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

141–150 of 170 posts

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

#141

Post by cmroanirgo »

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.

I've read it, and while it contains some interesting stories, he very clearly states in the opening chapter that there is nothing in the book that is classified in any way, nor should you expect to see them. It's more of his stories of how his mind changed over time and the culture of the cia/nsa and their private associated companies. If anything it seems to reveal (in an indicting kind of way) that what he did was achieved slowly (ie. Premeditated), rather than being a spur of the moment thing. Also, glaringly obvious is his love for his now wife, Lindsay. I found that her diary entries on the way she was treated was far more revealing and highly electric.

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

#142

Post by friendlybus »

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?

The US has always done bad things. That's how you get so much quantity of stuff, but behind it all there are grains of good if you look.

The reaction to 9/11 was interesting for most it was unpredictable and the day the US stopped being the untouchable top dog. It is easy to feel sympathy for an attack on home soil that had already delivered the aims of the aggressors who died in the attack, there were few loose threads. It became black and white.

The fall of gwbush in that time period really degraded the faith in the rich old white guy. The belief it was all under control and we could blindly have faith that the great president has it all sorted was deeply undermined. That warm and free feeling from the 90s died on 9/11.

As long as the next tragedy is just bad, I.e. incompetent or silly the US will be okay. If something truly evil comes out there's going to be trouble.

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

#143

Post by irq11 »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #130
irq11 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not wrong. He didn’t file a whistleblower complaint [1]. It’s interesting that you confidently assert that I’m wrong when you admit that you don’t even know what you’re saying is true. [1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/edward-snowden-national-security... ” There is some dispute about the facts of Snowden’s case, but according to the National Security Agency (NSA), he did not appeal to his superiors, follow the norm…

OFC the NSA asserts he didn't, but why would you trust the government to tell the truth? James Clapper flat out lied to Congress and got away with it. Why wouldn't they (the NSA) claim he didn't? They have an incentive to lie; They're not accountable to anyone. Snowden has no incentive to lie. And I assert it confidently because he did: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/edward-snowde... https://time.com/…

First, those three links all describe the same Vanity Fair interview. One cite, not three. The Vice link attempts to find the emails he claimed to send.

Second, emailing NSA lawyers is not the same as filing a whistleblower complaint. The Vice link makes the claim that contractors are not covered by whistleblower law, but certainly, he’s never provided any evidence that he actually tried to initiate that process...by contacting an attorney, for example.

Third, he has every incentive to lie, and it’s just absurd to suggest otherwise. He will be arrested and deported should he venture pretty much anywhere outside of Russia. His only recourse is convincing people that he is being unfairly persecuted.

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

#144

Post by logfromblammo »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #51
logfromblammo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The perspective of the state is twisted whenever it holds itself as separate from and superior to the populace.

The laws covering pre-screening of materials to be published assume that the interests of the state and of its subjects/citizens remain in alignment. Snowden's publication, being in the interests of the people and against the interests of the state, loudly proclaimed that this is no longer the case. The laws yet remain, and the agents of the state are employing them--again, in the interests of the state, and against the interests of most of the people.

When the laws contain no exceptions for publications that reveal malfeasance by the state against the people, that indicates to me that they were drafted by overly optimistic legislators that haven't yet argued with enough anarchists.

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

#146

Post by lern_too_spel »

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...

If what you claim is correct, the judge wouldn't have had to block proceeds from the book sales. It isn't correct. That executive order authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to impose sanctions on specific individuals who have engaged in the particular behavior described. The Secretary of the Treasury has not imposed such a sanction on Snowden. https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/

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

#149

Post by no_opinions »

hnaccount141 wrote: post #132
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…

There isn't a choice but to bulk collect and map reduce. It's a technical limitation - no one can predict the future.

> Just because that data hasn't been used against you or me yet doesn't mean it never will.

What do you mean? For what reason would it happen? What would be the consequence?

Also, the issue of foreign countries spying hasn't been addressed. They don't collect data and do bad stuff to us? Do they have strict checks and balances to respect Americans? Are they these distinguished moralists that we should let our guard down against?

Finally, no one has said a single specific thing about improving privacy for Americans. How specifically does it need to be improved? Nobody objected to making more narrowly tailored / less invasive procedures for Americans. Why not point out a problem - assuming those complaining even have one? - and suggest an improvement?

But why throw the baby out with the bathwater and say all bulk information gathering is bad in itself? If there is something to be addressed, don't you think it'd be better to just improve that one area?

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

#150

Post by colejohnson66 »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #138
roenxi wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well good thing he didn’t leak them! Instead, he gave them to The Guardian who reviewed them and only released what was pertinent.
Post reply on HN