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

71–80 of 170 posts

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

#71

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

bigwavedave wrote: post #64
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

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

#72

Post by soulofmischief »

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.

Cases like these should be protected with whistleblower laws.

Legislation encouraging whistleblowing is a good thing.

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

#73

Post by [deleted] »

lacker wrote: post #24
onetimemanytime wrote: post #20

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 ??

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]

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

#74

Post by rdiddly »

cryptica wrote: post #59

> 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…

As with most things people do, it's a matter of doing it, and then justifying it afterward.

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

#75

Post by buboard »

snapetom wrote: post #58

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 sanction…

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

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

#77

Post by farss »

snowedin wrote: post #69

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.

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-...

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

#78

Post by choward »

rahuldottech wrote: post #66
choward wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#79

Post by Sargos »

hota_mazi wrote: post #55

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 crimi…

>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.

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

#80

Post by mywittyname »

rhacker wrote: post #68
ne0flex wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 blo…

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.
Post reply on HN