AT&T Has No Right to Privacy

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court decided that corporations do not have a right to personal privacy under the Freedom of Information Act statute.

It was not even close.  It was unanimous, and there wasn't even a separate concurring opinion.

The facts are clear:  AT&T cheated the government when it was wiring up schools and libraries, got caught, and paid a fine.

What happened next was that its competitors made FOIA requests to find out exactly what they did, and AT&T claimed that this would constitute an unwarranted intrusion of the corporation's personal privacy which might "embarrass" it, which some some federal appellate judge who did too much LDS in the 60s actually bought that crap.

In reviewing the opinion, written by John Roberts (see here)what is exceedinbly clear is that John Roberts thought that this was an opportunity to sound "arch" or "witty":

We disagree. Adjectives typically reflect the meaning of corresponding nouns, but not always. Sometimes they acquire distinct meanings of their own. The noun “crab” refers variously to a crustacean and a type of apple, while the related adjective “crabbed” can refer to handwriting that is “difficult to read,” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 527 (2002); “corny” can mean “using familiar and stereotyped formulas believed to appeal to the unsophisticated,” id., at 509, which has little to do with “corn,” id., at 507 (“the seeds of any of the cereal grasses used for food”); and while “crank” is “a part of an axis bent at right angles,” “cranky” can mean “given to fretful fussiness,” id., at 530.

Maybe it's just me, but he sounds neither "arch" nor "witty", but rather like an 8^th grade student who thinks that he is far more clever than he actually is.

It was a good decision, but Roberts' opinion is just plain lame.