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

111–120 of 170 posts

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

#111

Post by wahern »

jonawesomegreen wrote: post #11

Twitter thread from Snowden: https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207624251953549312 > The government may steal a dollar, but it cannot erase the idea that earned it. I wrote this book, Permanent Record, for you, and I hope the government's ruthless desperation to prevent its publication only inspires you read it—and then gift it to another. > The court's ruling is a hack intended to circumvent First Amendment limits…

The ruling is based on a claim that "Snowden breached several contracts with and fiduciary duties to the United States". The crux here is that Snowden was an employee and contractor. If he didn't have that prior, voluntary relationship, then the government likely wouldn't have any firm ground to stand on.

I don't see how you could eliminate such a claim without also eliminating the ability of the government to require and enforce secrecy from private contractors and employees more generally. For example, imagine IRS workers writing a tell-all book about the tax returns of various people.

IMO Snowden is a persecuted patriot and should be pardoned for any and all crimes (notwithstanding the legitimacy of some of the alleged crimes). But that doesn't mean the government doesn't have legitimate interests in censuring some forms of information. "Free speech" is a term of art and until very recently in nobody's wildest imagination would it cover the disclosure in the first instance of internal government data by government employees and contractors.

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

#112

Post by roenxi »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #101
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…

Do you think that the existence of classified information is antithetical to the 1st amendment? I don't see how a nation can have secrets without being able to enforce at least some limitations on free (and commercial...) speech.

If the government is allowed to overrule the first amendment for classified information, how can someone like Snowden report corruption? Because what Snowden reported does appear to be the early warning signs of actual corruption. Many of the things that were revealed about Australia were things I would quite have liked the opportunity to vote against as an Australian and I expect there are US citizens in a similar position.

Democracies can't keep secrets, all the oversight mechanisms eventually rely on voters and fail if voters don't know what is going on. Making it clear to government employees that they will be sacked if they talk about something is fine. Short-term classification is theoretically a problem but workable in practice.

However it is well worth noting that capability related to PRISM probably started under Bush, expanded under Obama and may already have been used to surveil a presidential candidate with what is being revealed about the Trump campaign. That isn't a lot of political generations. Who knows what the democrat campaign will be subjected to by the current administration. We still might not know the full details of what is happening if classified capability is involved. From a systems perspective this is a rapidly developing disaster where voters can't make good decisions because information is being hidden. So yes classified info is antithetical to free speech.

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

#113

Post by skissane »

praptak wrote: post #65

When 9/11 happened, the predominant reaction worldwide was sympathy. Do you think that after all the subsequent actions of US government another similar event would elicit a similar level of sympathy if it happened now?

Yes, I think if thousands of innocent people were murdered again, there would be more sympathy, and about the same amount. Most people are able to separate the actions of the US government from those of individual office workers, firefighters, plane passengers, etc, the vast majority of whom had effectively zero personal input into or responsibility for US government policy.

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

#115

Post by colejohnson66 »

ne0flex wrote: post #62
rhacker wrote: post #17

It would be cool to see this go second hand by a fan. A fan that could buy up all the copies at a bulk rate (say $2 for 1M copies) Then re-sell those at the original price. Since it's now a used book, that fan could donate the profit to the original author, whoever that is.

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…

With the Citizen’s United case being a thing, how is that even legal? The Supreme Court has ruled that donations are speech.

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

#116

Post by colejohnson66 »

mattynice wrote: post #100
DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

did he? I noticed he wrote: The government may steal a dollar, but it cannot erase the idea that earned it. I wrote this book, Permanent Record, for you, and I hope the government's ruthless desperation to prevent its publication only inspires you read it—and then gift it to another. -- https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207624251953549312

He most certainly did: In response to: "Perhaps you'll consider releasing it under creative commons 2.0 at some point :)." He said: "I don't own the rights—the publisher does—but if you're extremely online, you can find a copy in the usual places." https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207628691234316288

That’s not saying you’re free to do so. That’s saying, if you want to, here’s how. There’s a fine line between the two.

In other words: He doesn’t own the rights, so he can’t tell you what you can do with it; Only the publisher can.

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

#117

Post by hos234 »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #101
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…

Do you think that the existence of classified information is antithetical to the 1st amendment? I don't see how a nation can have secrets without being able to enforce at least some limitations on free (and commercial...) speech.

Cheney and crew not only leaked stuff. They misused it to justify a pointless war that has had a high cost - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_aluminum_tubes

But the way the law works is they get to retire in peace.

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

#118

Post by stale2002 »

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.

That sounds wonderful. I wish this were possible.

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

#119

Post by colejohnson66 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #110
kube-system wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NDA enforcement is not at odds with the first amendment. Thousands of them are signed every day, and they hold up just like any other contract.

> NDA enforcement is not at odds with the first amendment. This isn't ordinary NDA enforcement, it's enforcement of a prior restraint on speech. With a normal NDA, if you publish information you're not supposed to, they can go to court and prove that the information was covered by the NDA and then get an order to stop you from continuing to publish it or sue you for damages. In this case they haven't proved that anyt…

> This isn't ordinary NDA enforcement, it's enforcement of a prior restraint on speech.

Which the Supreme Court famously ruled illegal in Near v. Minnesota[0] among many others.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_v._Minnesota

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

#120

Post by colejohnson66 »

irq11 wrote: post #88
soulofmischief wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cases like these should be protected with whistleblower laws. Legislation encouraging whistleblowing is a good thing.

Cases like these are protected by whistleblower laws. But you can’t just leak stuff, call yourself a whistleblower and claim immunity from prosecution. Factually, objectively, Snowden didn’t even try to use the law. (HN voters will immediately censor via downvote any comment that points this out, of course.)

> Factually, objectively, Snowden didn’t even try to use the law.

Are you sure? Cause I’m pretty sure he did try using the internal methods.

> (HN voters will immediately censor via downvote any comment that points this out, of course.)

No, we’re not censoring you because you’re right. We’re downvoting you because you’re wrong.

Post reply on HN