
United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden - coloneltcb
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/united-states-files-civil-lawsuit-against-edward-snowden
======
HashThis
This is the "It is illegal to inform the citizen base that the government has
removed their constitutional right" lawsuit.

The NSA and FBI removed every US citizen of their constitutional right, to
privacy. Edward Snowden informed the US citzen base on their constitutional
rights being removed.

This lawsuit is the government saying it is illegal for any US citizen to
inform all other citizens when the government removes their constitutational
rights.

~~~
bb88
Rightly or wrongly, that is not a part of the SF86 form when one applies for a
clearance.

The SF86 form offers no leeway for moral objections. So in such a scenario, it
would be better to not submit the SF86 form in the first place.

The only people I'm aware of that can publish classified information without
punishment are journalists.

~~~
omarhaneef
I see the same issue with the other debate raging on HN: Stallman and Free
Speech.

The issue is that people -- not sure whether it was OP, or you -- conflate
what is moral with what is legal.

One person starts off with a moral premise: people should have free speech, or
people should have the right to say what the government is doing.

Someone else responds with what is _legal_ : the law applies to government
curtailment of free speech, or there was a contract in place.

Laws should reflect values, not vice-versa. What is legal should not be
confused with what is right.

Note: I am not taking a moral position myself here. I just wish the legal
position would not short-circuit the debate about what the correct moral
position ought to be.

~~~
indigochill
I agree with your observation and statement, but also want to add there is a
moral argument that if one objects to a law or a contract, one should remove
oneself from under it (leave the country/company) rather than break it, even
if the law itself is immoral.

Not that I'm arguing one way or another how that applies in this situation,
though.

~~~
chrisdhoover
There the concept of civil disobedience. You don't simply leave a country
because you disagree with it, you change it. Refer to the King and the civil
rights movement for more. Go further back to the other Martin Luther for even
more.

~~~
4ntonius8lock
Isn't the concept of political refugees contrary to what you are saying?

The way I see it, we acknowledge that sometimes a government can act outside
of it's own boundaries in a repressive manner. That is why we help those who
are fleeing persecution based on political activity.

Saying you can't push for change and run away when repression comes would mean
that a lot of people I admire, including the Dalai Lama, are bad people. I
disagree.

~~~
tempestn
There's a difference between saying it's OK to flee repression, which I don't
think anyone is disputing, and saying that given the option to flee, it's
_immoral_ to instead stay and practice civil disobedience, which was the claim
made up thread.

~~~
4ntonius8lock
Thanks for clarifying. It seems I was wrong in my understanding.

------
lawnchair_larry
_”The United States’ lawsuit does not seek to stop or restrict the publication
or distribution of Permanent Record. Rather, under well-established Supreme
Court precedent, Snepp v. United States, the government seeks to recover all
proceeds earned by Snowden because of his failure to submit his publication
for pre-publication review in violation of his alleged contractual and
fiduciary obligations.”_

What? Either he released inappropriate material and it should be pulled, or he
didn’t, and they should leave it alone. It is my understanding that a breach
of contract does not entitle one to compensation unless one can show damages.
By making this statement, they seem to be saying that there are none.

They’re basically saying “he doesn’t actually reveal anything problematic, we
just want to steal the profits for this work, because we don’t like him and we
can.”

~~~
gamblor956
No, it sounds like a run-of-the-mill breach of contract lawsuit.

As alleged, Snowden signed a contract where he agreed to do certain things, X,
for the right to do Y. He did Y but then didn't do X. And now the counterparty
is suing for damages under the contract.

The US government has limited power to stop publication, so all Snowden had to
due was submit the manuscript for review, _reject any requested changes_ , and
then go ahead and publish the book in its original form.

~~~
bb611
His NDA included USG restrictions on what he could publish, if he didn't
accept the changes the outcome would be the same.

NDA available via
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20998966](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20998966)

~~~
gamblor956
With respect to confidential information only...

It helps to actual read the NDAs and not just blindly cite to them.

------
kstenerud
For those wondering, the purpose here (part of a multi-pronged approach) is to
restrict his income and seize his assets. The less money someone has access
to, the less power they have. This makes it harder for him to live day-to-day,
restricts his access to experts who won't work pro-bono, and ultimately will
hurt his criminal defense should he ever return to the USA.

These guys don't fool around. Expect more pressure from other angles as well.

~~~
mCOLlSVIxp6c
I strongly agree. Since Snowden himself is presumably in Russia, the U.S.
government is effectively attempting economic sanctions against him. Their
method is to scare anyone that might send him money with a lawsuit.

~~~
kzrdude
He's just released a book, I wonder how it is set up, can he earn the money
from it or not?

~~~
likpok
If he loses the lawsuit, no (the money goes to a trust for the USG).

It's possible that Macmillan paid him an advance and so he already has the
money. I don't know if the feds can do much in that case.

~~~
toyg
This is indeed the case, the rumoured advance was around $100k.

Also, it's entirely possible that there will be ways for the publisher to
never repatriate profits from sales abroad and/or translations.

This is just petty stuff from petty bureaucrats.

------
abecedarius
I bought the book, and I hereby commit to donating a large multiple of the
price to an appropriate charity or Snowden himself if they win this suit.

~~~
alexfromapex
I hope the government realizes how much they’re pissing everyone off by
violating our rights and defending themselves for doing it

~~~
kamyarg
> how much they’re pissing everyone

I am afraid that it is not even a significant portion of the population that
is pissed.

If it was, then Snowden leaks wouldn't have been almost forgotten in 5-6
years. People seem to have accepted governments can do whatever they want
without any consequences.

Edit: Wanted to clarify that I am not even talking about the US, as part of
the leaks it was revealed that NSA was listening to Angela Merkel's Phone.
Germany has already forgotten that it seems.

~~~
lern_too_spel
> Germany has already forgotten that it seems.

No, Germany hasn't forgotten. The US trying to listen Merkel's phone and vice
versa is expected.

[https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-
intellig...](https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-intelligence-
also-snooped-on-white-house-a-1153592.html)

------
gnud
Disclaimer: I'm just a ingorant non-lawyer non-american.

Wouldn't a great defense here be that the NDAs shouldn't be enforced because
the actions covered were criminal? I mean, isn't that standard with NDAs?

~~~
thomascgalvin
Whistleblower laws allow you to blow the whistle _to a government agency_ ,
not to the press or the public in general.

~~~
arrosenberg
Courts have thrown out NDAs before because they were unreasonable or
unconscionable - Snowden would argue that he signed an NDA under the pretense
that the government was behaving according to its' own laws, and that the NDA
should be thrown out because that reasonable expectation was violated.

------
bloak
Nobody in this discussion seems to have mentioned the word "advance". Snowden
has already been paid for this book, and the advance will have been negotiated
with the expectation that it will be difficult to pay any additional
royalties.

Has Snowden's contract with the publisher been exhibited yet? It'll be
interesting to see if there's anything funny in there.

~~~
josho
Curiously since Snowden is a US citizen he’ll have to file & pay taxes on that
income.

~~~
JetSpiegel
Or what? The US will send him to jail?

------
reaperducer
Can one of the internet lawyers out there explain why this is a civil lawsuit,
and not a criminal lawsuit?

I'd think that if he committed an actual crime, it would be a criminal suit. I
thought civil suits were for people trying to get money out of each other.

Or is this like how the feds couldn't get Al Capone for murder so they put him
away for tax evasion?

~~~
larkeith
There is already a separate criminal suit; this one is just trying to prevent
him from profiting from his book, due to it (allegedly) containing
intelligence info and violating his NDA.

From the link: "This lawsuit is separate from the criminal charges brought
against Snowden for his alleged disclosures of classified information. This
lawsuit is a civil action, and based solely on Snowden’s failure to comply
with the clear pre-publication review obligations included in his signed non-
disclosure agreements. "

~~~
reaperducer
If I buy the book, does that make me a criminal accessory? Or guilty of the
receipt of stolen property (information)?

~~~
larkeith
"The United States’ lawsuit does not seek to stop or restrict the publication
or distribution of Permanent Record."

So presumably not.

------
zer0faith
Sadly, they will attempt to make an example out of Snowden to discourage
anyone from EVER doing something like this again.

~~~
tyri_kai_psomi
The thing people seem unable to do with Snowden is separate the intention of
his actions with the impact. I have no doubt he had the right intentions.
Informing the people of the gross violations of civil liberties is a noble
endeavor.

However, the impact that it had and the manner in which he conducted it, and
the channels he went through to do so had a dramatically negative impact on
sources and methods. Real people in the field were put into actual danger as a
direct result of his actions. US National Security was hampered as a result.
The biggest rejoicers were arguably our two biggest threats: Russia, whom we
have been fighting a proxy war in the middle east for ages now, and China and
that alone should tell you something. People who believe they are doing the
right thing for their country were endangered, and my country's ability to
keep us safe was hampered.

Surely there was a way to let the appropriate people in charge know about
these programs, and maybe had a greater possibility of enacting actual change,
because as it stands right now, while we are more informed as a people,
exactly zilch has changed since 2013.

~~~
behringer
You should read the book... nobody was put in danger. Snowden is an American
hero.

~~~
tyri_kai_psomi
You should talk to an actual intelligence officer or two. I have, which is
where I got that impression from.

~~~
okmokmz
That's like someone being stalked by a police officer being told to call the
police

~~~
tyri_kai_psomi
It's more along the lines of, and the maturity required to understand that,
there are two sides to every story and the people on the "other side" are
human beings, too, and in fact, not your enemy. Average Americans most of
them, believe it or not. Chances are some of them have been your friend,
neighbor, church member, frat bro/sorority sis, etc.

~~~
toyg
A lot of (or even most) members of totalitarian organisations are "average X",
good neighbours, church members etc etc.

I'd suggest to read some Arendt.

------
swixmix
This lawsuit is mostly about paragraph five of the NDA:

> 5\. I hereby assign to the United States Government all royalties,
> remunerations, and emoluments that have resulted, will result or may result
> from any disclosure, publication, or revelation of classified information
> not consistent with the terms of this Agreement.

[https://www.gsa.gov/forms-library/classified-information-
non...](https://www.gsa.gov/forms-library/classified-information-
nondisclosure-agreement-0)

Download SF312-13.pdf.

~~~
gigama
Meanwhile a sitting US President can profit from royalties, remunerations, and
emoluments that have resulted, will result or may result from foreigners and
diplomats renting hotel rooms and golf courses owned (not divested) by same
President and his immediate family.

------
paxys
Somehow I doubt the US government is after a few dollars from his book sales.
It is more of a message to anyone trying to publish "unapproved" material in
the future - don't do it or we will make your life hell.

------
sarcasmatwork
This seems like targeted harassment. Are those NDA's even valid anymore?

~~~
mcpherrinm
Having known other people who have worked for the NSA, they've had to clear
any publications with them before publishing (eg, academic papers in a field
related to their work, resumes describing work done at the NSA, etc).

My understanding is they're enforcable for the rest of your life.

I'd expect to see this if anybody published a book without clearance. It's
only newsworthy because it's Snowden.

~~~
sarcasmatwork
This all makes sense to me. I share your same expectations.

Now, I'd also expect Snowden to make sure he is not breaching those NDA's.
Afaik, he is not one to make these types of mistakes. Looking forward to his
response.

~~~
kelnos
It doesn't matter how careful he pays attention to his NDAs. He's required to
get approval before he publishes. No approval, no publication. Publish anyway,
and you're in breach of contract, even if the content would have been approved
in the fist place.

------
Swizec
Something that never made sense to me in the Snowden case is how any of this
works in face of whistleblower protection laws in USA.

According to Wikipedia, the US offers these legal protections:

> Whistleblower protection laws and regulations guarantee freedom of speech
> for workers and contractors in certain situations. Whistleblowers are
> protected from retaliation for disclosure of information which the employee
> or applicant reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule, or
> regulation, or gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of
> authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

But when Snowden blew the whistle on 3-letter agencies, all that goes out the
window? Does the government not follow its own laws?

~~~
henryfjordan
In Snowden's case, he was a contractor and the specific whistleblower law
covering the NSA did not apply to him.

~~~
crankylinuxuser
95% of what we think as "Federal workers" are in fact contractors.

Look no further than Accenture and similar. So sure, there's whistleblower
laws. But they're in name only, with no real power for those that work with
fed stuff in day to day operations.

~~~
ezoe
That is so convenient, isn't it? The government don't need to follow the law
which suppose to protect the whistleblowers.

~~~
crankylinuxuser
It's more complicated than that, sadly.

A lot of contractors are small outfits that "won" contracts because the
contract request was tailored for them. In the fed system, your max cap of
what you can make wage-wise, is limited by Congress.

The way around that is not to get paid wages, but becoming a contractor that
takes contracts at _MUCH_ higher than the wages would ever be. So it becomes a
form of its own version of corruption of "I want to hire and pay these people
appropriately but im unable to legally so I'll create a contract only they can
fulfill." But the corruption itself is rooted with price controls in Congress.

But one of the side effects is that they're "not working for the govt, but for
the company" and the company is working for the govt. It also means no govt
pension, or any of the perks for working directly for the govt. And well,
contractors get none of the protections of reporting wrong-doing.

------
rblion
This will only attract more attention to him and what he has to say, won't it?
If non-tech people did forget about him, now they will recall and wonder what
came of all this.

~~~
wallace_f
Unfortunately, many people are just subservient to authority. Einstein said of
this sort of thing when authorities attack liberty and justice:

>Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ
from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even
incapable of forming such opinions.

US courts even already ruled what Snowden revealed is unconstitutional.
Howevet, it's unlikely he will unanimously be seen as a hero until he has the
muscle in the world standing behind him.

------
dbrower
This is going to go pretty much like it went for Frank Snepp and "Decent
Interval", see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Snepp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Snepp)

~~~
BlahBoy3
I was thinking about the case of the Navy SEAL who wrote about the UBL
raid[0]. Same outcome- lots of surrendered money...

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Easy_Day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Easy_Day)

------
Tepix
If you're afraid that the US government and not Edward Snowden will receive
the proceeds of the book you purchase, you can also make a donation to Ed's
legal defense fund at

[https://edwardsnowden.com/en/donate/](https://edwardsnowden.com/en/donate/)

~~~
thathndude
He should give it away for free with a strongly encouraged donation.

------
mv4
Interesting timing. Just a couple of days ago, Snowden said he was hoping
France would grant him asylum.

~~~
n8henry
His book came out today.

------
DanielBMarkham
This may actually be good news. Somebody might have determined that it's not
worth the political cost to prosecute him publicly, so they'll press civil
charges, slowly make the criminal stuff go away, then it becomes a "normal"
lawsuit instead of such a hot potato. (I am freely speculating here)

~~~
dooglius
"The lawsuit also names as nominal defendants the corporate entities involved
in publishing Snowden’s book. The United States is suing the publisher solely
to ensure that no funds are transferred to Snowden, or at his direction, while
the court resolves the United States’ claims. Snowden is currently living
outside of the United States."

This is the actual goal here.

~~~
ryacko
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Shaffer_(intelligence_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Shaffer_\(intelligence_officer\))

>Shaffer published memoirs of his time as a reports officer in Afghanistan in
book titled Operation Dark Heart. Shaffer claims that the Defense Department
attempted to preserve secrecy of revelations made by the book, by buying up
and destroying all 10,000 copies of the book's first, uncensored run, before
allowing for the release of a second, censored printing. Only Shaffer himself
has offered this version of events, which are not in keeping with Department
of Defense policies on the public release of sensitive information in print.

.

Yes, if the goal was to censor the book, the US would have tried to destroy
all copies of it.

~~~
smnrchrds
That makes no logical sense in the age of ebooks. No matter how many copies of
the ebook version they buy, the publisher could sell more to anyone who wants
to buy one.

------
markjenkinswpg
Somebody tell the Donald that Snowden stood up to Obama era policy.

~~~
justinmchase
How can he stop this without inviting criticisms of being a Russian asset or
some such accusation?

~~~
SomeOldThrow
The criticisms will occur at this point no matter what he does. I would
actually bet he welcomes the talk as a distraction from his easy to prosecute
crimes.

~~~
aldoushuxley001
What crimes has Donald committed?

~~~
hsod
Campaign finance violations (his personal lawyer is currently sitting in jail
for an illegal campaign contribution he carried out at the direction of Donald
trump). Obstruction of justice is pretty well documented in the mueller
report. Those are just the obvious ones

~~~
aldoushuxley001
How is obstruction of justice well documented in the mueller report?

Honestly, there's more ground for obstruction of justice charges against
Trudeau for his role in the SNC-Lavalin scandal than anything I've seen for
Trump.

------
sunstone
This is such a pathetic move it just has me belly laughing. NDA violation. No
kidding? :D

This is up there with Al Capone being taken down for tax evasion instead of
racketeering.

Snowden just so totally out manoeuvred the CIA they'll be butt hurt for
decades.

------
jhcl
Do the worlds proceeds have to go through the US publisher (Metropolitan
Books) or can the proceeds of books sold here in Europe go to Snowden? For
example letting a European publisher sell the book in Europe.

------
tptacek
These guys sure do know how to sell a book.

~~~
dredmorbius
The best publicity money can buy!

------
gigama
The DOJ pushing their case against Snowden's potential book profits nicely
reminds everyone about the US government's illegal surveillance programs and
simultaneously helps promote the book.

If I were Macmillan I'd consider not having any profits from it by simply
donating all the proceeds from Snowden's book to the Freedom of the Press
Foundation, a non-profit organization.

Kinda like when they demanded the cryptokeys to Lavabit but found instead it
had gone out of business.

------
wpdev_63
Edward Snowden should setup a monero wallet and e-mail the book upon payment
or better yet for donations. I would love to send him some money at the end of
the year.

------
aussieguy1234
This just makes me more likely to read the book

------
jacquesm
Suggested slight amendment to the book: a disclosure of the royalties amount
per copy and a bitcoin address.

------
motohagiography
How small.

------
xodice
Jesus, who the fuck cares about what Snowden released. I am more sad people
aren't way up in arms about WHAT WE LEARNED. (Yes, I understand that sentence
makes itself not make sense, but you get my point. Rushed and on mobile, but
this pissed me off.)

Thank you Snowden, and fuck you U.S. Government.

\- A U.S. Citizen

~~~
elhudy
Snowden "...carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure
that each was legitimately in the public interest. There are all sorts of
documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over"

What was released (and how), and what we learned are two separate issues. As a
U.S. citizen, it's preferable that the subjective legitimacy of what best
serves public interest is not in the hands of ONE person. That's why we care
about what was released.

While a portion of the leaked documents might positively benefit society, who
is to say the net benefit in total was positive? Call me naive but I'm unable
to make the call either way, even after having read through the revelations.

Leaking that info was sure audacious but not worthy of a get-out-of-jail free
card or a thank you IMO.

~~~
cwkoss
Snowdens most fundamental job requirement was to uphold the US constitution.
He tried to stop gross constitutional violations from within using the
official processes and was ignored. He is the greatest American hero of our
era for sacrificing his own freedom to protect the nation.

The NSA employees who are 'just following orders' are little better than Nazi
footsolders in 1940s Germany. Their continued violation of the constitution is
audacious and they should be imprisoned for treason. The NSA bosses who
actively worked to craft these illegal plans deserve the most severe legal
punishments available.

~~~
peteretep
> Snowdens most fundamental job requirement was to uphold the US constitution

This feels like one of those things that Americans say, that may not be true.
Is this actually true? Do NSA employees state such an oath? Is defense of the
constitution more important than defense of the nation if the two are in
conflict?

Happy to be persuaded that this is true, but feels pretty glib to a non-
American.

~~~
vinceguidry
It is not true. This is something I had to learn from people that have been in
high-level roles in government. I will start with the history and purpose of
constitutions.

General guidelines to organize and plan governments around have existed since
time immemorial. What makes modern constitutions special is that it specifies
the idea of _popular sovereignty_ , that it is the entirety of the population
of a nation that provides the _legitimacy_ for the state.

The idea originated amidst the Enlightenment period of the 17-1800s. Monarchy
was where, generally speaking, legitimacy derived ultimately from the divinity
of the ruler, and was passed down through their descendants. Popular
sovereignty and the republican form of government that enshrined it had to be
evolved over hundreds of years, the Dutch constitution being a pillar of the
system. The US Constitution was a virtual carbon copy of the Dutch one.

One of the questions grappled with in the transition from monarchy to republic
was, what happens when the government fails to exercise authority due to
exigent circumstances? This question led to the modern concept of the "state
of emergency" in which the government reverts to a more primitive form. It was
also noted that protecting the republic required extra-legal powers, because
republican forms of government are relatively easy to subvert.

When states of emergency arise, the constitution is set aside by the executive
branch of government until order is restored. No elections are held, power
rests in the hands of the military.

This is but one of the ways in which constitutions cannot be seen as the
ultimate arbiters of the organization of society. If society _can 't_ protect
itself, then somebody must protect society.

Now we can deal with the matter of intelligence services. Intelligence
services were once crucial to the functioning of pre-republican states. They
were called the secret police, the apparatus of government that takes care of
the tasks that need to be done by the state but are too unsavory for the
public to know about.

It is inevitable that the need for these tasks arise. This comment is already
too long for me to give and flesh out examples. The biggest issue that needs
dealing with is revolution, which is a violent event that we usually think of
as originating from grassroots populism, but is also just as easily planned
and carried out by small groups that can't be seen as the instrumentation of
popular sovereignty. Discovering and dealing with these national threats is
part of the purview of intelligence services. The alternative to secret police
is endless revolutions of the kind seen by Latin America during the late 20th
century.

Another function that must be dealt with is the exploration and research of
matters too unsavory for the public to deal with, as these things can carry
serious consequences for public safety. I have learned recently that the CIA
has carried on with experiments carried out by the Nazis. This is but one
example.

The people in national intelligence organizations see themselves as guardians
of the people, and empowered with ultimate authority to do that. Many
countries, most notably Eastern European ones, oscillate between secret-police
control and a more feudal kind of organization. One system you might study is
Russia's current system of tributary taxation.

Keeping state secrets secret is the true foundation of any national security
functionary, as extremely serious consequences could theoretically result. And
when you get to the scale of government, theoretically possible means you have
to do a study to determine how many times and where it's actually happened,
and to come up with plans for dealing with it when the theory finds
manifestation

The main resource that has taught me this traditional point of view believes
that Snowden is a bloody traitor and should be executed. This is opinion he
offered freely on Quora, with no respect given to the popular view of Snowden
as a hero. As far as he's concerned, Snowden needs to serve as an example, he
absolutely has to die, even if he's revealed some atrocities and secret
information.

This person has also revealed vast amounts of information that has been
declassified, but still shows mind-blowing inadequacy of anything other than
highly trained government functionaries to deal with the heavy weight of
exercising legitimate force. The idea I think he's conveying is that while
Snowden's revelations might be shocking and awful, his similar revelations cut
to the meat of why such things are needed.

As far as this point of view is concerned, atrocities and subversion of
popular sovereignty is business as usual in the government sphere, revealing
them does society no good. They've always happened, they're always happening,
let the people trained to deal with them do their jobs, just like any sphere
of human org, the org learns how to do their jobs better over time.

We have dealt with the traditional view of how 'secret' organizations derive
their legitimacy, now I will offer my speculation as to how to think about how
to move forward.

I believe Edward Snowden represents a change in the ability of society to
countenance the full weight of what humans are capable of. Consciousness is
being raised in the human race across the board, and the old problems that
gave rise to intelligence apparatus in the past are no longer relevant.

As a result, changes need to be made in how society is planned. The old ways
of organizing society are still valid, they still work, and they will continue
to work. The US government will happily kangaroo court Snowden as cruelly as
they can if they ever get their hands on him. And high level government
functionaries will say and believe that he deserves it.

Because what Snowden ultimately embodies, to this point of view, is the same
kind of thought that leads to endless, pointless revolution, the idea that
humanity cannot overcome its basic nature, and so will always require highly-
trained operatives and apparatus to deal with it in secret like it needs to be
dealt with.

This has to fundamentally be outside of the existing legal system and
constitution, which concerns itself with limiting the powers of government so
as to facilitate commerce and public expression, but is woefully inadequate to
deal with the protection of that society. Secrecy is an essential tool, to be
wielded cautiously and judiciously. The government is the only entity that
reserves the right to compel labor other than overtly criminal organizations
like organized crime.

We may demand changes in how secret government operations are conducted, but
it may never come to pass that secrecy is totally eliminated from government.
I have a greater appreciation for this mindset now than I used to, though I
still hope that we can find a way to stop ridiculousness like the MKULTRA
project.

~~~
cwkoss
I fundamentally disagree that secrecy is the foundation of national security.

Journalists have revealed state secrets countless times, and over and over the
secret was kept to hide unjustifiable actions of government officials
violating their oath of office and taking actions which harm national
interests.

There is a role for keeping certain information temporarily secret (i.e. don't
publish where the active missile silos are, current positions of US troops),
but our government should not be in the business of torture, illegal murder,
faking suicides, industrial sabotage, domestic propaganda, illegal
surveillance, blackmail, sexual extortion... long list of evil things the
clandestine services engage in.

We know US intelligence has engaged in these behaviors through our nations
history. It seems naive to believe they've never used these methods against
our own political leaders to consolidate power and avoid the appropriate legal
consequences for their malfeasances. We have no assurance that the system for
oversight has not been wholly captured.

All of these thing make our nation more vulnerable (it justifies other
countries doing it to us) and we should not tolerate govt spooks feeling they
have carte blanche to take immoral and illegal actions to preserve their own
self interest. We are the most powerful nation in the world, we can do better,
and it truly saddens me that you think these evils are necessary.

~~~
vinceguidry
The state of journalism in any particular country is a very good cue to start
with when trying to figure out the exact level of civilization present.
Journalists not only have to be authorized by states to operate, but they must
also be protected by those same states. This is the case in most countries
except for exceedingly advanced ones, such as the US and most of Europe, where
they can be allowed a great deal of autonomy.

~~~
cwkoss
If quality of journalism is a reasonable proxy for the the civility of a
society, doesn't it logically follow that government secrecy and persecution
of journalists are forces that destroy civility?

~~~
vinceguidry
Yes, it represents a downslide back towards more primitive forms of
government.

------
no_opinions
I will give some information of what other countries have done in similar
situations:

\- German Constitution: Article 10 [Privacy of correspondence, posts and
telecommunications] [https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/chancellor/basic-
law-...](https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/chancellor/basic-law-470510)

If you wanted to extend it into modern terminology, it would probably clearly
specify communication over wire/radio, digital fingerprints, records, storage,
including remote / cloud storage.

\- Switzerland: 2016 Swiss Popular Initiative on federal intelligence law,
that passed (65.5%):
[https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/votes/201609...](https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/votes/20160925/intelligence-
service-act.html), [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZJCCpp--
oM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZJCCpp--oM) (Hit CC for closed captions,
and the cog to translate to your language)

Based on this thread, it seems many have a subjective right to privacy they'd
expect represented at the constitutional level, like Germany. They'd also like
more transparency explaining who/what/where/why/how in regards to the
authorizations regarding national security, like Switzerland.

One more thing: while this is generally consumer-related, you may be generally
interested in GDPR: [https://eugdpr.org/](https://eugdpr.org/)

But these are just part of the nice things. When people mention US
constitution and rights, Europeans have vastly more rights and protections, in
many respects.

\- China, Xinjiang, elsewhere:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ5LnY21Hgc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ5LnY21Hgc),
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH2gMNrUuEY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH2gMNrUuEY)

This is a place where culturally there's less concern about surveillance.

~~~
chopin
I doubt that the situation in Germany is considerably better than in the US.
The BND has explicitly being granted the right to snoop at DECIX
indiscriminate of the origin. Various groups (eg. laywers) have tried to
challenge this and where denied with the reasoning that they cannot prove that
they are affected (no legal standing). As well there is legislation proposed
or under way which would grant the Verfassungsschutz (German internal
intelligence) the right to implant trojans (Bundestrojaner). All ruling
parties violate the constitution in a regular way as evidenced by the rulings
of the constitutional court.

------
markhahn
The thing about whistleblowing is that it's a gamble that exposure will bring
repentance.

------
mooreed
TLDR; If you share the many dirty secrets of your employer, and then write a
tell-all book about them. Your employer will sue you for breach of NDA.

This is especially true if your employer is The USA(NSA/CIA) and your last
name is Snowden.

The briefing is largely about how the US wants to stop Snowden from collecting
proceeds from the book, and how he has violated his NDA by not letting them
preview a pre-published draft.

------
terrycody
For what then? Disgusting reality.

------
flycaliguy
So who got the PDF link then?

------
newguy1234
Couldn't snowden just bypass this by accepting cryptocurrency donations?

------
devoply
> government seeks to recover all proceeds earned by Snowden because of his
> failure to submit his publication for pre-publication review in violation of
> his alleged contractual and fiduciary obligations.

You aint gonna get rich off this, boy. If Snowden would sell the book online
via Bitcoin and then have it shipped from wherever to the customers. How would
they seize that money from him even if they got a judgment against him??

~~~
bdcravens
> How would they seize that money from him even if they got a judgment against
> him??

They wouldn't. But in the event he ever has assets they can touch they have an
enforceable judgment against those assets. (For example, if he ever chose to
hire a US attorney for any reason, they government could sue the attorney for
any amounts paid to them)

------
seamyb88
Nice to see Trump keeping SOME of Obama's projects alive.

------
wheelerwj
classic Trump. Of course he wants to enforce the NDA...

~~~
busterarm
Well, this is a terribly nonconstructive way to start a conversation.

If anything, it's Classic POTUS, as his predecessor attempted to prosecute
more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all prior POTUS' combined.

~~~
ceejayoz
> If anything, it's Classic POTUS, as his predecessor attempted to prosecute
> more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all prior POTUS' combined.

It should be noted that "all prior POTUS' combined" winds up being _four_
prosecutions since 1945 prior to Obama. Double of nearly-zero is still nearly-
zero.

[https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10...](https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/jake-
tapper/cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/)

~~~
busterarm
Seven of the eleven prosecutions under the act since its passing in 1917. It
was intended to be a rare power. We shouldn't try to diminish that.

That administration also grossly misused their Section 702 powers passed with
the 2008 FISA ammendments as well.
[https://www.newamerica.org/oti/blog/history-fisa-
section-702...](https://www.newamerica.org/oti/blog/history-fisa-
section-702-compliance-violations/)

~~~
ceejayoz
> It was intended to be a rare power.

I'm making the case that less than one a year in a population of 300+ million
is, indeed, rare.

~~~
busterarm
300 million people don't work in a capacity where they could even be tried
under the Espionage Act.

Those 7 prosecutions were an act of workplace violence done as a
representation of the will of the People. It was deeply offensive for there to
even be a single prosecution and a clear sign that the Executive did not
represent our interests.

We should have impeached him for it.

~~~
ceejayoz
Let's be clear, then: you're arguing it should be a _nonexistent_ power, not a
rare one.

------
Simulacra
He's broken the law in more than one ways. Regardless of his motives, he broke
the law. We can't expect to hold Trump or anyone else accountable if we cannot
hold responsible those who are entrusted to protect confidential information.

~~~
okmokmz
Yes, lets all blindly follow the will of the government without thinking for
ourselves and in that way the government will be held accountable... oh wait.
Can you name any major movements that created change without breaking a single
law?

Rosa parks not sitting on the back of the bus is a great example

~~~
jacquesm
> Rosa parks not sitting on the back of the bus is a great example

Not that great an example. The only reason you know her name is because of her
arrest and the lawsuit that followed.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks#Parks_arrest_and_bu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks#Parks_arrest_and_bus_boycott)

Which - fortunately - does not apply to Snowden.

~~~
okmokmz
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this comment; it supports
my argument

------
Overtonwindow
Proceeds from treason should be seized.

------
wearethenow
.

~~~
justforyou
It's disrespectful to the first ammendment to conflate it with astroturfing.

------
sneak
I was wondering if they were going to try this.

------
AndrewBissell
Well, guess I'll wait to see how this turns out before buying the book, I
wouldn't want to hand one more penny than necessary to these .gov ghouls.

If the government prevails in the lawsuit hopefully Snowden will offer an
e-book for purchase with cryptocurrency.

~~~
dredmorbius
The information hurts more than the money helps.

~~~
AndrewBissell
For sure, but as the meme says, why not both?

~~~
dredmorbius
Proportion.

The money is de minmus. There's the principle, but the vastly greater
principle is learning and sharing Snowden's message.

I'm hoping there's a content liberation clause in Snowden's contract with
Macmillan to make the book freely available. Given the efficiency of current
samizdat distribution sites, that would largely be a formality. It would be
welcome all the same.

The effective prohibition on compensated publishing (both Snowden and
Macmillan would apparently be enjoined, though again, the case for Macmillan
to cover its editing, printing, and distribution expenses might have legs)
_used_ to be effective at blocking the spread of information. That need no
longer be the case.

If the NSA's excercise of its contract terms serves to _both_ publicise _and_
liberate the content, their own emasculation mechanism is emasculated.

------
nexuist
This is...good for Bitcoin?

~~~
iddan
Oh yeah

------
mnm1
This makes the US government look like petty idiots. As is the government
wasn't already the laughingstock of the entire world. They can't even arrest
Snowden (not that they should) and now they want to bankrupt him. I assume
Snowden would publish this book with a publisher that's not US based but I
don't know the details. Hopefully it doesn't get a penny, this criminal
government that forced him into exile.

~~~
advisedwang
It was published by Macmillan, which has US offices and subsidiaries. They do
fall under US jurisdiction and will likely comply with US courts.

~~~
jaboutboul
If they don't it will be quite interesting, but in reading the book, I don't
think his motivations were financial.

Dude is holed up in middle of nowhere totally uncertain of his future and
wants to make sure this chapter, his chapter, of history is preserved from his
POV.

~~~
onetimemanytime
He could have released it as a free pdf. In fact, he can still do this (unless
his publisher own it now.)

~~~
dredmorbius
If he were clever he'd have negotiated an escape clause for this contingency.

------
sandinmytea
This is yet another way to avoid exposing real circumstances AND reap funds to
continue black-budget trafficking operations (precedent setting [see
DanielBMarkham's assessment], plus avoiding certain due process rights.)

It will not succeed because these measures stand between everyone who has not
had their circumstances optimized by bad, withholding leadership.. preventing
the better results in the advancement of types of people everywhere. Myself
included!

Asymmetry of information has overrun the optimum curves of received value for
all peoples. Now there must be more clarity amidst those elites to reform
their appetites/waste/projected powers, lest they get priced-out by their own
over-runs.

A way of saying: evil loses. Nature and dignity are neutral. These methods are
not. They break the system that keeps balance, so WHY a unique ruling matters
a great deal more than a blanket pronouncement OR precedent- setting to avoid
getting caught in abuses-of-trust.

Specifically, abuses of trust(s) by knowing authority generates enormous
destructive potential in spirit-of-the-law violations.

~~~
ncmncm
I did not understand any of that.

~~~
hammock
Let me translate

 _> This is yet another way to avoid exposing real circumstances AND reap
funds to continue black-budget trafficking operations (precedent setting [see
DanielBMarkham's assessment], plus avoiding certain due process rights.)_

The government will make an example of him to deter others, and use the
winnings from the lawsuit to fund more misdeeds. And a civil proceeding has
lower standards/Constitutional protections than a criminal trial.

 _> It will not succeed because these measures stand between everyone who has
not had their circumstances optimized by bad, withholding leadership..
preventing the better results in the advancement of types of people
everywhere. Myself included!_

The elites have set up a system that benefits themselves to the detriment of
many other classes of people. It's not sustainable.

 _> Asymmetry of information has overrun the optimum curves of received value
for all peoples. Now there must be more clarity amidst those elites to reform
their appetites/waste/projected powers, lest they get priced-out by their own
over-runs._

Elites maintain power in part by knowing more about what is, and what is
coming, than anyone else. But if they take too much advantage of it, they will
get voted/run out of government by the people who are being unjustly treated.

 _> A way of saying: evil loses. Nature and dignity are neutral. These methods
are not. They break the system that keeps balance, so WHY a unique ruling
matters a great deal more than a blanket pronouncement OR precedent- setting
to avoid getting caught in abuses-of-trust._

Evil isn't sustainable, truth prevails. But the elites try hard to keep the
wool over people's eyes.

------
djsumdog
I think there is reason to believe that Snowden is a blackops story. A guy
making six figures and working remotely in Hawaii as an NSA contractor,
somehow extracts tons of critical data and then one day decides he has a moral
compass and gives it to reporters at The Guardian and Der Spegiel? Then he
goes and hangs out in Russia and his smokin hot girlfriend says she wants to
go be with him.

We should not be surprised that in 30 years, declassified documents show this
whole thing was orchestrated to show Americans don't actually care at all
about domestic spying.

~~~
eternalny1
Yeah except the programs he unveiled are real, the source code has been leaked
to the internet, they have billion dollar budgets and thousands of employees.

But yes, surely it's all fake.

