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

391–400 of 501 posts

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#391

Post by dredmorbius »

koolba wrote: post #114
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…

That does not make it less illegal. It just makes it a perfect candidate for jury nullification! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

This is a civil lawsuit.

Jury nullification gets its teeth from the principle of (no) double jeopardy: once a defendant in a criminal case is found not guilty of a charge, they cannot be re-tried on those same charges.

(There are an increasing number of loopholes, including of charges in another, or higher, jurisdictions, and/or on different charges.)

The prosecution has no right of appeal. The defence does.

This is not the case in a civil suit. Either party (plaintif, here, the US government, or defence, here, Snowden) may appeal an unfavourable decision, through courts of appeal or ultimately the Supreme Court.

Jury nullification specifically does not apply to this case.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#392

Post by sansnomme »

api wrote: post #388
xodice wrote: post #284

Jesus, who the fuck cares about what Snowden released. I am more sad people aren't way up in arms about WHAT WE LEARNED. (Yes, I understand that sentence makes itself not make sense, but you get my point. Rushed and on mobile, but this pissed me off.) Thank you Snowden, and fuck you U.S. Government. - A U.S. Citizen

I am more concerned about what Facebook, Google, and a bunch of adtech firms are doing. The private sector surveillance machine is probably more competent and high tech than three letter government agencies (it pays better and gets first pick of the talent pool), is subject to zero oversight, is almost completely lawless, and gathers quite a bit more information. The NSA at least has to answer to someone and is subje…

The FAANG tech unicorns at the current height of their power still pales in comparison to the East India Companies (British/Dutch/whatever the country doesn't really matter). Traverse the dependency tree of power and I don't think you will like what you would find near the root. At the end of the day, tech unicorns flourish within the legal sandbox of civilization. Without any command over legitimate violence, they have relatively little power compared to the government.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#393

Post by dredmorbius »

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…

...it is illegal for any US citizen to inform...

Strictly, no.

This is not a criminal case, judging guilt for crime; it's a civil contracts case for injunction against profits, per the NDA.

And citizens not bound by the NDA, who happen into the information (as would be the case with numerous US-citizen reporters who've written on the Snowden stoy while including specifics of his information disclosures) are not enjoined. At least not in this case.

The NDA does make it remarkably difficult for anyone with specific insider knowledge to publish and profit by disclosure.

NB: I am a space alien cat, not a lawyer. I'm not defending any position, publication, or contract, or questions of possible criminal prosecution. Just clarifying what is at hand, and what language applies.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#394

Post by dredmorbius »

onetimemanytime wrote: post #142
jaboutboul wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He could have released it as a free pdf. In fact, he can still do this (unless his publisher own it now.)

If he were clever he'd have negotiated an escape clause for this contingency.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#395

Post by dredmorbius »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #4

Well, guess I'll wait to see how this turns out before buying the book, I wouldn't want to hand one more penny than necessary to these .gov ghouls. If the government prevails in the lawsuit hopefully Snowden will offer an e-book for purchase with cryptocurrency.

The information hurts more than the money helps.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#397

Post by [deleted] »

dredmorbius wrote: post #391
koolba wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does not make it less illegal. It just makes it a perfect candidate for jury nullification! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

This is a civil lawsuit. Jury nullification gets its teeth from the principle of (no) double jeopardy: once a defendant in a criminal case is found not guilty of a charge, they cannot be re-tried on those same charges. (There are an increasing number of loopholes, including of charges in another, or higher, jurisdictions, and/or on different charges.) The prosecution has no right of appeal. The defence does. This is…

[deleted]

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#398

Post by dredmorbius »

thomascgalvin wrote: post #79
gnud wrote: post #3

Disclaimer: I'm just a ingorant non-lawyer non-american. Wouldn't a great defense here be that the NDAs shouldn't be enforced because the actions covered were criminal? I mean, isn't that standard with NDAs?

Whistleblower laws allow you to blow the whistle to a government agency , not to the press or the public in general.

Source?

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#399

Post by bb88 »

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.

We're not dealing with an authoritarian state. Laws by democratic governments are supposed to be mutable.

It's possible say, that the laws haven't caught up to what we (as americans) consider moral. Or it's possible the laws themselves were driven by immoral actors. Or it's possible the law's were passed with good intentions but had side effects that were unforeseeable. Or it's just one big gray area -- which seems to be the case here.

People argue that Snowden's act was moral in the most absolute sense to inform the nation and expose the Government's secrets.

James Comey, someone I think to be of high moral standards, knew about the program [1] yet didn't release the information to the public. He refused to reauthorize the post 9/11 surveillance program -- going to extraordinary lengths to do so.

So what are we to do? Is it more moral to work within the system to change the laws, or to break them entirely?

[1] https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mueller-comey-ash...

Edited for clarity and succinctness.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#400

Post by [deleted] »

api wrote: post #388
xodice wrote: post #284

Jesus, who the fuck cares about what Snowden released. I am more sad people aren't way up in arms about WHAT WE LEARNED. (Yes, I understand that sentence makes itself not make sense, but you get my point. Rushed and on mobile, but this pissed me off.) Thank you Snowden, and fuck you U.S. Government. - A U.S. Citizen

I am more concerned about what Facebook, Google, and a bunch of adtech firms are doing. The private sector surveillance machine is probably more competent and high tech than three letter government agencies (it pays better and gets first pick of the talent pool), is subject to zero oversight, is almost completely lawless, and gathers quite a bit more information. The NSA at least has to answer to someone and is subje…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN