The Feds Get Permission to Seize Edward Snowden's Book Profits(reason.com)
reason.com
The Feds Get Permission to Seize Edward Snowden's Book Profits
https://reason.com/2019/12/18/the-feds-get-permission-to-seize-edward-snowdens-book-profits/
169 comments
The ruling is based on a claim that "Snowden breached several contracts with and fiduciary duties to the United States". The crux here is that Snowden was an employee and contractor. If he didn't have that prior, voluntary relationship, then the government likely wouldn't have any firm ground to stand on.
I don't see how you could eliminate such a claim without also eliminating the ability of the government to require and enforce secrecy from private contractors and employees more generally. For example, imagine IRS workers writing a tell-all book about the tax returns of various people.
IMO Snowden is a persecuted patriot and should be pardoned for any and all crimes (notwithstanding the legitimacy of some of the alleged crimes). But that doesn't mean the government doesn't have legitimate interests in censuring some forms of information. "Free speech" is a term of art and until very recently in nobody's wildest imagination would it cover the disclosure in the first instance of internal government data by government employees and contractors.
I don't see how you could eliminate such a claim without also eliminating the ability of the government to require and enforce secrecy from private contractors and employees more generally. For example, imagine IRS workers writing a tell-all book about the tax returns of various people.
IMO Snowden is a persecuted patriot and should be pardoned for any and all crimes (notwithstanding the legitimacy of some of the alleged crimes). But that doesn't mean the government doesn't have legitimate interests in censuring some forms of information. "Free speech" is a term of art and until very recently in nobody's wildest imagination would it cover the disclosure in the first instance of internal government data by government employees and contractors.
They aren't stealing dollars from the publisher though, right? So the controversy is going to sell more copies, and they'll make a mint on this book.
I'm sure he'll just get a huge advance on the next book and most of this will come out in the wash.
I'm sure he'll just get a huge advance on the next book and most of this will come out in the wash.
I believe they might go after the publisher in this case, and that Snowden already got a good advance they presumably can't get to while he's in Russia.
It seems strange that he didn't release it to the public domain or GPL it right after they announced their intent to seize funds.
I guess he's still profiting from other markets?
I guess he's still profiting from other markets?
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207628691234316288
> I don't own the rights—the publisher does—but if you're extremely online, you can find a copy in the usual places.
> I don't own the rights—the publisher does—but if you're extremely online, you can find a copy in the usual places.
Search for "b ok cc" on Google if people are looking for the book.
> Snowden's former work agreements with the CIA and NSA are clear that he (and any other employee) must submit the contents of books or speeches for review.
I noticed that there seems to be a trend to use legal technicalities to enforce bizarre rules that completely defy the intent of the constitution.
I'd be questioning whether it should be legal for any company or agency to force prospective employees to sign away their most basic human rights as part of a work contract.
Same thing goes for big corporations like Google which use contractual clauses to take possession of their employees' personal side projects. That is BS.
How would they like it if the government told CEOs and other corporate executives that in order to be an American citizen and live in America, they need to sign away their rights to all the work they did and all the assets they amassed while living in the US? Imagine if every developed country in the world demanded the same.
That's what it's like in today's institution and corporation-dominated world. You can't work for a decent wage unless you're prepared to give up all your basic rights. It's disturbing that nobody is protesting this. It ought to be criminal.
If the company can't make sure that employees don't work on side projects during company time then it's because managers are incompetent and such poorly run company doesn't deserve any legal protection.
I noticed that there seems to be a trend to use legal technicalities to enforce bizarre rules that completely defy the intent of the constitution.
I'd be questioning whether it should be legal for any company or agency to force prospective employees to sign away their most basic human rights as part of a work contract.
Same thing goes for big corporations like Google which use contractual clauses to take possession of their employees' personal side projects. That is BS.
How would they like it if the government told CEOs and other corporate executives that in order to be an American citizen and live in America, they need to sign away their rights to all the work they did and all the assets they amassed while living in the US? Imagine if every developed country in the world demanded the same.
That's what it's like in today's institution and corporation-dominated world. You can't work for a decent wage unless you're prepared to give up all your basic rights. It's disturbing that nobody is protesting this. It ought to be criminal.
If the company can't make sure that employees don't work on side projects during company time then it's because managers are incompetent and such poorly run company doesn't deserve any legal protection.
Do you think that the existence of classified information is antithetical to the 1st amendment? I don't see how a nation can have secrets without being able to enforce at least some limitations on free (and commercial...) speech.
Classified information is antithetical to Thomas Jefferson's ideal of a well informed citizenry to whom government is ultimately responsible and accountable. He affirmed this idea throughout his political writings, but most notably in Bill 79, "A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge." Its preamble reads as follows:
Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes; And whereas it is generally true that that people will be happiest whose laws are best, and are best administered, and that laws will be wisely formed, and honestly administered, in proportion as those who form and administer them are wise and honest; whence it becomes expedient for promoting the publick happiness that those person, whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue, should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance; but the indigence of the greater number disabling them from so educating, at their own expence, those of their children whom nature hath fitly formed and disposed to become useful instruments for the public, it is better that such should be sought for and educated at the common expence of all, than that the happiness of all should be confided to the weak or wicked:...
Bill 79 was mostly about public schooling, but it contains the kernel of an argument for more open governance and against ubiquitous secrecy in language like "give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes".
Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes; And whereas it is generally true that that people will be happiest whose laws are best, and are best administered, and that laws will be wisely formed, and honestly administered, in proportion as those who form and administer them are wise and honest; whence it becomes expedient for promoting the publick happiness that those person, whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue, should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance; but the indigence of the greater number disabling them from so educating, at their own expence, those of their children whom nature hath fitly formed and disposed to become useful instruments for the public, it is better that such should be sought for and educated at the common expence of all, than that the happiness of all should be confided to the weak or wicked:...
Bill 79 was mostly about public schooling, but it contains the kernel of an argument for more open governance and against ubiquitous secrecy in language like "give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes".
That is a gross misreading of the text. He is talking about teaching about past governments and education in general. The Jefferson administration's withholding of a letter from the Aaron Burr trial because they contained national security information is the origin of the state secrets privilege in the United States.
Oh, I agree, which is why I said "kernel of an argument".
Speaking of the Burr conspiracy, John Marshall issuing a subpoena to Jefferson regarding those papers is one of the earliest affirmations of the President being subject to the law and not above it.
Speaking of the Burr conspiracy, John Marshall issuing a subpoena to Jefferson regarding those papers is one of the earliest affirmations of the President being subject to the law and not above it.
There is no "kernel of an argument" there either. Your quote is very obviously talking about history, not about state secrets.
[deleted]
Cheney and crew not only leaked stuff. They misused it to justify a pointless war that has had a high cost - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_aluminum_tubes
But the way the law works is they get to retire in peace.
But the way the law works is they get to retire in peace.
I think there is a big difference between publishing classified information and publishing something that may hypothetically contain classified information.
I don't think the latter should be enforceable by a contract. I think any review/editorial process should be the writer's own responsibility.
I don't think the latter should be enforceable by a contract. I think any review/editorial process should be the writer's own responsibility.
I always found it funny that people say that if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. But hey that never seems to apply to the government.
If the government is allowed to overrule the first amendment for classified information, how can someone like Snowden report corruption? Because what Snowden reported does appear to be the early warning signs of actual corruption. Many of the things that were revealed about Australia were things I would quite have liked the opportunity to vote against as an Australian and I expect there are US citizens in a similar position.
Democracies can't keep secrets, all the oversight mechanisms eventually rely on voters and fail if voters don't know what is going on. Making it clear to government employees that they will be sacked if they talk about something is fine. Short-term classification is theoretically a problem but workable in practice.
However it is well worth noting that capability related to PRISM probably started under Bush, expanded under Obama and may already have been used to surveil a presidential candidate with what is being revealed about the Trump campaign. That isn't a lot of political generations. Who knows what the democrat campaign will be subjected to by the current administration. We still might not know the full details of what is happening if classified capability is involved. From a systems perspective this is a rapidly developing disaster where voters can't make good decisions because information is being hidden. So yes classified info is antithetical to free speech.
Democracies can't keep secrets, all the oversight mechanisms eventually rely on voters and fail if voters don't know what is going on. Making it clear to government employees that they will be sacked if they talk about something is fine. Short-term classification is theoretically a problem but workable in practice.
However it is well worth noting that capability related to PRISM probably started under Bush, expanded under Obama and may already have been used to surveil a presidential candidate with what is being revealed about the Trump campaign. That isn't a lot of political generations. Who knows what the democrat campaign will be subjected to by the current administration. We still might not know the full details of what is happening if classified capability is involved. From a systems perspective this is a rapidly developing disaster where voters can't make good decisions because information is being hidden. So yes classified info is antithetical to free speech.
> how can someone like Snowden report corruption
By simply reporting corruption. Where Snowden got into trouble is that less than 0.1% of the documents he leaked describe anything illegal.
By simply reporting corruption. Where Snowden got into trouble is that less than 0.1% of the documents he leaked describe anything illegal.
Well good thing he didn’t leak them! Instead, he gave them to The Guardian who reviewed them and only released what was pertinent.
The Guardian released far more than what was illegal. Again, if Snowden went to the newspaper with just the one illegal US program that he uncovered, he would have been OK. Instead, he immediately leaked to China a list of compromised Chinese systems, among thousands of other documents he leaked through Greenwald that didn't contain anything illegal.
So, say there was something in there that should be illegal. How would it get made illegal since since even the US public & Congress was getting bad information about what was going on?
If the communities in control of classified material are frequently lying to the rest of the government about what is classified (seems likely) how is the government supposed to properly decide what is and isn't legal? How is the public supposed to direct the government about what should or shouldn't be illegal? This is the crux of the matter. There is a bunch of stuff going on that should be illegal that can't be made illegal because nobody is quite sure what is happening.
Some links related to the honesty of the intelligence head honchos:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/growing-evidence-tha...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-di...
If the communities in control of classified material are frequently lying to the rest of the government about what is classified (seems likely) how is the government supposed to properly decide what is and isn't legal? How is the public supposed to direct the government about what should or shouldn't be illegal? This is the crux of the matter. There is a bunch of stuff going on that should be illegal that can't be made illegal because nobody is quite sure what is happening.
Some links related to the honesty of the intelligence head honchos:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/growing-evidence-tha...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-di...
> How would it get made illegal since since even the US public & Congress was getting bad information about what was going on?
In Snowden's case, there was nothing that should be made illegal or else it would have been made illegal after the leaks.
If Snowden had just leaked the one illegal program instead of lists of compromised Chinese systems and a bunch of other things that will never be illegal, he would be a whistleblower instead of a fugitive criminal.
In Snowden's case, there was nothing that should be made illegal or else it would have been made illegal after the leaks.
If Snowden had just leaked the one illegal program instead of lists of compromised Chinese systems and a bunch of other things that will never be illegal, he would be a whistleblower instead of a fugitive criminal.
> In Snowden's case, there was nothing that should be made illegal or else it would have been made illegal after the leaks.
The technical term for that is 'your opinion'. I disagree with it on many counts, which is the concept known as 'my opinion'. Now your or my opinion might or might not line up with what everyone agrees is acceptable - but the mechanisms we have to figure that out involve (1) information being publicly available and (2) information being debated and (3) voting.
And this is going to why classified information is antithetical to the 1st amendment - if someone goes into the intelligence community and says 'oh my god, all this should be illegal' then they need to be able to publicly lobby to have it made illegal.
> If Snowden had just leaked the one illegal program...
That is dodging my point - the issue is whether or not the programs should be made illegal; what the intelligence agencies are developing the look like terrible apparatus that would have a welcoming home in any authoritarian state.
The technical term for that is 'your opinion'. I disagree with it on many counts, which is the concept known as 'my opinion'. Now your or my opinion might or might not line up with what everyone agrees is acceptable - but the mechanisms we have to figure that out involve (1) information being publicly available and (2) information being debated and (3) voting.
And this is going to why classified information is antithetical to the 1st amendment - if someone goes into the intelligence community and says 'oh my god, all this should be illegal' then they need to be able to publicly lobby to have it made illegal.
> If Snowden had just leaked the one illegal program...
That is dodging my point - the issue is whether or not the programs should be made illegal; what the intelligence agencies are developing the look like terrible apparatus that would have a welcoming home in any authoritarian state.
> The technical term for that is 'your opinion'.
The technical term is "my opinion and the opinion of every lawmaker" because no bill was introduced. What exactly do you think should be illegal but isn't?
> That is dodging my point
No, it isn't. There were many things in the leaks that nobody, including Snowden, thinks should be illegal. Intelligence agencies hacking Chinese systems is among them. This makes Snowden's actions bad even in your very lenient view of what leaks should be protected.
The technical term is "my opinion and the opinion of every lawmaker" because no bill was introduced. What exactly do you think should be illegal but isn't?
> That is dodging my point
No, it isn't. There were many things in the leaks that nobody, including Snowden, thinks should be illegal. Intelligence agencies hacking Chinese systems is among them. This makes Snowden's actions bad even in your very lenient view of what leaks should be protected.
> and the opinion of every lawmaker
Yes, and there is a very well known system for changing lawmakers when they have opinions people disagree with (ie, voting). The opinions of the lawmakers are important, but the mix of opinions that are allowed to become lawmakers depends on what is talked about in public.
> What exactly do you think should be illegal but isn't?
Well, I'm in Australia so my opinion really doesn't count. But we all have experiences in the 20th century that show governments building big facial recognition databases and surveillance systems is fraught with risks. There will be groups in America who want the entire surveillance system to be illegal. If I was an American voter I would want the whole thing shut down. The government literally can't be undertaking global projects and also be properly held to account for their actions if the voters are disallowed from being told about them. Even if I was happy with the system in principle it is likely that the individual actions are dodgy and corrupt.
The costs and benefits can't be weighed up by a voter if both classified.
Yes, and there is a very well known system for changing lawmakers when they have opinions people disagree with (ie, voting). The opinions of the lawmakers are important, but the mix of opinions that are allowed to become lawmakers depends on what is talked about in public.
> What exactly do you think should be illegal but isn't?
Well, I'm in Australia so my opinion really doesn't count. But we all have experiences in the 20th century that show governments building big facial recognition databases and surveillance systems is fraught with risks. There will be groups in America who want the entire surveillance system to be illegal. If I was an American voter I would want the whole thing shut down. The government literally can't be undertaking global projects and also be properly held to account for their actions if the voters are disallowed from being told about them. Even if I was happy with the system in principle it is likely that the individual actions are dodgy and corrupt.
The costs and benefits can't be weighed up by a voter if both classified.
> governments building big facial recognition databases and surveillance systems is fraught with risks.
Specifically, what in the Snowden leaks should be illegal? There were no facial recognition databases in there. So far, you have not given any reason why Snowden's leaks are permissible in your view.
Specifically, what in the Snowden leaks should be illegal? There were no facial recognition databases in there. So far, you have not given any reason why Snowden's leaks are permissible in your view.
Do you have a citation for this?
https://amp.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1260306/edward-s...
Look up a Snowden US intelligence leak at random, and unless it's the phone metadata collection, it's legal.
Look up a Snowden US intelligence leak at random, and unless it's the phone metadata collection, it's legal.
>Same thing goes for big corporations like Google which use contractual clauses to take possession of their employees' personal side projects. That is BS.
>That's what it's like in today's institution and corporation-dominated world. You can't work for a decent wage unless you're prepared to give up all your basic rights. It's disturbing that nobody is protesting this. It ought to be criminal.
You can still work in tech for a decent wage, without having to sign away your personal projects or free speech. It's difficult to have much sympathy towards those who choose to work for Google et el and then complain about the conditions of their employment. They signed up for it despite there being other options.
>That's what it's like in today's institution and corporation-dominated world. You can't work for a decent wage unless you're prepared to give up all your basic rights. It's disturbing that nobody is protesting this. It ought to be criminal.
You can still work in tech for a decent wage, without having to sign away your personal projects or free speech. It's difficult to have much sympathy towards those who choose to work for Google et el and then complain about the conditions of their employment. They signed up for it despite there being other options.
As with most things people do, it's a matter of doing it, and then justifying it afterward.
Just remember Obama signed an executive order that prohibits you from donating to Snowden. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/0...
Worth noting that Snowden requests donations to the families in Hong Kong who sheltered him while he was fleeing U.S. authorities: https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207629293230137344
He also passed a whistle blower bill that actually removed protections from government whistle blowers that are reporting illegal actions of the government.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/obamas-...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/obamas-...
If what you claim is correct, the judge wouldn't have had to block proceeds from the book sales. It isn't correct. That executive order authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to impose sanctions on specific individuals who have engaged in the particular behavior described. The Secretary of the Treasury has not imposed such a sanction on Snowden. https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/
[deleted]
The logical next-step is to ensure this book is stocked in every public library in America.
If the US Government intends to capture the profits from this book, then there is ample incentive to purchase copies for public consumption as it is now effectively purchased at-cost.
If the US Government intends to capture the profits from this book, then there is ample incentive to purchase copies for public consumption as it is now effectively purchased at-cost.
Some people are saying to release the book. It seems the better thing to do is sell it for cost. I'd buy it if the the Feds didn't get a dollar.
I wonder if you can buy a foreign version from Amazon?
Well, they probably aren't going to take the profits from amazon, it's going to go to the publisher, then they will probably garnish the payments to snowden or freeze the accounts or something like that.
It would be cool to see this go second hand by a fan. A fan that could buy up all the copies at a bulk rate (say $2 for 1M copies) Then re-sell those at the original price. Since it's now a used book, that fan could donate the profit to the original author, whoever that is.
Unfortunately, there was an Executive Order[1] signed by Obama in 2015 that "Blocks the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities".
Section 2 states: "I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order."
Where Snowden, or people similar to him, fall within the category of persons described within Section 1.
[1]:https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/0...
Section 2 states: "I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order."
Where Snowden, or people similar to him, fall within the category of persons described within Section 1.
[1]:https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/0...
With the Citizen’s United case being a thing, how is that even legal? The Supreme Court has ruled that donations are speech.
EOs shouldn't be able affect that.
Unfortunately, our inept Congress decided over the years to cede so much of their governing ability to the president. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but my understanding is that executive authority is quite vast and grows each year.
I mean yeah, they might be able to arrest someone. The unfortunate aspect is that it is now up to the arrested person to tell the judge that they were arrested because of an executive order which only applies to the rules that govern federal agencies - and that they, and higher courts alone can overturn that order (or the act of arrest due to the order).
Which is probably a blocker for a large number of people. That would very much mess with my family as I don't have anyone to help with my kids while I'm indisposed. It also makes it awkward for companies to accept donations on his behalf which will lessen access to many people.
This stuff is never to block all transactions, it's to limit them to only a few and cut the flow substantially.
This stuff is never to block all transactions, it's to limit them to only a few and cut the flow substantially.
I get the feeling that sending Edward Snowden a bunch of money would at least be cause for concern, if not actually illegal.
I know "bitcoin" and all that, but if you're goal is to find some sort of legal loophole I don't think this is it.
I know "bitcoin" and all that, but if you're goal is to find some sort of legal loophole I don't think this is it.
[deleted]
Found a company to sell the books under, found another company ostensibly owned by Snowden and domiciled in another country to operate as a shell. Grant the shell company special shares of the parent company entitling the shell company exclusive rights to dividends, and funnel profits through the American parent company, to the shell and into a bank account which distributes the proceeds to various accounts all of the world.
The government is happy to enable such actions for the wealthy plutocrats of the world. So why not use such a loophole to undermine their ability sanction individuals.
The government is happy to enable such actions for the wealthy plutocrats of the world. So why not use such a loophole to undermine their ability sanction individuals.
or someone from abroad could be buying them and sending copies to the US. kind of funny but would highlight the absurdity of the case
I wouldn’t want to be that other guy. He might get disappeared via extraordinary rendition or rape allegationed into exile in some small embassy suite. No thanks!
The actual reason surprised me, I expected it to be Son of Sam law related (can't profit from works related to a crime, so the debate would entirely be about whether or not he committed a crime), but since he hasn't been tried I don't believe that law can apply (recently learned this from a podcast about Anna Delvey, who was able to keep an advance related to her fraud because it came prior to her conviction).
I posted this in another thread, but it didn't get much traction. It's a serious question.
Isn't Snowden's book an auto-biographical memoir? Given this, is there really classified information contained in the book? Can someone who has read it give an example?
I've watched Snowden's Rogan interview, where he covers the material in the book, and I don't remember anything that was classified.
Isn't Snowden's book an auto-biographical memoir? Given this, is there really classified information contained in the book? Can someone who has read it give an example?
I've watched Snowden's Rogan interview, where he covers the material in the book, and I don't remember anything that was classified.
It doesn't really matter, they can still use pre-publication review to jack you up by redacting even what is otherwise publicly available information and delay publication until the news cycle has moved on. The process is arbitrary and politicized, and widely considered to have become a First Amendment issue, which is not surprising, since the modern review process emerged in the 70s when the CIA was trying to mute public criticism by former employees of the lies, abuse, and failures of the Vietnam War.
[1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/path-dependence-and-pre-publicat...
[2] https://shadowproof.com/2019/12/18/us-government-censorship-...
[1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/path-dependence-and-pre-publicat...
[2] https://shadowproof.com/2019/12/18/us-government-censorship-...
Gotcha. The argument here is that it may be that there is no classified material in the memoirs, but it doesn't matter. The publication review process can be used as an effective censorship measure in any case.
Another commentator wrote something similar here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21837795
There's a thought experiment in that thread about whether or not pulling proceeds and profit is standard operating proceedure or really arbitrarity and politically applied. Do you happen to know if there are examples of this pattern and process being applied in non-politically motivated situations?
Another commentator wrote something similar here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21837795
There's a thought experiment in that thread about whether or not pulling proceeds and profit is standard operating proceedure or really arbitrarity and politically applied. Do you happen to know if there are examples of this pattern and process being applied in non-politically motivated situations?
Arguably the judgement against the book by the Navy Seal in the Bin Laden raid was a non-politicized example. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/24/matt-bissonnet...
Nice find, I think that's a good example.
I do remember some controversy around the publication, and the credit claiming between Bissonette and O'Neil, as well as some more sordid/gruesomeness details (stories about mutilating Bin Laden's corpse, details about his family not being armed but slaughtered nontheless). https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/the-crimes-of-seal-team-.... In doing so the public information through these Seal members undid a good deal of the public narrative about the professionalism and nobility of the assassination.
Still, I think this is a good and recent example to show at least the Snowden case isn't the government reaching for a tool they don't use in other cases.
The Patraeus case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus#Criminal_charge...) is the best example I have of counter-evidence to that, as they didn't demand any of the fees from the memoirs - just a probation and probationary fine.
I do remember some controversy around the publication, and the credit claiming between Bissonette and O'Neil, as well as some more sordid/gruesomeness details (stories about mutilating Bin Laden's corpse, details about his family not being armed but slaughtered nontheless). https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/the-crimes-of-seal-team-.... In doing so the public information through these Seal members undid a good deal of the public narrative about the professionalism and nobility of the assassination.
Still, I think this is a good and recent example to show at least the Snowden case isn't the government reaching for a tool they don't use in other cases.
The Patraeus case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus#Criminal_charge...) is the best example I have of counter-evidence to that, as they didn't demand any of the fees from the memoirs - just a probation and probationary fine.
I've read it, and while it contains some interesting stories, he very clearly states in the opening chapter that there is nothing in the book that is classified in any way, nor should you expect to see them. It's more of his stories of how his mind changed over time and the culture of the cia/nsa and their private associated companies. If anything it seems to reveal (in an indicting kind of way) that what he did was achieved slowly (ie. Premeditated), rather than being a spur of the moment thing. Also, glaringly obvious is his love for his now wife, Lindsay.
I found that her diary entries on the way she was treated was far more revealing and highly electric.
There is definitely some sensitive information in there. The government doesn't distinguish between classified information that is public knowledge, and still-secret classified information.
Regardless, their point is that Snowden did not send the book in for approval/redaction before publishing, as would be required of any former employee of a three-letter agency writing about such things.
Regardless, their point is that Snowden did not send the book in for approval/redaction before publishing, as would be required of any former employee of a three-letter agency writing about such things.
If I've read your comment correctly there are two major points:
1. It's highly likely (you said definitely) given the person and subject that some information in the memoir is at least sensitive even if it is not classified, and there's an equally good chance there is some classified information.
2. The actual suit doesn't need the book to contain classified information, they can block it entirely based on process.
That's a good and helpful answer. It would be helpful to have substantial examples of (1).
(2) seems to be the thing that other commentators are claiming is being weaponized for soft-censorship (especially wrt Snowden not being in a position to use an internal three-letter-agency process to publish, and the fact that said three-letter-agencies would likely block publication using their internal processes).
Regarding (2) do you happen to know if there are just-the-government-following-standard-operating-proceedure and non-political examples of agencies blocking the proceeds of books/memoirs based on the process?
The example that comes to mind for me is Patraeus's memoirs - which was widely political and scandalous but still agencies did not seek to withhold profits from book sales.
Any examples of where (2) being used day-to-day as SOP?
1. It's highly likely (you said definitely) given the person and subject that some information in the memoir is at least sensitive even if it is not classified, and there's an equally good chance there is some classified information.
2. The actual suit doesn't need the book to contain classified information, they can block it entirely based on process.
That's a good and helpful answer. It would be helpful to have substantial examples of (1).
(2) seems to be the thing that other commentators are claiming is being weaponized for soft-censorship (especially wrt Snowden not being in a position to use an internal three-letter-agency process to publish, and the fact that said three-letter-agencies would likely block publication using their internal processes).
Regarding (2) do you happen to know if there are just-the-government-following-standard-operating-proceedure and non-political examples of agencies blocking the proceeds of books/memoirs based on the process?
The example that comes to mind for me is Patraeus's memoirs - which was widely political and scandalous but still agencies did not seek to withhold profits from book sales.
Any examples of where (2) being used day-to-day as SOP?
1. For instance, he mentions a FISA court order referring to the NSA's interpretation of section 215 of the PATRIOT act--FISA documents are rarely unclassified (it's a secret court, after all), and secret interpretations by the NSA are just as likely to be highly classified.
2. Sorry, I'm not well versed in this area. I imagine Patraeus followed the rule when publishing his memoirs. Here are some links that might lead to what you're looking for:
https://www.al.com/news/2016/08/navy_seal_will_pay_68_millio...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-10/12/078r-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/04/02/these-forme...
2. Sorry, I'm not well versed in this area. I imagine Patraeus followed the rule when publishing his memoirs. Here are some links that might lead to what you're looking for:
https://www.al.com/news/2016/08/navy_seal_will_pay_68_millio...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-10/12/078r-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/04/02/these-forme...
Looks like the gov't hasn't heard of the Streisand effect. Which in is case, is a very good thing.
I know. I had forgotten about the book until I saw this article. I think I'll buy it now and more importantly I'll read it.
No point in buying it, now. You're better off just downloading it now.
Of course. Good point.
Government institutions are very well aware of the Streisand effect. This is rather a sign of the fact that this book may contain only useless information or even disinformation.
On Amazon, I see $17.99 for the brand new hardcover, and the cheapest used copy ("very good" condition) is $23.13.
Damn it. Guess I'll buy the used one anyway.
Oh and thanks feds for reminding me about this, I totally forgot that this book existed.
Damn it. Guess I'll buy the used one anyway.
Oh and thanks feds for reminding me about this, I totally forgot that this book existed.
How to evade taxes like a multinational:
1. Each book is charged as a print unit to the parent company overseas
2. The cost per print unit is higher than the shelf price
3. Every sale is now a loss
1. Each book is charged as a print unit to the parent company overseas
2. The cost per print unit is higher than the shelf price
3. Every sale is now a loss
Well they did all the work, he just wrote the book about it...
If in the US, you'd better return the book and ask for a refund
If in the US, you'd better return the book and ask for a refund
When 9/11 happened, the predominant reaction worldwide was sympathy. Do you think that after all the subsequent actions of US government another similar event would elicit a similar level of sympathy if it happened now?
Yes, I think if thousands of innocent people were murdered again, there would be more sympathy, and about the same amount. Most people are able to separate the actions of the US government from those of individual office workers, firefighters, plane passengers, etc, the vast majority of whom had effectively zero personal input into or responsibility for US government policy.
The US has always done bad things. That's how you get so much quantity of stuff, but behind it all there are grains of good if you look.
The reaction to 9/11 was interesting for most it was unpredictable and the day the US stopped being the untouchable top dog. It is easy to feel sympathy for an attack on home soil that had already delivered the aims of the aggressors who died in the attack, there were few loose threads. It became black and white.
The fall of gwbush in that time period really degraded the faith in the rich old white guy. The belief it was all under control and we could blindly have faith that the great president has it all sorted was deeply undermined. That warm and free feeling from the 90s died on 9/11.
As long as the next tragedy is just bad, I.e. incompetent or silly the US will be okay. If something truly evil comes out there's going to be trouble.
The reaction to 9/11 was interesting for most it was unpredictable and the day the US stopped being the untouchable top dog. It is easy to feel sympathy for an attack on home soil that had already delivered the aims of the aggressors who died in the attack, there were few loose threads. It became black and white.
The fall of gwbush in that time period really degraded the faith in the rich old white guy. The belief it was all under control and we could blindly have faith that the great president has it all sorted was deeply undermined. That warm and free feeling from the 90s died on 9/11.
As long as the next tragedy is just bad, I.e. incompetent or silly the US will be okay. If something truly evil comes out there's going to be trouble.
yes, the terrorist attacks originate in places where the US has actively bombed/messed up. not because of objections to surveillance
[deleted]
Wonder if Bolton will see his profits seized as well from his 'tell all' book.
That's pretty obscene.
Now I don't have to sorry I pirated it.
Glad I torrented it then! Always relish an opportunity to steal from the federal government!!!
Lame. Freedom of Speech is dead with this one.
Edward Snowden just gave me permission to steal and distribute this book. Have fun
did he? I noticed he wrote:
The government may steal a dollar, but it cannot erase the idea that earned it. I wrote this book, Permanent Record, for you, and I hope the government's ruthless desperation to prevent its publication only inspires you read it—and then gift it to another. -- https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207624251953549312
The government may steal a dollar, but it cannot erase the idea that earned it. I wrote this book, Permanent Record, for you, and I hope the government's ruthless desperation to prevent its publication only inspires you read it—and then gift it to another. -- https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207624251953549312
He most certainly did:
In response to: "Perhaps you'll consider releasing it under creative commons 2.0 at some point :)."
He said: "I don't own the rights—the publisher does—but if you're extremely online, you can find a copy in the usual places."
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207628691234316288
In response to: "Perhaps you'll consider releasing it under creative commons 2.0 at some point :)."
He said: "I don't own the rights—the publisher does—but if you're extremely online, you can find a copy in the usual places."
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207628691234316288
That’s not saying you’re free to do so. That’s saying, if you want to, here’s how. There’s a fine line between the two.
In other words: He doesn’t own the rights, so he can’t tell you what you can do with it; Only the publisher can.
In other words: He doesn’t own the rights, so he can’t tell you what you can do with it; Only the publisher can.
So read it and send Ed a dollar (or Bitcoin equiv.)
I think it's illegal to send him any money due to him being an enemy of the state.
The mere fact that you can't say for sure his exact status should raise a giant red flag about the state of our republic.
He is certainly targeted and watched. If you send him money, you will likely be watched more carefully as well. Buying his book is a symbol of defiance more than anything else.
That said, Snowden is not covered by official sanctions and does not even come up on Dow Jones as PEP or person of interest.
source:
sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov
dowjones.com
He is certainly targeted and watched. If you send him money, you will likely be watched more carefully as well. Buying his book is a symbol of defiance more than anything else.
That said, Snowden is not covered by official sanctions and does not even come up on Dow Jones as PEP or person of interest.
source:
sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov
dowjones.com
wouldn't it be normal for indictments to be under seal? I agree with all your points though.
Agreed, but it does not make sending him funds illegal by virtue of being enemy of the state ( although I will admit I struggle with parsing that phrase ), which is the question posed by the original poster.
Edit: brackets
edit2: also, the fact that he may be potentially indicted does not mean it is illegal to give him money. Those are two separate issues
Edit: brackets
edit2: also, the fact that he may be potentially indicted does not mean it is illegal to give him money. Those are two separate issues
But there was this executive order? https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/0...
Ok. I am not an attorney. My views are my own. No purchase necessary. Not FDIC insured. YMMV. Consult a real lawyer. Don't be an idiot.
You right in a sense that when you read this, Snowden could easily be argued to fit the mold.
However, you will note that it later says that the actual designation ( verified here with treasury link I added ) is up to SOS and other involved individuals.
Note, that at the time I checked it, Snowden was not on that list and apparently has not been since issuance of this EO.
At least not yet.
edit, because there always exceptions: see wikileaks and note neither he nor his creation was sanctioned by OFAC either. However, that did not stop the state from making donations.. challenging.
You right in a sense that when you read this, Snowden could easily be argued to fit the mold.
However, you will note that it later says that the actual designation ( verified here with treasury link I added ) is up to SOS and other involved individuals.
Note, that at the time I checked it, Snowden was not on that list and apparently has not been since issuance of this EO.
At least not yet.
edit, because there always exceptions: see wikileaks and note neither he nor his creation was sanctioned by OFAC either. However, that did not stop the state from making donations.. challenging.
If that's the case, maybe donate to the EFF.
EFF = Electronic frontiers foundation?
too late, I already paid the Ethiopian Football Federation
How would they know you sent him money? Furthermore, unless it's a large amount of funds, I don't think anyone will be prosecuted for sending him funds.
American problems.
He's not an enemy of my state.
To be just a tiny bit flippant about it, is it illegal not to live in the USA too?
1. I am not in your state.
2. Is Bitcoin money?
2. Is Bitcoin money?
not in the US so I probably would be fine (maybe)
Does it say somewhere in the article that the government is attempt to prevent its publication? Sounds like they're just stripping his profits.
When one cannot prevent the publication, one can prevent any reward that the author might get from it. It's not a far stretch to consider this to be aimed (at least partially) at discouraging such publications.
If by profits we're talking about the publisher's and not just Snowden's, this could be a very effective way of getting the book off the shelves.
there's a case that deplatforming of this kind is similar to censorship
I'm cool with that. I will steal it, for sure, and make sure it gets read.
For all the people who downvoted me. Steal this book is a famous title. Please consider upvoting me back.
Playing Devil's Advocate, the Feds are going after Snowden not on the premise of censoring him. Instead, they are arguing that as part of his employment agreement, they have the right to vet anything IP related he publicly discloses. It's similar to many employer-employee relationships. I've had to pass my slide deck to my manager to screen before speaking at conferences and many companies have an officially sanctioned engineering blog as an outlet.
Obviously Snowden is close to heart for many in HN, and I personally see him as a hero. However, when viewed as contract law instead of censorship, shouldn't the Feds be allowed this seizure?
Obviously Snowden is close to heart for many in HN, and I personally see him as a hero. However, when viewed as contract law instead of censorship, shouldn't the Feds be allowed this seizure?
Double Devil's Advocate:
Is not the enforcement of an NDA action done by the government that limits the speech of a person? Is that it is being done on behalf of a private entity enough to clear up the First Amendment implications of this? If so, how far can this be abused?
Is not the enforcement of an NDA action done by the government that limits the speech of a person? Is that it is being done on behalf of a private entity enough to clear up the First Amendment implications of this? If so, how far can this be abused?
i don't think people are arguing the legality of the ruling but the pettiness of it and how it makes them look even worse
Clearly it's petty. The Feds have a history of taking one misguided step based on ignorance and never backing down no matter how stupid they look. We don't disagree on that.
However, a lot of the comments here are based arguing First Amendment. Employees enter in all sorts of employee-employer agreements that limit First Amendment rights.
Yes, NDAs are a thing, but one could argue that the contract is a prior restraint on free speech, something the Supreme Court has ruled many times is unconstitutional.
A lot of people seem to think this is some kind of retaliation specifically targeted at Snowden and trying to prevent him from publishing his book.
Two quick facts:
- Nobody ever tried to ban his book.
- The government receiving the profits of that book comes from a simple and universal rule that nobody is allowed to benefit from a crime.
It's a rule that makes a lot of sense, whether you agree that person is a criminal or not.
Two quick facts:
- Nobody ever tried to ban his book.
- The government receiving the profits of that book comes from a simple and universal rule that nobody is allowed to benefit from a crime.
It's a rule that makes a lot of sense, whether you agree that person is a criminal or not.
In a work environment, especially after a buyout, you will hear people say how X is important, while also cutting all funding for X.
When a company says something is important but then cut the legs out from underneath it, they aren't being honest. They don't actually like X, they're just trying to avoid a conflict and hoping people will just forget about it.
Demonetizing something is policy, be you government or corporate.
When a company says something is important but then cut the legs out from underneath it, they aren't being honest. They don't actually like X, they're just trying to avoid a conflict and hoping people will just forget about it.
Demonetizing something is policy, be you government or corporate.
>Nobody ever tried to ban his book
The only reason this is "true" is that they legally can't and there's no loopholes to even try to use. If they had any way of even remotely doing this they would have.
The only reason this is "true" is that they legally can't and there's no loopholes to even try to use. If they had any way of even remotely doing this they would have.
To be fair, Snowden was given access to a lot of stuff because he promised not to reveal them outside of the chain of command. He did, and claimed that the chain was broken and the people needed to know. Fine. The government didn't even try to ban the the book (it would have been impossible anyway.)
But, why should he profit ??
But, why should he profit ??
I don’t care about Snowden making a profit, but I do care about the first amendment. The government is not allowed to impose a fine on speech they don’t like. That is not “free speech”.
[deleted]
NDA enforcement is not at odds with the first amendment. Thousands of them are signed every day, and they hold up just like any other contract.
> NDA enforcement is not at odds with the first amendment.
This isn't ordinary NDA enforcement, it's enforcement of a prior restraint on speech. With a normal NDA, if you publish information you're not supposed to, they can go to court and prove that the information was covered by the NDA and then get an order to stop you from continuing to publish it or sue you for damages.
In this case they haven't proved that anything in the book was actually subject to the NDA and they're objecting because they didn't get to review it before publication. But you can reasonably expect any government "review" in this context to be an effort to unreasonably delay or otherwise interfere with publication of the book, even if there is no legitimate cause.
The difference is that they would otherwise have to prove the contents of the book was in violation of the NDA. Without that they could suppress the book even if it wasn't. That might not be constitutional and there are a lot of good policy reasons for it not to be.
This would be a lot more obvious if they were seeking to restrain publication, so they're looking for a backdoor, and trying to get there by taking the money. But that should fail for the same reason Son of Sam laws are unconstitutional. Writing and publishing a book takes time and money which the person who wants to write it generally can't get without the expectation of recovering it after publication. You don't have time to write a book if you can't get an advance and thereby have to spend all your time working some other job to put food on the table. Which can cause the book not to be written and the readers would be denied the information.
It's as much about the right of the readers to pay someone to tell the story and thereby ensure the story gets told, as it is the right of the storyteller to make a buck.
This isn't ordinary NDA enforcement, it's enforcement of a prior restraint on speech. With a normal NDA, if you publish information you're not supposed to, they can go to court and prove that the information was covered by the NDA and then get an order to stop you from continuing to publish it or sue you for damages.
In this case they haven't proved that anything in the book was actually subject to the NDA and they're objecting because they didn't get to review it before publication. But you can reasonably expect any government "review" in this context to be an effort to unreasonably delay or otherwise interfere with publication of the book, even if there is no legitimate cause.
The difference is that they would otherwise have to prove the contents of the book was in violation of the NDA. Without that they could suppress the book even if it wasn't. That might not be constitutional and there are a lot of good policy reasons for it not to be.
This would be a lot more obvious if they were seeking to restrain publication, so they're looking for a backdoor, and trying to get there by taking the money. But that should fail for the same reason Son of Sam laws are unconstitutional. Writing and publishing a book takes time and money which the person who wants to write it generally can't get without the expectation of recovering it after publication. You don't have time to write a book if you can't get an advance and thereby have to spend all your time working some other job to put food on the table. Which can cause the book not to be written and the readers would be denied the information.
It's as much about the right of the readers to pay someone to tell the story and thereby ensure the story gets told, as it is the right of the storyteller to make a buck.
> This isn't ordinary NDA enforcement, it's enforcement of a prior restraint on speech.
Which the Supreme Court famously ruled illegal in Near v. Minnesota[0] among many others.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_v._Minnesota
Which the Supreme Court famously ruled illegal in Near v. Minnesota[0] among many others.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_v._Minnesota
[deleted]
> With a normal NDA, if you publish information you're not supposed to, they can go to court and prove that the information was covered by the NDA and then get an order to stop you from continuing to publish it or sue you for damages.
That is exactly what happened in this instance. The court determined he did violate the agreement. The information did not need to be classified, any "mention of intelligence data or activities" was covered. The agreement outlined the damages that would be assessed -- the proceeds from the publication.
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/snowd...
Son of Sam laws and prior restraint is probably not relevant here, these obligations are the result of a voluntary contract he signed. All of the case law I'm aware of surrounding those are about obligatory restrictions, not ones that were voluntarily accepted. In general, prior restraint has national security exceptions, and there's no way any sane court is going to rule that the NSA secrecy agreements aren't legal.
That is exactly what happened in this instance. The court determined he did violate the agreement. The information did not need to be classified, any "mention of intelligence data or activities" was covered. The agreement outlined the damages that would be assessed -- the proceeds from the publication.
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/snowd...
Son of Sam laws and prior restraint is probably not relevant here, these obligations are the result of a voluntary contract he signed. All of the case law I'm aware of surrounding those are about obligatory restrictions, not ones that were voluntarily accepted. In general, prior restraint has national security exceptions, and there's no way any sane court is going to rule that the NSA secrecy agreements aren't legal.
> The agreement outlined the damages that would be assessed -- the proceeds from the publication.
But that's the issue. When the contracting party is the government and the "damages" for not abiding by a prior restraint are calculated to precisely coincide with any incentive anyone could provide to supply the information to the public (i.e. calculated to provide disincentive rather than compensate for actual damages), it's infringing on the right of every member of the public to pay for the information -- and those members of the public never agreed to any such contract. Especially when the restriction is specifically being imposed on the purchaser rather than the recipient, since the recipient isn't even in the court's jurisdiction at the time of the payment.
But that's the issue. When the contracting party is the government and the "damages" for not abiding by a prior restraint are calculated to precisely coincide with any incentive anyone could provide to supply the information to the public (i.e. calculated to provide disincentive rather than compensate for actual damages), it's infringing on the right of every member of the public to pay for the information -- and those members of the public never agreed to any such contract. Especially when the restriction is specifically being imposed on the purchaser rather than the recipient, since the recipient isn't even in the court's jurisdiction at the time of the payment.
Not a free speech case at all. He said all he wanted. The book is out and anyone can buy, just the person that broke the legal agreement (not to share the classified stuff he learned in books without prior clearance) will not make money of that info. Otherwise anyone can do a few years in jail and then make $x million by telling what he saw while working for CIA/NSA etc.
Cases like these should be protected with whistleblower laws.
Legislation encouraging whistleblowing is a good thing.
Legislation encouraging whistleblowing is a good thing.
[deleted]
irq11(2)
> Otherwise anyone can do a few years in jail and then make $x million by telling what he saw while working for CIA/NSA etc.
Why do you think that the only two alternatives is to allow people to sell secrets to foreign governments and sell revelations about illegal actions of the state or to punish both in the same way? Why do you think it is impossible to distinguish those two cases?
Why do you think that the only two alternatives is to allow people to sell secrets to foreign governments and sell revelations about illegal actions of the state or to punish both in the same way? Why do you think it is impossible to distinguish those two cases?
I think his point is that the law is being applied consistently.
If Snowden received a pardon (and he absolutely unarguably should) this would not be problem.
If Snowden received a pardon (and he absolutely unarguably should) this would not be problem.
For one, the law is not being applied consistently. The abusers are still not in jail. Rather, the abuse is still going on, still breaking the law.
But also, actually, it would be a problem, because the law would still be broken, because the law still systematically protects the abusers. What is needed is a change to the unjust law, not some exception for someone who highlighted that that is what it is.
But also, actually, it would be a problem, because the law would still be broken, because the law still systematically protects the abusers. What is needed is a change to the unjust law, not some exception for someone who highlighted that that is what it is.
> Otherwise anyone can do a few years in jail and then make $x million by telling what he saw while working for CIA/NSA etc.
That sounds wonderful. I wish this were possible.
That sounds wonderful. I wish this were possible.
Despite the Citizens United ruling, money is not equivalent to speech.
When it comes to selling published work, we do have a right, not made explicit in the amendments to the Constitution, to earn a livelihood. But that right is not absolute, such that it is not permissible to earn one's livelihood by committing property crimes, violent crimes, or crimes of deception.
The agreement he signed before gaining access to state secrets is backed by laws that anticipated the possibility that someone might someday be paid to reveal those secrets, and those laws attempted to remove the financial incentive for disclosure. They include sections on review of pre-print manuscripts intended for publication, which only apply to cleared individuals.
Snowden can spill as many of his own secrets as he pleases, and get paid for them. But the state cannot allow him to profit from revealing state secrets. It's counterproductive from a security standpoint.
When it comes to selling published work, we do have a right, not made explicit in the amendments to the Constitution, to earn a livelihood. But that right is not absolute, such that it is not permissible to earn one's livelihood by committing property crimes, violent crimes, or crimes of deception.
The agreement he signed before gaining access to state secrets is backed by laws that anticipated the possibility that someone might someday be paid to reveal those secrets, and those laws attempted to remove the financial incentive for disclosure. They include sections on review of pre-print manuscripts intended for publication, which only apply to cleared individuals.
Snowden can spill as many of his own secrets as he pleases, and get paid for them. But the state cannot allow him to profit from revealing state secrets. It's counterproductive from a security standpoint.
> It's counterproductive from a security standpoint.
From what kind of twisted security standpoint is it counterproductive to allow someone to reveal mass security violations?
I don't think it is useful to participate in the newspeak that authoritarians use to pretend that you are somehow more secure when your human rights are constantly being violated.
From what kind of twisted security standpoint is it counterproductive to allow someone to reveal mass security violations?
I don't think it is useful to participate in the newspeak that authoritarians use to pretend that you are somehow more secure when your human rights are constantly being violated.
The perspective of the state is twisted whenever it holds itself as separate from and superior to the populace.
The laws covering pre-screening of materials to be published assume that the interests of the state and of its subjects/citizens remain in alignment. Snowden's publication, being in the interests of the people and against the interests of the state, loudly proclaimed that this is no longer the case. The laws yet remain, and the agents of the state are employing them--again, in the interests of the state, and against the interests of most of the people.
When the laws contain no exceptions for publications that reveal malfeasance by the state against the people, that indicates to me that they were drafted by overly optimistic legislators that haven't yet argued with enough anarchists.
The laws covering pre-screening of materials to be published assume that the interests of the state and of its subjects/citizens remain in alignment. Snowden's publication, being in the interests of the people and against the interests of the state, loudly proclaimed that this is no longer the case. The laws yet remain, and the agents of the state are employing them--again, in the interests of the state, and against the interests of most of the people.
When the laws contain no exceptions for publications that reveal malfeasance by the state against the people, that indicates to me that they were drafted by overly optimistic legislators that haven't yet argued with enough anarchists.
This has nothing to do with preventing the reveal of mass security violations and everything to do with laws put in place to disincentivize bad actors who are in a position of trust from profiting from the leaking of state secrets. However you try to spin things, this is exactly what happened. Snowden was in a position of trust, leaked all kinds of state secrets, and then tried to profit from that leak.
> “However you try to spin things, this is exactly what happened. Snowden was in a position of trust, leaked all kinds of state secrets, and then tried to profit from that leak.”
That looks like _your_ spin on things. The only reason the leaks had potential for a profitable book written about them is that the leaks were the only possible mechanism for society to gain knowledge of egregious abuses of power and coordinated, deliberate violations of rights.
Attributing a profit motive to Snowden is deeply incorrect and unjustified. Government agencies acted out secret behaviors that egregiously abused their power and harmed people. The doing of those behaviors, regardless of the state of knowledge about them of the public, created a profit opportunity, no different than in journalism.
Nobody forced those agencies to do those behaviors and thereby create a sincere and urgent need for an expose that overrides any laws relating to the control of that information. They did that and are wholly responsible for it.
That looks like _your_ spin on things. The only reason the leaks had potential for a profitable book written about them is that the leaks were the only possible mechanism for society to gain knowledge of egregious abuses of power and coordinated, deliberate violations of rights.
Attributing a profit motive to Snowden is deeply incorrect and unjustified. Government agencies acted out secret behaviors that egregiously abused their power and harmed people. The doing of those behaviors, regardless of the state of knowledge about them of the public, created a profit opportunity, no different than in journalism.
Nobody forced those agencies to do those behaviors and thereby create a sincere and urgent need for an expose that overrides any laws relating to the control of that information. They did that and are wholly responsible for it.
> This has nothing to do with preventing the reveal of mass security violations and everything to do with laws put in place to disincentivize bad actors who are in a position of trust from profiting from the leaking of state secrets.
So, why is it then that these laws do apply here? Is that just incompetence on the part of those who wrote those laws? Because, you know, if it wasn't, then your claim that this was not a goal of these laws is a bit unfounded.
Plus, the fact that these laws still haven't been changed to protect whistleblowers really completely invalidates even the possibility that this is just incompetence. All those people who would be in the position to change that law know about Snowden, and nothing has happened. That is not what an honest mistake looks like.
> However you try to spin things, this is exactly what happened.
So?
> Snowden was in a position of trust, leaked all kinds of state secrets, and then tried to profit from that leak.
So?
Why is it that you feel the need to defend these abuses? To grasp for these straws of plausible deniability? Why is it so hard to see this for what it is: Systematic human rights abuses and violation of the law with other laws that protect the abusers and punish those who reveal the abuse. Why is this law that protects the abusers so much more important than the laws these abusers broke and break? How can it possibly be just to uphold the law against the whistleblower while at the same time letting the abusers continue to break the laws they don't like?
So, why is it then that these laws do apply here? Is that just incompetence on the part of those who wrote those laws? Because, you know, if it wasn't, then your claim that this was not a goal of these laws is a bit unfounded.
Plus, the fact that these laws still haven't been changed to protect whistleblowers really completely invalidates even the possibility that this is just incompetence. All those people who would be in the position to change that law know about Snowden, and nothing has happened. That is not what an honest mistake looks like.
> However you try to spin things, this is exactly what happened.
So?
> Snowden was in a position of trust, leaked all kinds of state secrets, and then tried to profit from that leak.
So?
Why is it that you feel the need to defend these abuses? To grasp for these straws of plausible deniability? Why is it so hard to see this for what it is: Systematic human rights abuses and violation of the law with other laws that protect the abusers and punish those who reveal the abuse. Why is this law that protects the abusers so much more important than the laws these abusers broke and break? How can it possibly be just to uphold the law against the whistleblower while at the same time letting the abusers continue to break the laws they don't like?
Just because something is the law doesn't make it just.
Had Snowden simply leaked information for the sake of malice, then that'd be an entirely different story and I'd agree with you.
But that's not the case here. He's a whistleblower who exposed the grave privacy violations that were being conducted on behalf of the government. This should be protected by whistleblower laws.
Keep in mind the government isn't like some private corporation (or at least it's not supposed to be), it's how we choose to govern ourselves. By not allowing injustices that our elected officials commit against ourselves to be exposed, we make it virtually impossible to end these injustices.
Had Snowden simply leaked information for the sake of malice, then that'd be an entirely different story and I'd agree with you.
But that's not the case here. He's a whistleblower who exposed the grave privacy violations that were being conducted on behalf of the government. This should be protected by whistleblower laws.
Keep in mind the government isn't like some private corporation (or at least it's not supposed to be), it's how we choose to govern ourselves. By not allowing injustices that our elected officials commit against ourselves to be exposed, we make it virtually impossible to end these injustices.
Because he had the courage to blow the whistle and now must find other sources of income maybe ?
[deleted]
[deleted]
This is not about Snowden.
This is about the SIGNIFICANT crimes against humanity and war crimes that he - and others - have put their lives on the line to reveal to the general public.
You (we) are being lied to about the activities of our governments in the Western sphere. They started WORLD WAR THREE, and wish to keep this fact from you.
And, they are laying in the conditions required for a repressive, totalitarian regime - and working as hard as they can, at all costs, to ensure that civil society does not have what it needs to counter their actions.
If you value the future freedom of your children, you WILL inform yourself about what the 5-eyes New World Order are doing, in your name, to ensure that the Western societies maintain dominance and control over humanity. It is that serious.
This is about the SIGNIFICANT crimes against humanity and war crimes that he - and others - have put their lives on the line to reveal to the general public.
You (we) are being lied to about the activities of our governments in the Western sphere. They started WORLD WAR THREE, and wish to keep this fact from you.
And, they are laying in the conditions required for a repressive, totalitarian regime - and working as hard as they can, at all costs, to ensure that civil society does not have what it needs to counter their actions.
If you value the future freedom of your children, you WILL inform yourself about what the 5-eyes New World Order are doing, in your name, to ensure that the Western societies maintain dominance and control over humanity. It is that serious.
It would be great if there was world peace, happy families and spouses that stayed together forever, and no foreigners targeting your country.
People often forget that foreign governments are targeting USA and US persons abroad. There isn't another move left but to have surveillance tools and ingest a lot of data. If the advantage is lost, it will be someone else having it.
This also extends to military things. It'd be nice if we all cooperated as countries and built a space elevator. But that's a child's fantasy, in the end there's a power dilemma.
The thing with surveillance / war industry / etc. is there isn't a better alternative. It's not about being bullheaded and mean - it's about the very real threat of losing dominance and having foreign powers boss you around. This has happened to many countries throughout the history of civilization.
Instead of complaining about surveillance in intelligence, which likely doesn't relate to you, why not complain about "normal" civil liberties in a criminal law context - for instance, stricter rules around stored data. Other things include better social benefits, affordable housing, better representation as consumer (e.g. right to repair)?
I bet security will mean a lot more when the system being protected helps the common person more. :)
People often forget that foreign governments are targeting USA and US persons abroad. There isn't another move left but to have surveillance tools and ingest a lot of data. If the advantage is lost, it will be someone else having it.
This also extends to military things. It'd be nice if we all cooperated as countries and built a space elevator. But that's a child's fantasy, in the end there's a power dilemma.
The thing with surveillance / war industry / etc. is there isn't a better alternative. It's not about being bullheaded and mean - it's about the very real threat of losing dominance and having foreign powers boss you around. This has happened to many countries throughout the history of civilization.
Instead of complaining about surveillance in intelligence, which likely doesn't relate to you, why not complain about "normal" civil liberties in a criminal law context - for instance, stricter rules around stored data. Other things include better social benefits, affordable housing, better representation as consumer (e.g. right to repair)?
I bet security will mean a lot more when the system being protected helps the common person more. :)
> Other things include better social benefits, affordable housing, better representation as consumer (e.g. right to repair)?
Moving to china is a good way to ensure all those, and you get free and pervasive surveilance as a bonus. what's not to love
Moving to china is a good way to ensure all those, and you get free and pervasive surveilance as a bonus. what's not to love
They also don't have many social benefits, consumer representation or affordable housing.
If they had to pay US companies back for all the IP they've stolen / used without licensing, they'd be broke.
If they had to pay US companies back for all the IP they've stolen / used without licensing, they'd be broke.
[deleted]
> instead of complaining about surveillance in intelligence, which likely doesn't relate to you, why not complain about "normal" civil liberties in a criminal law context
Because some of us believe privacy to be a human right and aren't willing to accept violations of other's rights even if we might happen to benefit from it in the short term?
Also, it absolutely does apply to us. The biggest revelation of Snowden's leaks was that the NSA was collecting data on all of us, not just people for whom they had probable cause. Just because that data hasn't been used against you or me yet doesn't mean it never will.
Because some of us believe privacy to be a human right and aren't willing to accept violations of other's rights even if we might happen to benefit from it in the short term?
Also, it absolutely does apply to us. The biggest revelation of Snowden's leaks was that the NSA was collecting data on all of us, not just people for whom they had probable cause. Just because that data hasn't been used against you or me yet doesn't mean it never will.
<<Instead of complaining about surveillance in intelligence, which likely doesn't relate to you, why not complain about "normal" civil liberties in a criminal law context - for instance, stricter rules around stored data. Other things include better social benefits, affordable housing, better representation as consumer (e.g. right to repair)?<<
Why not both? I also question your premise of 'it does not relate to you'.
The data is there, collected and ready for analysis.. if you step out of line that is.
Why not both? I also question your premise of 'it does not relate to you'.
The data is there, collected and ready for analysis.. if you step out of line that is.
I bet you have no clue how many innocent human beings the American government and its allies have massacred in the last 10 years.
Hint: it doesn't benefit you one bit.
Hint: it doesn't benefit you one bit.
[deleted]
> The government may steal a dollar, but it cannot erase the idea that earned it. I wrote this book, Permanent Record, for you, and I hope the government's ruthless desperation to prevent its publication only inspires you read it—and then gift it to another.
> The court's ruling is a hack intended to circumvent First Amendment limits on what the gov't can censor. They can't (yet) ban the book, so they ban profit to try and prevent such books from being written in the first place.