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

131–140 of 170 posts

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

#131

Post by washadjeffmad »

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…

It seems strange that he didn't release it to the public domain or GPL it right after they announced their intent to seize funds.

I guess he's still profiting from other markets?

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

#132

Post by hnaccount141 »

no_opinions wrote: post #18

It would be great if there was world peace, happy families and spouses that stayed together forever, and no foreigners targeting your country. People often forget that foreign governments are targeting USA and US persons abroad. There isn't another move left but to have surveillance tools and ingest a lot of data. If the advantage is lost, it will be someone else having it. This also extends to military things. It'd…

> instead of complaining about surveillance in intelligence, which likely doesn't relate to you, why not complain about "normal" civil liberties in a criminal law context

Because some of us believe privacy to be a human right and aren't willing to accept violations of other's rights even if we might happen to benefit from it in the short term?

Also, it absolutely does apply to us. The biggest revelation of Snowden's leaks was that the NSA was collecting data on all of us, not just people for whom they had probable cause. Just because that data hasn't been used against you or me yet doesn't mean it never will.

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

#133

Post by yeezul »

washadjeffmad wrote: post #131
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…

It seems strange that he didn't release it to the public domain or GPL it right after they announced their intent to seize funds. I guess he's still profiting from other markets?

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207628691234316288

> I don't own the rights—the publisher does—but if you're extremely online, you can find a copy in the usual places.

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

#134

Post by sachdevap »

yeezul wrote: post #133
washadjeffmad wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems strange that he didn't release it to the public domain or GPL it right after they announced their intent to seize funds. I guess he's still profiting from other markets?

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207628691234316288 > I don't own the rights—the publisher does—but if you're extremely online, you can find a copy in the usual places.

Search for "b ok cc" on Google if people are looking for the book.

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

#135

Post by boring_twenties »

On Amazon, I see $17.99 for the brand new hardcover, and the cheapest used copy ("very good" condition) is $23.13.

Damn it. Guess I'll buy the used one anyway.

Oh and thanks feds for reminding me about this, I totally forgot that this book existed.

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

#136

Post by sachdevap »

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…

[flagged]

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

#137

Post by lern_too_spel »

xenophonf wrote: post #106
Rebelgecko wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Classified information is antithetical to Thomas Jefferson's ideal of a well informed citizenry to whom government is ultimately responsible and accountable. He affirmed this idea throughout his political writings, but most notably in Bill 79, "A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge." Its preamble reads as follows: Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than ot…

That is a gross misreading of the text. He is talking about teaching about past governments and education in general. The Jefferson administration's withholding of a letter from the Aaron Burr trial because they contained national security information is the origin of the state secrets privilege in the United States.

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

#138

Post by lern_too_spel »

roenxi wrote: post #112
Rebelgecko wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

> how can someone like Snowden report corruption

By simply reporting corruption. Where Snowden got into trouble is that less than 0.1% of the documents he leaked describe anything illegal.

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

#139

Post by kube-system »

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…

> 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.

That is exactly what happened in this instance. The court determined he did violate the agreement. The information did not need to be classified, any "mention of intelligence data or activities" was covered. The agreement outlined the damages that would be assessed -- the proceeds from the publication.

https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/snowd...

Son of Sam laws and prior restraint is probably not relevant here, these obligations are the result of a voluntary contract he signed. All of the case law I'm aware of surrounding those are about obligatory restrictions, not ones that were voluntarily accepted. In general, prior restraint has national security exceptions, and there's no way any sane court is going to rule that the NSA secrecy agreements aren't legal.

Post reply on HN