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

151–160 of 170 posts

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

#151

Post by colejohnson66 »

snapetom wrote: post #91
buboard wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Clearly it's petty. The Feds have a history of taking one misguided step based on ignorance and never backing down no matter how stupid they look. We don't disagree on that. However, a lot of the comments here are based arguing First Amendment. Employees enter in all sorts of employee-employer agreements that limit First Amendment rights.

Yes, NDAs are a thing, but one could argue that the contract is a prior restraint on free speech, something the Supreme Court has ruled many times is unconstitutional.

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

#152

Post by soulofmischief »

irq11 wrote: post #143
colejohnson66 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

His passport was revoked during a transfer in Moscow. This entire situation is engineered by the same totalitarian government which you now seek to defend on the basis of their own skewed rules. As long as you play by these rules and don't question them, expect nothing to change.

The point of my post is that we need stronger legislation. Your argument that current legislation doesn't offer him protection in this situation only further strengthens my own argument.

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

#153

Post by mikro2nd »

post_break wrote: post #5
mikro2nd wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So read it and send Ed a dollar (or Bitcoin equiv.)

I think it's illegal to send him any money due to him being an enemy of the state.

1. I am not in your state.

2. Is Bitcoin money?

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

#154

Post by cryptica »

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.

I think there is a big difference between publishing classified information and publishing something that may hypothetically contain classified information.

I don't think the latter should be enforceable by a contract. I think any review/editorial process should be the writer's own responsibility.

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

#155

Post by irq11 »

soulofmischief wrote: post #152
irq11 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

His passport was revoked during a transfer in Moscow. This entire situation is engineered by the same totalitarian government which you now seek to defend on the basis of their own skewed rules. As long as you play by these rules and don't question them, expect nothing to change. The point of my post is that we need stronger legislation. Your argument that current legislation doesn't offer him protection in this situ…

” Your argument that current legislation doesn't offer him protection in this situation only further strengthens my own argument.”

That’s not my “argument”. That’s the opposite of what I’m saying. He had the ability to pursue official whistleblower status. He didn’t.

Also, this isn’t an argument, it’s just a fact.

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

#156

Post by tjpnz »

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…

>Same thing goes for big corporations like Google which use contractual clauses to take possession of their employees' personal side projects. That is BS.

>That's what it's like in today's institution and corporation-dominated world. You can't work for a decent wage unless you're prepared to give up all your basic rights. It's disturbing that nobody is protesting this. It ought to be criminal.

You can still work in tech for a decent wage, without having to sign away your personal projects or free speech. It's difficult to have much sympathy towards those who choose to work for Google et el and then complain about the conditions of their employment. They signed up for it despite there being other options.

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

#157

Post by xenophonf »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #137
xenophonf wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, I agree, which is why I said "kernel of an argument".

Speaking of the Burr conspiracy, John Marshall issuing a subpoena to Jefferson regarding those papers is one of the earliest affirmations of the President being subject to the law and not above it.

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

#158

Post by lern_too_spel »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #150
lern_too_spel wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The Guardian released far more than what was illegal. Again, if Snowden went to the newspaper with just the one illegal US program that he uncovered, he would have been OK. Instead, he immediately leaked to China a list of compromised Chinese systems, among thousands of other documents he leaked through Greenwald that didn't contain anything illegal.

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

#159

Post by lern_too_spel »

xenophonf wrote: post #157
lern_too_spel wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, I agree, which is why I said "kernel of an argument". Speaking of the Burr conspiracy, John Marshall issuing a subpoena to Jefferson regarding those papers is one of the earliest affirmations of the President being subject to the law and not above it.

There is no "kernel of an argument" there either. Your quote is very obviously talking about history, not about state secrets.

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

#160

Post by frickinLasers »

snowedin wrote: post #104
frickinLasers wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is definitely some sensitive information in there. The government doesn't distinguish between classified information that is public knowledge, and still-secret classified information. Regardless, their point is that Snowden did not send the book in for approval/redaction before publishing, as would be required of any former employee of a three-letter agency writing about such things.

If I've read your comment correctly there are two major points: 1. It's highly likely (you said definitely) given the person and subject that some information in the memoir is at least sensitive even if it is not classified, and there's an equally good chance there is some classified information. 2. The actual suit doesn't need the book to contain classified information, they can block it entirely based on process. T…

1. For instance, he mentions a FISA court order referring to the NSA's interpretation of section 215 of the PATRIOT act--FISA documents are rarely unclassified (it's a secret court, after all), and secret interpretations by the NSA are just as likely to be highly classified.

2. Sorry, I'm not well versed in this area. I imagine Patraeus followed the rule when publishing his memoirs. Here are some links that might lead to what you're looking for:

https://www.al.com/news/2016/08/navy_seal_will_pay_68_millio...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-10/12/078r-...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/04/02/these-forme...

Post reply on HN