United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden • Hacker News Board

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#91

Post by bdcravens » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:36 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #33

Can one of the internet lawyers out there explain why this is a civil lawsuit, and not a criminal lawsuit? I'd think that if he committed an actual crime, it would be a criminal suit. I thought civil suits were for people trying to get money out of each other. Or is this like how the feds couldn't get Al Capone for murder so they put him away for tax evasion?

> Or is this like how the feds couldn't get Al Capone for murder so they put him away for tax evasion?

No, both of those were crimes. They just incarcerated him on the one with the easiest case to convict.

Civil cases are often contractual cases. He had access to confidential information; they are essentially suing him for violating an NDA.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#92

Post by kelnos » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:37 PM UTC

advisedwang wrote: post #20

mnm1 wrote: post #14

This makes the US government look like petty idiots. As is the government wasn't already the laughingstock of the entire world. They can't even arrest Snowden (not that they should) and now they want to bankrupt him. I assume Snowden would publish this book with a publisher that's not US based but I don't know the details. Hopefully it doesn't get a penny, this criminal government that forced him into exile.

It was published by Macmillan, which has US offices and subsidiaries. They do fall under US jurisdiction and will likely comply with US courts.

That's surprising; you'd think he would have used a publisher with as few ties to the US as possible.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#93

Post by colejohnson66 » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:37 PM UTC

Rooster61 wrote: post #72

colejohnson66 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re: originalists: The framers couldn’t’ve imagined the internet, and, despite that, what you say on the internet is protected by the first amendment as it is speech. Why would the fourth amendment be any different?

Because the first and fourth amendments guarantee different rights. The first guarantees that you essentially can't be arrested for speech. It says nothing about whether or not your speech can be collected and recorded. The fourth forbids the government with searching the enumerated items without cause or a warrant. Very different things.

My point was that the “originalist” view of the constitution falls apart when you see that the Supreme Court has ruled that speech that the framers couldn’t even imagine is protected. They've done the same with the fourth (you can’t search a car without a warrant or probable cause even if it’s in public... to an extent).

I was arguing that if you want to take an originalist view to the constitution, you’d need to give up your protection of speech online and in many other areas.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#94

Post by kerkeslager » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:38 PM UTC

indigochill wrote: post #66

omarhaneef wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the same issue with the other debate raging on HN: Stallman and Free Speech. The issue is that people -- not sure whether it was OP, or you -- conflate what is moral with what is legal. One person starts off with a moral premise: people should have free speech, or people should have the right to say what the government is doing. Someone else responds with what is legal : the law applies to government curtailmen…

I agree with your observation and statement, but also want to add there is a moral argument that if one objects to a law or a contract, one should remove oneself from under it (leave the country/company) rather than break it, even if the law itself is immoral. Not that I'm arguing one way or another how that applies in this situation, though.

> I agree with your observation and statement, but also want to add there is a moral argument that if one objects to a law or a contract, one should remove oneself from under it (leave the country/company) rather than break it, even if the law itself is immoral.

There may exist a moral argument, but it's pretty easy to disprove that argument: In Nazi Germany, this principle would leave one to just leave Nazi Germany, otherwise cooperating with the Nazis.

The principle you're proposing would have led to the demise of many more Jews during WW2.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#95

Post by bdcravens » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:40 PM UTC

devoply wrote: post #18

> government seeks to recover all proceeds earned by Snowden because of his failure to submit his publication for pre-publication review in violation of his alleged contractual and fiduciary obligations. You aint gonna get rich off this, boy. If Snowden would sell the book online via Bitcoin and then have it shipped from wherever to the customers. How would they seize that money from him even if they got a judgment a…

> How would they seize that money from him even if they got a judgment against him??

They wouldn't. But in the event he ever has assets they can touch they have an enforceable judgment against those assets. (For example, if he ever chose to hire a US attorney for any reason, they government could sue the attorney for any amounts paid to them)

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#96

Post by nickles » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:41 PM UTC

r00fus wrote: post #24

HashThis wrote: post #21

This is the "It is illegal to inform the citizen base that the government has removed their constitutional right" lawsuit. The NSA and FBI removed every US citizen of their constitutional right, to privacy. Edward Snowden informed the US citzen base on their constitutional rights being removed. This lawsuit is the government saying it is illegal for any US citizen to inform all other citizens when the government remo…

Is there a constitutional right to privacy? Where is that enshrined? I say this as someone who values privacy for all.

The constitution does not explicitly enumerate a right to privacy.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) explicitly established the right to privacy. Justice Douglas’ opinion states that such a right exists within the “penumbras” and “emanations” of the constitution. As there is no explicitly enumerated right, strict constructionists may oppose this interpretation.

Katz v. United States (1967) established a two part test to determine whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a given circumstance:

"first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'"

Smith v. Maryland (1979) established the basis for the government’s claim that the data collection program is permitted. The case focuses on whether an individual has an expectation of privacy for metadata they willingly give up to a third party. The court found that a warrant is not required to collect such information.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#97

Post by behringer » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:41 PM UTC

tyri_kai_psomi wrote: post #77

behringer wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read the book... nobody was put in danger. Snowden is an American hero.

You should talk to an actual intelligence officer or two. I have, which is where I got that impression from.

You mean the people Snowden warned us about don't like him much?

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#98

Post by codeddesign » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:42 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #33

Can one of the internet lawyers out there explain why this is a civil lawsuit, and not a criminal lawsuit? I'd think that if he committed an actual crime, it would be a criminal suit. I thought civil suits were for people trying to get money out of each other. Or is this like how the feds couldn't get Al Capone for murder so they put him away for tax evasion?

I especially like the fact that he can’t fly back to the US since he has no passport, but at the same time he is being prosecuted. It’s been so long, why even care? Who is running the show on this?

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#99

Post by garmaine » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:42 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #82

garmaine wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but (frustratingly) it is not illegal within the US jurisdiction for the US government to violate a non-US person's privacy. The US constitution's bill of rights only protects americans. Hence why the key point is that the US intelligence agencies spied on US citizens without warrants. I agree that they shouldn't be spying on anyone in this way (get a warrant!), but spying on US citizens in this way is super dup…

The US constitution's bill of rights only protects americans. In general, this is false. EVERYONE gets the right to free speech, the right to an attorney and a trial by jury, etc. I wouldn't expect anyone to say that it's OK to take illegal immigrants as slaves because they're not covered by the 13th Amendment. That said, I do see that legal opinions about Snowden's revelations say that the surveillance is OK for non…

Everyone on US soil. It's definitely a radical, non-consensus opinion that the US bill of rights protects non-Americans outside the USA.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#100

Post by kamyarg » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:43 PM UTC

alexfromapex wrote: post #74

abecedarius wrote: post #15

I bought the book, and I hereby commit to donating a large multiple of the price to an appropriate charity or Snowden himself if they win this suit.

I hope the government realizes how much they’re pissing everyone off by violating our rights and defending themselves for doing it

> how much they’re pissing everyone

I am afraid that it is not even a significant portion of the population that is pissed.

If it was, then Snowden leaks wouldn't have been almost forgotten in 5-6 years. People seem to have accepted governments can do whatever they want without any consequences.

Edit: Wanted to clarify that I am not even talking about the US, as part of the leaks it was revealed that NSA was listening to Angela Merkel's Phone. Germany has already forgotten that it seems.