
The Feds Get Permission to Seize Edward Snowden's Book Profits - buboard
https://reason.com/2019/12/18/the-feds-get-permission-to-seize-edward-snowdens-book-profits/
======
jonawesomegreen
Twitter thread from Snowden:
[https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207624251953549312](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
> on what the gov't can censor. They can't (yet) ban the book, so they ban
> profit to try and prevent such books from being written in the first place.

~~~
hinkley
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.

~~~
farss
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.

------
cryptica
> 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 their most basic human rights as part
of a work contract.

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

How would they like it if the government told CEOs and other corporate
executives that in order to be an American citizen and live in America, they
need to sign away their rights to all the work they did and all the assets
they amassed while living in the US? Imagine if every developed country in the
world demanded the same.

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.

If the company can't make sure that employees don't work on side projects
during company time then it's because managers are incompetent and such poorly
run company doesn't deserve any legal protection.

~~~
Rebelgecko
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.

~~~
xenophonf
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 others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their
natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against
degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those
entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into
tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this
would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at
large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which
history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages
and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and
prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes; And whereas it is
generally true that that people will be happiest whose laws are best, and are
best administered, and that laws will be wisely formed, and honestly
administered, in proportion as those who form and administer them are wise and
honest; whence it becomes expedient for promoting the publick happiness that
those person, whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue, should be
rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred
deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, and that they
should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other
accidental condition or circumstance; but the indigence of the greater number
disabling them from so educating, at their own expence, those of their
children whom nature hath fitly formed and disposed to become useful
instruments for the public, it is better that such should be sought for and
educated at the common expence of all, than that the happiness of all should
be confided to the weak or wicked:..._

Bill 79 was mostly about public schooling, but it contains the kernel of an
argument for more open governance and against ubiquitous secrecy in language
like "give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that,
possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be
enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their
natural powers to defeat its purposes".

~~~
lern_too_spel
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.

~~~
xenophonf
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.

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

------
post_break
Just remember Obama signed an executive order that prohibits you from donating
to Snowden. [https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-
office/2015/0...](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-
office/2015/04/01/executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-engaging-
significant-m)

~~~
AndrewBissell
Worth noting that Snowden requests donations to the families in Hong Kong who
sheltered him while he was fleeing U.S. authorities:
[https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207629293230137344](https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207629293230137344)

------
nimbius
The logical next-step is to ensure this book is stocked in every public
library in America.

If the US Government intends to capture the profits from this book, then there
is ample incentive to purchase copies for public consumption as it is now
effectively purchased at-cost.

------
abfan1127
Some people are saying to release the book. It seems the better thing to do is
sell it for cost. I'd buy it if the the Feds didn't get a dollar.

~~~
mark-r
I wonder if you can buy a foreign version from Amazon?

~~~
jethro_tell
Well, they probably aren't going to take the profits from amazon, it's going
to go to the publisher, then they will probably garnish the payments to
snowden or freeze the accounts or something like that.

------
rhacker
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.

~~~
ne0flex
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 blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my
ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I
hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order."

Where Snowden, or people similar to him, fall within the category of persons
described within Section 1.

[1]:[https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-
office/2015/0...](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-
office/2015/04/01/executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-engaging-
significant-m)

~~~
rhacker
EOs shouldn't be able affect that.

~~~
mywittyname
Unfortunately, our inept Congress decided over the years to cede so much of
their governing ability to the president. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but
my understanding is that executive authority is quite vast and grows each
year.

~~~
rhacker
I mean yeah, they might be able to arrest someone. The unfortunate aspect is
that it is now up to the arrested person to tell the judge that they were
arrested because of an executive order which only applies to the rules that
govern federal agencies - and that they, and higher courts alone can overturn
that order (or the act of arrest due to the order).

~~~
jethro_tell
Which is probably a blocker for a large number of people. That would very much
mess with my family as I don't have anyone to help with my kids while I'm
indisposed. It also makes it awkward for companies to accept donations on his
behalf which will lessen access to many people.

This stuff is never to block all transactions, it's to limit them to only a
few and cut the flow substantially.

------
the_watcher
The actual reason surprised me, I expected it to be Son of Sam law related
(can't profit from works related to a crime, so the debate would entirely be
about whether or not he committed a crime), but since he hasn't been tried I
don't believe that law can apply (recently learned this from a podcast about
Anna Delvey, who was able to keep an advance related to her fraud because it
came prior to her conviction).

------
snowedin
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.

~~~
farss
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 public criticism by former employees of the
lies, abuse, and failures of the Vietnam War.

[1] [https://www.lawfareblog.com/path-dependence-and-pre-
publicat...](https://www.lawfareblog.com/path-dependence-and-pre-publication-
review-process)

[2] [https://shadowproof.com/2019/12/18/us-government-
censorship-...](https://shadowproof.com/2019/12/18/us-government-censorship-
system-lawsuit-snowden-nsa/)

~~~
snowedin
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](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 operating proceedure or really arbitrarity and
politically applied. Do you happen to know if there are examples of this
pattern and process being applied in non-politically motivated situations?

~~~
farss
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...](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/24/matt-bissonnette-
pay-us-government-confidentiality-osama-bin-laden)

~~~
snowedin
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-...](https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/the-crimes-of-seal-team-6/). 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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus#Criminal_charges_and_probation))
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.

------
ur-whale
Looks like the gov't hasn't heard of the Streisand effect. Which in is case,
is a very good thing.

~~~
choward
I know. I had forgotten about the book until I saw this article. I think I'll
buy it now and more importantly I'll read it.

~~~
rahuldottech
No point in buying it, now. You're better off just downloading it now.

~~~
choward
Of course. Good point.

------
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21832129](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21832129)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21828389](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21828389)

------
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.

------
manicdee
How to evade taxes like a multinational:

1\. Each book is charged as a print unit to the parent company overseas

2\. The cost per print unit is higher than the shelf price

3\. Every sale is now a loss

------
buboard
Well they did all the work, he just wrote the book about it...

If in the US, you'd better return the book and ask for a refund

------
praptak
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?

~~~
skissane
Yes, I think if thousands of innocent people were murdered again, there would
be more sympathy, and about the same amount. Most people are able to separate
the actions of the US government from those of individual office workers,
firefighters, plane passengers, etc, the vast majority of whom had effectively
zero personal input into or responsibility for US government policy.

------
jacquesm
Wonder if Bolton will see his profits seized as well from his 'tell all' book.

------
LatteLazy
That's pretty obscene.

------
HoveringOrb
Now I don't have to sorry I pirated it.

------
kneel
Steal the book and send bitcoin to Snowden.

------
arkanciscan
Glad I torrented it then! Always relish an opportunity to steal from the
federal government!!!

------
stazz1
Lame. Freedom of Speech is dead with this one.

------
alexnewman
Edward Snowden just gave me permission to steal and distribute this book. Have
fun

~~~
DyslexicAtheist
did he? I noticed he wrote:

 _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._ \--
[https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207624251953549312](https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207624251953549312)

~~~
chasing
Does it say somewhere in the article that the government is attempt to prevent
its publication? Sounds like they're just stripping his profits.

~~~
gknoy
When one cannot prevent the publication, one can prevent any reward that the
author might get from it. It's not a far stretch to consider this to be aimed
(at least partially) at discouraging such publications.

~~~
mark-r
If by profits we're talking about the publisher's and not just Snowden's, this
could be a very effective way of getting the book off the shelves.

------
snapetom
Playing Devil's Advocate, the Feds are going after Snowden not on the premise
of censoring him. Instead, they are arguing that as part of his employment
agreement, they have the right to vet anything IP related he publicly
discloses. It's similar to many employer-employee relationships. I've had to
pass my slide deck to my manager to screen before speaking at conferences and
many companies have an officially sanctioned engineering blog as an outlet.

Obviously Snowden is close to heart for many in HN, and I personally see him
as a hero. However, when viewed as contract law instead of censorship,
shouldn't the Feds be allowed this seizure?

~~~
jstanley
Have you read the book? It's more like an autobiography than a spilling of
secrets.

There's nothing in the book about CIA or NSA operations that isn't already
public knowledge.

~~~
snapetom
Admittedly I haven't read it. Are the operations information in the book from
his leaks?

------
hota_mazi
A lot of people seem to think this is some kind of retaliation specifically
targeted at Snowden and trying to prevent him from publishing his book.

Two quick facts:

\- Nobody ever tried to ban his book.

\- The government receiving the profits of that book comes from a simple and
universal rule that nobody is allowed to benefit from a crime.

It's a rule that makes a lot of sense, whether you agree that person is a
criminal or not.

~~~
hinkley
In a work environment, especially after a buyout, you will hear people say how
X is important, while also cutting all funding for X.

When a company says something is important but then cut the legs out from
underneath it, they aren't being honest. They don't actually like X, they're
just trying to avoid a conflict and hoping people will just forget about it.

Demonetizing something is policy, be you government or corporate.

------
onetimemanytime
To be fair, Snowden was given access to a lot of stuff because he promised not
to reveal them outside of the chain of command. He did, and claimed that the
chain was broken and the people needed to know. Fine. The government didn't
even try to ban the the book (it would have been impossible anyway.)

But, why should he profit ??

~~~
lacker
I don’t care about Snowden making a profit, but I do care about the first
amendment. The government is not allowed to impose a fine on speech they don’t
like. That is not “free speech”.

~~~
onetimemanytime
Not a free speech case at all. He said all he wanted. The book is out and
anyone can buy, just the person that broke the legal agreement (not to share
the classified stuff he learned in books without prior clearance) will not
make money of that info. Otherwise anyone can do a few years in jail and then
make $x million by telling what he saw while working for CIA/NSA etc.

~~~
soulofmischief
Cases like these should be protected with whistleblower laws.

Legislation encouraging whistleblowing is a good thing.

------
no_opinions
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 be nice if we all cooperated as
countries and built a space elevator. But that's a child's fantasy, in the end
there's a power dilemma.

The thing with surveillance / war industry / etc. is there isn't a better
alternative. It's not about being bullheaded and mean - it's about the very
real threat of losing dominance and having foreign powers boss you around.
This has happened to many countries throughout the history of civilization.

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 - for instance, stricter rules around stored data. Other
things include better social benefits, affordable housing, better
representation as consumer (e.g. right to repair)?

I bet security will mean a lot more when the system being protected helps the
common person more. :)

~~~
buboard
> Other things include better social benefits, affordable housing, better
> representation as consumer (e.g. right to repair)?

Moving to china is a good way to ensure all those, and you get free and
pervasive surveilance as a bonus. what's not to love

~~~
no_opinions
They also don't have many social benefits, consumer representation or
affordable housing.

If they had to pay US companies back for all the IP they've stolen / used
without licensing, they'd be broke.

