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

121–130 of 170 posts

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

#121

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#122

Post by farss »

snowedin wrote: post #107
farss wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

Gotcha. The argument here is that it may be that there is no classified material in the memoirs, but it doesn't matter. The publication review process can be used as an effective censorship measure in any case. Another commentator wrote something similar here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21837795 There's a thought experiment in that thread about whether or not pulling proceeds and profit is standard operatin…

Arguably the judgement against the book by the Navy Seal in the Bin Laden raid was a non-politicized example. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/24/matt-bissonnet...

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

#123

Post by saagarjha »

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.)

The law doesn't work in this case, because you can't file a case against a program that's classified.

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

#124

Post by snowedin »

farss wrote: post #122
snowedin wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gotcha. The argument here is that it may be that there is no classified material in the memoirs, but it doesn't matter. The publication review process can be used as an effective censorship measure in any case. Another commentator wrote something similar here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21837795 There's a thought experiment in that thread about whether or not pulling proceeds and profit is standard operatin…

Arguably the judgement against the book by the Navy Seal in the Bin Laden raid was a non-politicized example. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/24/matt-bissonnet...

Nice find, I think that's a good example.

I do remember some controversy around the publication, and the credit claiming between Bissonette and O'Neil, as well as some more sordid/gruesomeness details (stories about mutilating Bin Laden's corpse, details about his family not being armed but slaughtered nontheless). https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/the-crimes-of-seal-team-.... In doing so the public information through these Seal members undid a good deal of the public narrative about the professionalism and nobility of the assassination.

Still, I think this is a good and recent example to show at least the Snowden case isn't the government reaching for a tool they don't use in other cases.

The Patraeus case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus#Criminal_charge...) is the best example I have of counter-evidence to that, as they didn't demand any of the fees from the memoirs - just a probation and probationary fine.

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

#125

Post by snowedin »

paulcole wrote: post #102
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.

Could they try to come after the money Rogan made on that podcast?

My understanding is yes.

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

#126

Post by buboard »

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, the terrorist attacks originate in places where the US has actively bombed/messed up. not because of objections to surveillance

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

#127

Post by farss »

hinkley wrote: post #105
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…

They aren't stealing dollars from the publisher though, right? So the controversy is going to sell more copies, and they'll make a mint on this book. I'm sure he'll just get a huge advance on the next book and most of this will come out in the wash.

I believe they might go after the publisher in this case, and that Snowden already got a good advance they presumably can't get to while he's in Russia.

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

#128

Post by irq11 »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #120
irq11 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

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 normal whistleblower protocols or otherwise attempt to change the surveillance system from within before divulging its details to the outside world. He did not satisfy Rawls’s condition of fair notice.”

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

#129

Post by irq11 »

saagarjha wrote: post #123
irq11 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

The law doesn't work in this case, because you can't file a case against a program that's classified.

You are wrong:

http://www.dodhotline.dodig.mil/programs/whistleblower/icwpa...

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

#130

Post by colejohnson66 »

irq11 wrote: post #128
colejohnson66 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 .

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/53666/snowden-nsa-vanity-fair/

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mb9mza/exclusive-snowden-...

You can find many more articles stating that he did.

Post reply on HN