Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 501 posts

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#101

Post by bdcravens »

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.

The point is to choke his assets, the same way you'd try to disrupt an enemy's supply lines.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#102

Post by garmaine »

bb88 wrote: post #59
garmaine wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't the only program. They were also tapping into cell phones and laptop webcams for remote surveillance on targeted subjects, but without any constitutionally required warrant checks in place.

But was it illegal? And how would you know that such a warrant didn't actually exist in a court, particularly the FISA court? It's possible that with FISA, everything under the so called warrantless wiretap program might be legal -- you just don't have access to prove it is.

Have you been paying attention? At the time that Snowden made his revelations, no approval was necessary for an NSA analyst to activate a webcam, for example. They literally just had to select from a menu of totally broad reasons on an internal web form documenting the access. They had a congressionally granted exemption from requiring case-by-case FISA approval. This is now all open and acknowledged, and found to be illegal.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#103

Post by bdcravens »

jaboutboul wrote: post #89
advisedwang wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If they don't it will be quite interesting, but in reading the book, I don't think his motivations were financial. Dude is holed up in middle of nowhere totally uncertain of his future and wants to make sure this chapter, his chapter, of history is preserved from his POV.

Why would they not comply? They're a book publisher: their motivations are strictly financial.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#104

Post by txcwpalpha »

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #44
bb88 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're an originalist (and I'm not saying that I am), data in transmit is not necessarily protected by that amendment If your data has left your house, is it really your data, or is it Google's say?

When you send a letter it does not belong to the post office while in transit. Why are bits on a hard drive any different?

Inspectors can and do inspect the contents many types of mail, though, so I'm not sure this example is a good one for those championing privacy...

To elaborate: when using the US Postal Service, only domestic "First Class Mail" and "Priority Mail" (these are different and distinct from standard mail) is protected and requires a probable cause warrant to open and inspect. Other types of mail, as well as all packages shipped through private companies like UPS and FedEx, do not require warrants and can be opened and inspected whenever the post office or UPS/FedEx feel like it. There isn't an expectation of privacy for these packages, and certainly no constitutional protection of it.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#105

Post by reaperducer »

larkeith wrote: post #40
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?

There is already a separate criminal suit; this one is just trying to prevent him from profiting from his book, due to it (allegedly) containing intelligence info and violating his NDA. From the link: "This lawsuit is separate from the criminal charges brought against Snowden for his alleged disclosures of classified information. This lawsuit is a civil action, and based solely on Snowden’s failure to comply with the…

If I buy the book, does that make me a criminal accessory? Or guilty of the receipt of stolen property (information)?

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#106

Post by austinheap »

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

With all due respect: I’m not sure average people care. The only people I know who talk about it also read this site religiously.

I don’t say it to be rude, but it’s similar to my coastal liberal friends thinking their bubble opinion applies in Ohio.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#107

Post by imglorp »

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #44
bb88 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're an originalist (and I'm not saying that I am), data in transmit is not necessarily protected by that amendment If your data has left your house, is it really your data, or is it Google's say?

When you send a letter it does not belong to the post office while in transit. Why are bits on a hard drive any different?

They are different because of aggregation: the hundreds of signals an organization has from your activities are combined into thousands of derived signals, which you probably would not have offered the organization freely.

Just for example, by combining several data points, Skynet can infer that those people are acquainted and add that fact to the corpus about you both. You would never give a retailer a full dump of everyone in your address book, but it's pretty much given they know it.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#108

Post by larkeith »

reaperducer wrote: post #105
larkeith wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is already a separate criminal suit; this one is just trying to prevent him from profiting from his book, due to it (allegedly) containing intelligence info and violating his NDA. From the link: "This lawsuit is separate from the criminal charges brought against Snowden for his alleged disclosures of classified information. This lawsuit is a civil action, and based solely on Snowden’s failure to comply with the…

If I buy the book, does that make me a criminal accessory? Or guilty of the receipt of stolen property (information)?

"The United States’ lawsuit does not seek to stop or restrict the publication or distribution of Permanent Record."

So presumably not.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#109

Post by pdkl95 »

omarhaneef wrote: post #43
bb88 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rightly or wrongly, that is not a part of the SF86 form when one applies for a clearance. The SF86 form offers no leeway for moral objections. So in such a scenario, it would be better to not submit the SF86 form in the first place. The only people I'm aware of that can publish classified information without punishment are journalists.

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…

> conflate what is moral with what is legal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#110

Post by 4ntonius8lock »

chrisdhoover wrote: post #78
indigochill wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There the concept of civil disobedience. You don't simply leave a country because you disagree with it, you change it. Refer to the King and the civil rights movement for more. Go further back to the other Martin Luther for even more.

Isn't the concept of political refugees contrary to what you are saying?

The way I see it, we acknowledge that sometimes a government can act outside of it's own boundaries in a repressive manner. That is why we help those who are fleeing persecution based on political activity.

Saying you can't push for change and run away when repression comes would mean that a lot of people I admire, including the Dalai Lama, are bad people. I disagree.

Post reply on HN