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

161–170 of 170 posts

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

#161

Post by roenxi »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #158
colejohnson66 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, say there was something in there that should be illegal. How would it get made illegal since since even the US public & Congress was getting bad information about what was going on?

If the communities in control of classified material are frequently lying to the rest of the government about what is classified (seems likely) how is the government supposed to properly decide what is and isn't legal? How is the public supposed to direct the government about what should or shouldn't be illegal? This is the crux of the matter. There is a bunch of stuff going on that should be illegal that can't be made illegal because nobody is quite sure what is happening.

Some links related to the honesty of the intelligence head honchos:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/growing-evidence-tha...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-di...

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

#162

Post by lern_too_spel »

roenxi wrote: post #161
lern_too_spel wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, say there was something in there that should be illegal. How would it get made illegal since since even the US public & Congress was getting bad information about what was going on? If the communities in control of classified material are frequently lying to the rest of the government about what is classified (seems likely) how is the government supposed to properly decide what is and isn't legal? How is the publ…

> How would it get made illegal since since even the US public & Congress was getting bad information about what was going on?

In Snowden's case, there was nothing that should be made illegal or else it would have been made illegal after the leaks.

If Snowden had just leaked the one illegal program instead of lists of compromised Chinese systems and a bunch of other things that will never be illegal, he would be a whistleblower instead of a fugitive criminal.

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

#163

Post by roenxi »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #162
roenxi wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, say there was something in there that should be illegal. How would it get made illegal since since even the US public & Congress was getting bad information about what was going on? If the communities in control of classified material are frequently lying to the rest of the government about what is classified (seems likely) how is the government supposed to properly decide what is and isn't legal? How is the publ…

> How would it get made illegal since since even the US public & Congress was getting bad information about what was going on? In Snowden's case, there was nothing that should be made illegal or else it would have been made illegal after the leaks. If Snowden had just leaked the one illegal program instead of lists of compromised Chinese systems and a bunch of other things that will never be illegal, he would be a wh…

> In Snowden's case, there was nothing that should be made illegal or else it would have been made illegal after the leaks.

The technical term for that is 'your opinion'. I disagree with it on many counts, which is the concept known as 'my opinion'. Now your or my opinion might or might not line up with what everyone agrees is acceptable - but the mechanisms we have to figure that out involve (1) information being publicly available and (2) information being debated and (3) voting.

And this is going to why classified information is antithetical to the 1st amendment - if someone goes into the intelligence community and says 'oh my god, all this should be illegal' then they need to be able to publicly lobby to have it made illegal.

> If Snowden had just leaked the one illegal program...

That is dodging my point - the issue is whether or not the programs should be made illegal; what the intelligence agencies are developing the look like terrible apparatus that would have a welcoming home in any authoritarian state.

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

#164

Post by lern_too_spel »

roenxi wrote: post #163
lern_too_spel wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How would it get made illegal since since even the US public & Congress was getting bad information about what was going on? In Snowden's case, there was nothing that should be made illegal or else it would have been made illegal after the leaks. If Snowden had just leaked the one illegal program instead of lists of compromised Chinese systems and a bunch of other things that will never be illegal, he would be a wh…

> In Snowden's case, there was nothing that should be made illegal or else it would have been made illegal after the leaks. The technical term for that is 'your opinion'. I disagree with it on many counts, which is the concept known as 'my opinion'. Now your or my opinion might or might not line up with what everyone agrees is acceptable - but the mechanisms we have to figure that out involve (1) information being pu…

> The technical term for that is 'your opinion'.

The technical term is "my opinion and the opinion of every lawmaker" because no bill was introduced. What exactly do you think should be illegal but isn't?

> That is dodging my point

No, it isn't. There were many things in the leaks that nobody, including Snowden, thinks should be illegal. Intelligence agencies hacking Chinese systems is among them. This makes Snowden's actions bad even in your very lenient view of what leaks should be protected.

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

#165

Post by AnthonyMouse »

kube-system wrote: post #139
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ac…

> The agreement outlined the damages that would be assessed -- the proceeds from the publication.

But that's the issue. When the contracting party is the government and the "damages" for not abiding by a prior restraint are calculated to precisely coincide with any incentive anyone could provide to supply the information to the public (i.e. calculated to provide disincentive rather than compensate for actual damages), it's infringing on the right of every member of the public to pay for the information -- and those members of the public never agreed to any such contract. Especially when the restriction is specifically being imposed on the purchaser rather than the recipient, since the recipient isn't even in the court's jurisdiction at the time of the payment.

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

#166

Post by roenxi »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #164
roenxi wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In Snowden's case, there was nothing that should be made illegal or else it would have been made illegal after the leaks. The technical term for that is 'your opinion'. I disagree with it on many counts, which is the concept known as 'my opinion'. Now your or my opinion might or might not line up with what everyone agrees is acceptable - but the mechanisms we have to figure that out involve (1) information being pu…

> The technical term for that is 'your opinion'. The technical term is "my opinion and the opinion of every lawmaker" because no bill was introduced. What exactly do you think should be illegal but isn't? > That is dodging my point No, it isn't. There were many things in the leaks that nobody, including Snowden, thinks should be illegal. Intelligence agencies hacking Chinese systems is among them. This makes Snowden'…

> and the opinion of every lawmaker

Yes, and there is a very well known system for changing lawmakers when they have opinions people disagree with (ie, voting). The opinions of the lawmakers are important, but the mix of opinions that are allowed to become lawmakers depends on what is talked about in public.

> What exactly do you think should be illegal but isn't?

Well, I'm in Australia so my opinion really doesn't count. But we all have experiences in the 20th century that show governments building big facial recognition databases and surveillance systems is fraught with risks. There will be groups in America who want the entire surveillance system to be illegal. If I was an American voter I would want the whole thing shut down. The government literally can't be undertaking global projects and also be properly held to account for their actions if the voters are disallowed from being told about them. Even if I was happy with the system in principle it is likely that the individual actions are dodgy and corrupt.

The costs and benefits can't be weighed up by a voter if both classified.

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

#167

Post by sbarre »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #158
colejohnson66 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have a citation for this?

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

#168

Post by lern_too_spel »

roenxi wrote: post #166
lern_too_spel wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The technical term for that is 'your opinion'. The technical term is "my opinion and the opinion of every lawmaker" because no bill was introduced. What exactly do you think should be illegal but isn't? > That is dodging my point No, it isn't. There were many things in the leaks that nobody, including Snowden, thinks should be illegal. Intelligence agencies hacking Chinese systems is among them. This makes Snowden'…

> and the opinion of every lawmaker Yes, and there is a very well known system for changing lawmakers when they have opinions people disagree with (ie, voting). The opinions of the lawmakers are important, but the mix of opinions that are allowed to become lawmakers depends on what is talked about in public. > What exactly do you think should be illegal but isn't? Well, I'm in Australia so my opinion really doesn't c…

> governments building big facial recognition databases and surveillance systems is fraught with risks.

Specifically, what in the Snowden leaks should be illegal? There were no facial recognition databases in there. So far, you have not given any reason why Snowden's leaks are permissible in your view.

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

#169

Post by lern_too_spel »

sbarre wrote: post #167
lern_too_spel wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have a citation for this?

https://amp.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1260306/edward-s...

Look up a Snowden US intelligence leak at random, and unless it's the phone metadata collection, it's legal.

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

#170

Post by lenkite »

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 always found it funny that people say that if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. But hey that never seems to apply to the government.
Post reply on HN