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

The Feds Get Permission to Seize Edward Snowden's Book Profits

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 170 posts

Re: The Feds Get Permission to Seize Edward Snowden's Book Profits

#51

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

logfromblammo wrote: post #40
lacker wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”.

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…

> 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.

Re: The Feds Get Permission to Seize Edward Snowden's Book Profits

#52

Post by feanaro »

post_break wrote: post #5
mikro2nd wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To be just a tiny bit flippant about it, is it illegal not to live in the USA too?

Re: The Feds Get Permission to Seize Edward Snowden's Book Profits

#53

Post by [deleted] »

no_opinions wrote: post #36
buboard wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

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.

[deleted]

Re: The Feds Get Permission to Seize Edward Snowden's Book Profits

#54

Post by the_watcher »

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).

Re: The Feds Get Permission to Seize Edward Snowden's Book Profits

#55

Post by hota_mazi »

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.

Re: The Feds Get Permission to Seize Edward Snowden's Book Profits

#57

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

onetimemanytime wrote: post #25
lacker wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”.

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.

> 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?

Re: The Feds Get Permission to Seize Edward Snowden's Book Profits

#58

Post by snapetom »

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?

Re: The Feds Get Permission to Seize Edward Snowden's Book Profits

#59

Post by cryptica »

> 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.

Re: The Feds Get Permission to Seize Edward Snowden's Book Profits

#60

Post by edoo »

post_break wrote: post #49

Just remember Obama signed an executive order that prohibits you from donating to Snowden. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/0...

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-...

Post reply on HN