're only required to disclose the location of your headquarters (not your plant; i.e., a mail-drop, not your body), and certain elements of your financial state and activity (which are so loosely defined that you can report losses to be gains and gains to be losses in order to manipulate your stock price without fear of being accused of manipulation)...
Re:Corporations *do* have rights (Score:3, Interesting)
Well said. I'd just like to add that, in theory, it's the owners of the corporation who are exercising their rights to free speech when a corporation takes political action. This is one reason why CEOs get paid so much -- because they (and other Officers) take on some of the risk from the shareholders.
What I'd like to see is some of the legal risk being reassigned back to the owners of corporations. That'd make corporations clean up their acts, though it'd do nothing wrt the problem of political spending.
Slavery (Score:2, Interesting)
If a company is a person, and you buy shares of said company, does that constitute slavery? Isn't slavery, at least in part, defined as owning a person?
Re:Corporations *do* have rights (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
Re:Corporations *do* have rights (Score:3, Interesting)
Prison time requires doing something criminal (in theory at least). Criminal Negligence is called that for a reason, because it can get a person prison time. Simple negligence cannot. Maybe it's not obvious given how far the law has moved from its roots in common law and the various state and federal constitutions, but a person who doesn't even realize they own a portion of corp X while corp X is acting on their behalf, is displaying negligent behavior, which normally can give them liability (and damned well should). There's just about no way that could equal criminal negligence - how could you direct someone to cut legal corners, take unwarranted risks, or actually violate laws, if you really didn't even know they were representing you?
"Hi, I'm not a shareholder in corp X, but I'm directing you, its CEO, to violate that OSHA rule, so as to maximise the profits I don't get from you people."
See, the law is full of definitions of such things as "malicious intent", "having a guilty mind", and such. If you're really unclear where "the line" should be drawn, right there it is, with 99%+ of your theoretical cases already worked out.
Do we divide jail time in other cases where there are multiple felons involved? No? We don't say there's only one life sentence allowed for one murder and split that between four guys who conspired together to commit that murder, do we? So why are you speculating about such an absurdity here, as a consequence of owners sharing legal risks? We don't let the guy who just drove the getaway car off, either. Normally, we sentence people for their share of involvement. Who took what steps, who gave what orders? What did your hypothetical fund manager say or do to make him either simply or criminally responsible?
Re:Corporations *do* have rights (Score:3, Interesting)
I've added in numbers above so I can address these questions.
:)
[1] Yes. One of the problems with the current situation is that ownership is completely disassociated with the actions of the companies they own. The whole purpose of what I propose is to remove that disassociation.
[2] No. He is an agent of the people investing, who have chose to trust him. If he violates their trust, that is their problem. This would place a premium on trust managers who are capable of doing their due diligence and also of pressuring the companies they invest in to do the right thing.
[3] Yes, you pro-rate it according to ownership stake. There would need to be a minimum threshold of when sentences need to be served, and there'd have to be a consideration to what sentences are assigned. Perhaps a swap of community service for jail time, personal liabilities for fines, etc.
I'm sure there's lots of things not considered yet. I'll be thinking about them
Re:Short answer: no. (Score:4, Interesting)
why does no one call for a constitutional amendment to REVERSE corporate personhood? It is probably one of the most important constitutional issues of our time and no one talks about it.
Most of us (definitely me) aren't familiar enough with such issues to know that is the right way to solve the problem. If we force the issue, make a campaign to say corporations are not people, and they defeat it, won't that be used as further indication that they are in fact people?
That and I think few people realize what's happened in the first place. If you ask people on the street about it, I think pretty much all of them would stare at you as if you were talking about trees having the right to free speech.
Re:Really (Score:1, Interesting)
Our overly conservative supreme court will most likely grant them this right as well. The Bush gift that just keeps on giving.
Nice job f*cking us all in the ass...
Re:Corporations *do* have rights (Score:1, Interesting)
In my mind, the concept of a limited liability corporation, is very different from granting a LLC any "constitutional rights" or granting any employee of them any special protection. It was all about the stockholders not having to be finciancially responsible for losses and loans that were taken out in the corporation name.
The rights that have been incrementally granted to corporations by the US Courts over the last 200 years is much more of about the politics of the day that put certain people on the Supreme Court that were "friendly" to business. There has been little Congressional Law that has expanded the rights of corporations.
The rights have been granted by courts, not by Congress.
Re:Really (Score:3, Interesting)
I can even see the funding for charities increasing as churches might use them as tax shelters to reduce their total tax burden.
I suspect it would also reduce the level of asset hiding/denial of churches (especially the catholic church) that occurs as failure to declare assests is something that totally ticks off the IRS. And you know they'd audit all the churches as soon as such a change in the laws occurred.
But I have to ask, what does church tax exempt status have to do with corporations having/gaining rights that belong to people not businesses?
Re:Corporations *do* have rights (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't know the corporate law of the US but in some other countries the offending individual is always responsible of his actions as long as there is intention or serious recklessness present. Otherwise, the consequences of a fault is carried by the corporation. As corporations usually have better means of paying compensations and acquiring legal representation, for example, they are often more easily indicted in courts compared to a natural person. The victim has usually a better change of getting his compensation from a large entity, compared to an individual who might not even have a liability insurance.
Re:Corporations *do* have rights (Score:3, Interesting)
"You are irrational."
The fact that it is not the case, not in this world, not now, doesn't make him irrational. Was somebody irrational in 1890 if he thought heavier than air flying machines could be built?
"I don't get to pick the stocks I own in my 401(k)."
Then you get to pick the stocks you own in your 401(k). Is that impossible? Change the procedures to make it possible.
"I could either not participate, or the fund manager selects what I own."
As soon as the law changes so it makes you responsible, you ballance your risks and, if you deem them too high, you choose not participate. Right now, drug dealers can get gross benefits; if one of them offers you participations in his bussiness, you can either participate or not participate too.
"The fund manager is the owner of record, votes my shares, and all that. I have no choice of stocks, no direct ownership of them"
Again, that's how the system works *now*. That doesn't make irrational to think about alternatives. Heck, you even already told you could *not* participate. You do it because *now* it pays for you. Maybe a tomorrow can be built when it won't pay.
"So your proposal is to punish people who buy mutual funds, but not those that actually buy and own the shares of the companies they do the wrongdoing."
"You put the money, you get the responsibility" doesn't sound too irrational to me.
"Furthermore, your proposal would result in people being punished for something they couldn't have prevented."
Oh, but you *can* prevent it, even now: you can always choose *not* participate.
"None of it makes any sense."
Are you sure?
Re:Really (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Corporations *do* have rights (Score:3, Interesting)
I think we should make the U.S. Attorney General an elected position. That way when the population sees criminal activity in a corporation we can vote for the guy who says he's going to prosecute them for it. In the current system we just have to hope that the guy the president picks for the job is on the side of the people. Of course this isn't a perfect fix but I think it's a step in the right direction.
Corporate draft (Score:3, Interesting)
Just had this brainstorm:
If, in the future, a draft is called, then corps, in all fairness, should be called up too.
The way it would work, I guess, is for the corporation to give money and materiel in lieu of manpower.
It's hard to escape the conclusion that rights require concomitant responsibilities.
A Corporaton is Running For Congress NOW (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering how current congress members, such as Boehner, are already primarily representing corporate America, letting corporations be directly in congress will clearly save time and money. If we can just outsource the rest of the Government to a third world country then the dream of Regan Republicans will be fulfilled. The entire economy and running of the US will be done for the lowest price possible by private enterprise. Of course no US citizens except politicians, lobbyists, and corporate lawyers will have jobs, but that is a small price to pay for the ultimate Republican wet dream.
Re:Really (Score:2, Interesting)
You don't seem to get it. They already have more rights than people, even public companies. A publically traded LLC has more freedoms than I do, and virtually no consequences. When a corporation is turned over to the government and its assets are liquidated as tax profit when they committ a crime, or are barred from doing business for x number of years, then sure, give them almost some of the right. But not as much as real, flesh and blood people. Hell, corporations can marry other corporations, they already have more rights than gay people.