35 ms·

United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

273 points by coloneltcb 7y ago

sneak 7y ago
I was wondering if they were going to try this.
wheelerwj 7y ago
classic Trump. Of course he wants to enforce the NDA...
- busterarm 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    > 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/jake-tapper/cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/ https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10...
    - busterarm 7y ago
      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-compliance-violations/ https://www.newamerica.org/oti/blog/history-fisa-section-702...
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        > 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 7y ago
        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 7y ago
        Let's be clear, then: you're arguing it should be a nonexistent power, not a rare one.
sarcasmatwork 7y ago
This seems like targeted harassment. Are those NDA's even valid anymore?
- mcpherrinm 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      > Now, I'd also expect Snowden to make sure he is not breaching those NDA's. You... you know who Snowden is, right?
    - kelnos 7y ago
      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.
  - mzs 7y ago
    Indeed there is currently a very similar situation with another author: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/a-look-inside-the-cia-that-the-agency-isnt-ready-for-you-to-see/2019/09/10/84baec6e-d3e7-11e9-9343-40db57cf6abd_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/a-look-inside-the-cia...
gnud 7y ago
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?
- tootie 7y ago
  What part was criminal? And how would he prove that?
  - gnud 7y ago
    The alleged spying on US citizens. I know the rest of us are fair game somehow. This could be a chance to get this before the courts, was my actual (badly communicated) point.
    - CWuestefeld 7y ago
      I think we're a little past the need for an "alleged" qualifier.
    - likpok 7y ago
      He released a lot more than the spying on US citizens. This lawsuit also appears to be about a different thing: the publication of his book. From the complaint (which is the government's side), he was supposed to get pre-authorization for publication and didn't. Therefore, the money from the book goes to the USG instead of Snowden.
      - garmaine 7y ago
        Yes, but (frustratingly) it is not illegal within the US jurisdiction for the US government to violate a non-US person's privacy. The US constitution's bill of rights only protects americans. Hence why the key point is that the US intelligence agencies spied on US citizens without warrants. I agree that they shouldn't be spying on anyone in this way (get a warrant!), but spying on US citizens in this way is super duper illegal, and therefore most clearly shows that the program itself was illegal.
AndrewBissell 7y ago
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 7y ago
  The information hurts more than the money helps.
  - AndrewBissell 7y ago
    For sure, but as the meme says, why not both?
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      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.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mnm1 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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.
    - bdcravens 7y ago
      Why would they not comply? They're a book publisher: their motivations are strictly financial.
    - onetimemanytime 7y ago
      He could have released it as a free pdf. In fact, he can still do this (unless his publisher own it now.)
      - dredmorbius 7y ago
        If he were clever he'd have negotiated an escape clause for this contingency.
  - kelnos 7y ago
abecedarius 7y ago
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 7y ago
  I hope the government realizes how much they’re pissing everyone off by violating our rights and defending themselves for doing it
  - kamyarg 7y ago
    > 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 7y ago
      > 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-intelligence-also-snooped-on-white-house-a-1153592.html https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-intellig...
  - austinheap 7y ago
    With all due respect: I’m not sure average people care. The only people I know who talk about it also read this site religiously. I don’t say it to be rude, but it’s similar to my coastal liberal friends thinking their bubble opinion applies in Ohio.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    For very small values of 'everyone'.
zer0faith 7y ago
Sadly, they will attempt to make an example out of Snowden to discourage anyone from EVER doing something like this again.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tyri_kai_psomi 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    You should read the book... nobody was put in danger. Snowden is an American hero.
    - tyri_kai_psomi 7y ago
      You should talk to an actual intelligence officer or two. I have, which is where I got that impression from.
      - behringer 7y ago
devoply 7y ago
> 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??
- munk-a 7y ago
  Evading the ability for law enforcement to track your activities isn't the same as following the law - I agree with a lot of other folks that this lawsuite is BS, but covertly shipping the book would give the US Government a pretty big motivation to just seize Snowden's assets.
- kelnos 7y ago
  They're not looking to get rich. They're just looking to keep more money out of Snowden's hands. Even if they fail to do so (sales outside the US's jurisdiction, or paid with crypto), they have yet another thing to pile onto his record that they might be able to use as leverage against him in the future.
- bdcravens 7y ago
  > 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)
HashThis 7y ago
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.
- r00fus 7y ago
  Is there a constitutional right to privacy? Where is that enshrined? I say this as someone who values privacy for all.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    It's the one about unlawful search and seizure.
  - excalibur 7y ago
    Try the 4th Amendment: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    - bb88 7y ago
      If you're an originalist (and I'm not saying that I am), data in transmit is not necessarily protected by that amendment If your data has left your house, is it really your data, or is it Google's say?
      - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
        When you send a letter it does not belong to the post office while in transit. Why are bits on a hard drive any different?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
lawnchair_larry 7y ago
”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.”
- ta1234567890 7y ago
  I would say it's more like the 50% tax on drugs: yes it is illegal to sell (illegal) drugs, but if you still do it, then you need to pay taxes on the money you make selling them. They either get you for doing the illegal thing or for the money you should have paid them while doing it.
- jdm2212 7y ago
  The government generally can't restrict publication in the US no matter what is being published: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint But once something is published, they can take action against the publisher/author.
- bdcravens 7y ago
  NDAs with financial consequences are common.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  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.
reaperducer 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    If I buy the book, does that make me a criminal accessory? Or guilty of the receipt of stolen property (information)?
    - larkeith 7y ago
      "The United States’ lawsuit does not seek to stop or restrict the publication or distribution of Permanent Record." So presumably not.
    - henryfjordan 7y ago
      No. Classified Info laws only apply to people who are authorized to have that info in the first place. This is why the US went after Snowden but not the journalists he worked with, as they broke no laws. You also do not have an NDA with the government (I assume) and so owe them nothing but taxes.
- bdcravens 7y ago
  > Or is this like how the feds couldn't get Al Capone for murder so they put him away for tax evasion? No, both of those were crimes. They just incarcerated him on the one with the easiest case to convict. Civil cases are often contractual cases. He had access to confidential information; they are essentially suing him for violating an NDA.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kstenerud 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.
  - wpdev_63 7y ago
    Edward Snowden should really setup a monero wallet and post the address on his site. I would love to give him some money at the end of the year.
  - kzrdude 7y ago
    He's just released a book, I wonder how it is set up, can he earn the money from it or not?
    - likpok 7y ago
      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 7y ago
        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.
Simulacra 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    > 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_bus_boycott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks#Parks_arrest_and_bu... Which - fortunately - does not apply to Snowden.
    - okmokmz 7y ago
      I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this comment; it supports my argument
- paxys 7y ago
  There are times when breaking the law isn't just okay, it is absolutely essential, and this was one of them.
- kzrdude 7y ago
  NSA broke the law, how do we hold them accountable?
- viklove 7y ago
  http://www.legintent.com/three-laws-weird-almost-want-break/ http://www.legintent.com/three-laws-weird-almost-want-break/ Well, I hope you're aware of all the laws that exist in this country. If you break one of them (however frivolous or unjust it may be), I hope you turn yourself in so we can hold you accountable for your crimes. Moral absolutists confuse the hell out of me. By your own admission, you deserve a prison sentence for driving a car while living in Las Vegas. Regardless of your intent, you would have broken the law (repeatedly).
paxys 7y ago
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.
jjuhl 7y ago
Booooh! Bad USA, bad. No cookie for you.
mooreed 7y ago
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.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jhcl 7y ago
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.
seamyb88 7y ago
Nice to see Trump keeping SOME of Obama's projects alive.
newguy1234 7y ago
Couldn't snowden just bypass this by accepting cryptocurrency donations?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jacquesm 7y ago
Suggested slight amendment to the book: a disclosure of the royalties amount per copy and a bitcoin address.
DanielBMarkham 7y ago
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 7y ago
  "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.
  - DannyB2 7y ago
    Could Snowden hire a US lawyer to represent him? Snowden does not necessarily have to appear in court along side his advocate. If the US demands he appear in court, his lawyer could motion to allow Snowden to appear by tele-presence. After all, defendants in jail appear in court that way. There are legitimate practical reasons Snowden cannot physically appear.
    - dooglius 7y ago
      Why would he bother? I'm sure his publishers have their own lawyers.
  - ryacko 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Shaffer_(intelligence_officer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Shaffer_(intelligence_... >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.
tptacek 7y ago
These guys sure do know how to sell a book.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  The best publicity money can buy!
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sandinmytea 7y ago
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.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > It will not succeed I would not be so optimistic. >
- ncmncm 7y ago
  I did not understand any of that.
  - wallace_f 7y ago
    Reading this user's comment history nearly gave me an aneurysm.
  - hammock 7y ago
    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.
bloak 7y ago
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 7y ago
  Curiously since Snowden is a US citizen he’ll have to file & pay taxes on that income.
  - JetSpiegel 7y ago
    Or what? The US will send him to jail?
rblion 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.
- alexanderdmitri 7y ago
  General public conflates him with Assange, who had his own flurry of press recently.
- 13415 7y ago
  It's a way to stop amazon book sales, I suppose.
markjenkinswpg 7y ago
Somebody tell the Donald that Snowden stood up to Obama era policy.
- justinmchase 7y ago
  How can he stop this without inviting criticisms of being a Russian asset or some such accusation?
  - burtonator 7y ago
    He could probably help with these accusations by releasing his tax returns. :)
    - skyyler 7y ago
      I don't follow US politics. How would that help? Legitimate question.
      - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
        It wouldn't. They're just trying to get their talking point in.
      - hsod 7y ago
        The public presently has very little information about Trump’s personal financials. He has refused to release his tax returns despite long precedent and intense political pressure. His excuses for this have been very weak. The idea is that the reason for this secrecy is that he is hiding something which would be politically damaging, such as the long-rumored (and denied) financial links to Russian oligarchs
      - Retric 7y ago
        Many suspect he is deeply in debt to and sustained by various Russian banks. A positive cash flow would dispel some of that concern. I personally doubt he is, but it’s a more reasonable concern considering how unwilling he is to disclose his financial situation.
Overtonwindow 7y ago
Proceeds from treason should be seized.
wpdev_63 7y ago
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.
Circuits 7y ago
"This lawsuit demonstrates that the Department of Justice does not tolerate these breaches of the public’s trust." - Unless of course it's the Department of Justice doing the violating.
nexuist 7y ago
This is...good for Bitcoin?
- iddan 7y ago
  Oh yeah
samstave 7y ago
Snowden is a national hero. Period. I don’t care what any one thinks otherwise, but we would be a more authoritarian and fascist place without Snowden, Schwartz, (whom YC funded and he was suicided), Manning etc So fuck the #pedopaths and fuck anyone who is against any of the above and fuck you YC for being against truth. This is what killed Aaron Schwartz https://drop.space/watch/amazing-polly-epstein-stories-you-won-039-t-find-in-the-news_neOckakLRhVKjF6.html https://drop.space/watch/amazing-polly-epstein-stories-you-w... He wasn’t stealing JSTOR docs - he was going after pedopaths and he went to the MIT media lab to get docs on the pedopaths and was then suicided because he knew the truth And I’ll be downvoted by idiots who think they are smart and don’t know the real world we live in. As an aside - where are all you jerks who work for palantir? Your company was just on NPR today talking about how you have been ghosting. If you work for palantir, you are a criminal, period. I love the downvotes by the willfully ignorants. Keep them coming.
- ebg13 7y ago
  > Aaron Schwartz Swartz
- TimTheTinker 7y ago
  I suspect the downvotes are responding to your tone (which is acerbic/combative), not the content of your assertions. Personally I'd be interested in hearing you out if your manner of speaking was more intellectual.
  - samstave 7y ago
    That sounds great, may you please list out questions and I can try to answer them. (Yes I get heated and pissed off here on HN as I have been here for over a decade and there are tons of self righteous nerds on HN who think they are the big swinging dick in the room, regardless of the fact there are tech titans here as well, but I’ve built many a thing in Silicon Valley and my pedigree goes deep, I just don’t flaunt it with simple fucking downvotes) So ask away, please.
    - deleted 7y ago
dbrower 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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
mv4 7y ago
Interesting timing. Just a couple of days ago, Snowden said he was hoping France would grant him asylum.
- n8henry 7y ago
  His book came out today.
Swizec 7y ago
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 7y ago
  In Snowden's case, he was a contractor and the specific whistleblower law covering the NSA did not apply to him.
  - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
    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 7y ago
      That is so convenient, isn't it? The government don't need to follow the law which suppose to protect the whistleblowers.
      - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
        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.
djsumdog 7y ago
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.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- eternalny1 7y ago
  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.
motohagiography 7y ago
How small.
xodice 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    He was under a deadline, and then gave the files to journalists to decide what they thought was in the best interest, and then those journalists ran everything they were going to release by the DoD beforehand. What more should he have done?
    - mirimir 7y ago
      I think that he should have dumped everything. Or at least, everything that didn't put individuals at risk. I get where he was coming from. But the people in charge of releasing stuff seem too clueless and/or deferential.
      - mhh__ 7y ago
        Dumping all of it online would have been like wikileaks, which I think would've been a mistake in that Wikileaks have been very open about aiming to use there releases to influence politics rather than merely releasing for the sake of knowledge e.g. "Maximum political impact" which does make them less credible (Aside from the dubious links to and decision not to criticise russia)
wearethenow 7y ago
.
- justforyou 7y ago
  It's disrespectful to the first ammendment to conflate it with astroturfing.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
markhahn 7y ago
The thing about whistleblowing is that it's a gamble that exposure will bring repentance.
no_opinions 7y ago
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-470510 https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/chancellor/basic-law-... 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/20160925/intelligence-service-act.html https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/votes/201609..., 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 7y ago
  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.
sunstone 7y ago
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.
- whataburg 7y ago
  Snowden is a fugitive who betrayed his country and has open criminal felony indictments against him, hides in Russia, and refuses to return home to America to face justice. Capone was a mafia boss who was immune to direct criminal prosecution, hence the tax evasion charges. It's unlikely the CIA is "butt hurt" about Snowden.
swixmix 7y ago
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-nondisclosure-agreement-0 https://www.gsa.gov/forms-library/classified-information-non... Download SF312-13.pdf.
- gigama 7y ago
  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.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  I'd be really curious as to how closely Snowden's lawyered the book to not include any classified information, with this clause in mind.
aussieguy1234 7y ago
This just makes me more likely to read the book
gigama 7y ago
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.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Tepix 7y ago
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 7y ago
  He should give it away for free with a strongly encouraged donation.
stevespang 7y ago
Even before 911, The Branch Davidian mass murder in Waco proves that the US Gov't will murder innocent US citizens and then forbid anyone to investigate the details, such as gathering soil samples. Same happened at 911 site,although samples were snuck out and Dutch researchers proved evidence of nano thermite was planted in the trade towers.
terrycody 7y ago
For what then? Disgusting reality.
flycaliguy 7y ago
So who got the PDF link then?

273 points by coloneltcb 7y ago

sneak 7y ago

I was wondering if they were going to try this.

wheelerwj 7y ago

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

busterarm 7y ago
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 7y ago
  > 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/jake-tapper/cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/ https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10...
  - busterarm 7y ago
    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-compliance-violations/ https://www.newamerica.org/oti/blog/history-fisa-section-702...
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      > 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 7y ago
        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 7y ago
        Let's be clear, then: you're arguing it should be a nonexistent power, not a rare one.

sarcasmatwork 7y ago

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

mcpherrinm 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > Now, I'd also expect Snowden to make sure he is not breaching those NDA's. You... you know who Snowden is, right?
  - kelnos 7y ago
    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.
- mzs 7y ago
  Indeed there is currently a very similar situation with another author: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/a-look-inside-the-cia-that-the-agency-isnt-ready-for-you-to-see/2019/09/10/84baec6e-d3e7-11e9-9343-40db57cf6abd_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/a-look-inside-the-cia...

gnud 7y ago

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?

tootie 7y ago
What part was criminal? And how would he prove that?
- gnud 7y ago
  The alleged spying on US citizens. I know the rest of us are fair game somehow. This could be a chance to get this before the courts, was my actual (badly communicated) point.
  - CWuestefeld 7y ago
    I think we're a little past the need for an "alleged" qualifier.
  - likpok 7y ago
    He released a lot more than the spying on US citizens. This lawsuit also appears to be about a different thing: the publication of his book. From the complaint (which is the government's side), he was supposed to get pre-authorization for publication and didn't. Therefore, the money from the book goes to the USG instead of Snowden.
    - garmaine 7y ago
      Yes, but (frustratingly) it is not illegal within the US jurisdiction for the US government to violate a non-US person's privacy. The US constitution's bill of rights only protects americans. Hence why the key point is that the US intelligence agencies spied on US citizens without warrants. I agree that they shouldn't be spying on anyone in this way (get a warrant!), but spying on US citizens in this way is super duper illegal, and therefore most clearly shows that the program itself was illegal.

AndrewBissell 7y ago

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 7y ago
The information hurts more than the money helps.
- AndrewBissell 7y ago
  For sure, but as the meme says, why not both?
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    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.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mnm1 7y ago

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.
  - bdcravens 7y ago
    Why would they not comply? They're a book publisher: their motivations are strictly financial.
  - onetimemanytime 7y ago
    He could have released it as a free pdf. In fact, he can still do this (unless his publisher own it now.)
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      If he were clever he'd have negotiated an escape clause for this contingency.
- kelnos 7y ago

abecedarius 7y ago

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 7y ago
I hope the government realizes how much they’re pissing everyone off by violating our rights and defending themselves for doing it
- kamyarg 7y ago
  > 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 7y ago
    > 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-intelligence-also-snooped-on-white-house-a-1153592.html https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-intellig...
- austinheap 7y ago
  With all due respect: I’m not sure average people care. The only people I know who talk about it also read this site religiously. I don’t say it to be rude, but it’s similar to my coastal liberal friends thinking their bubble opinion applies in Ohio.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  For very small values of 'everyone'.

zer0faith 7y ago

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

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tyri_kai_psomi 7y ago
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 7y ago
  You should read the book... nobody was put in danger. Snowden is an American hero.
  - tyri_kai_psomi 7y ago
    You should talk to an actual intelligence officer or two. I have, which is where I got that impression from.
    - behringer 7y ago

devoply 7y ago

> 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??

munk-a 7y ago
Evading the ability for law enforcement to track your activities isn't the same as following the law - I agree with a lot of other folks that this lawsuite is BS, but covertly shipping the book would give the US Government a pretty big motivation to just seize Snowden's assets.
kelnos 7y ago
They're not looking to get rich. They're just looking to keep more money out of Snowden's hands. Even if they fail to do so (sales outside the US's jurisdiction, or paid with crypto), they have yet another thing to pile onto his record that they might be able to use as leverage against him in the future.
bdcravens 7y ago
> 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)

HashThis 7y ago

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.

r00fus 7y ago
Is there a constitutional right to privacy? Where is that enshrined? I say this as someone who values privacy for all.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  It's the one about unlawful search and seizure.
- excalibur 7y ago
  Try the 4th Amendment: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
  - bb88 7y ago
    If you're an originalist (and I'm not saying that I am), data in transmit is not necessarily protected by that amendment If your data has left your house, is it really your data, or is it Google's say?
    - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
      When you send a letter it does not belong to the post office while in transit. Why are bits on a hard drive any different?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

lawnchair_larry 7y ago

”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.”

ta1234567890 7y ago
I would say it's more like the 50% tax on drugs: yes it is illegal to sell (illegal) drugs, but if you still do it, then you need to pay taxes on the money you make selling them. They either get you for doing the illegal thing or for the money you should have paid them while doing it.
jdm2212 7y ago
The government generally can't restrict publication in the US no matter what is being published: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint But once something is published, they can take action against the publisher/author.
bdcravens 7y ago
NDAs with financial consequences are common.
gamblor956 7y ago
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.

reaperducer 7y ago

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  If I buy the book, does that make me a criminal accessory? Or guilty of the receipt of stolen property (information)?
  - larkeith 7y ago
    "The United States’ lawsuit does not seek to stop or restrict the publication or distribution of Permanent Record." So presumably not.
  - henryfjordan 7y ago
    No. Classified Info laws only apply to people who are authorized to have that info in the first place. This is why the US went after Snowden but not the journalists he worked with, as they broke no laws. You also do not have an NDA with the government (I assume) and so owe them nothing but taxes.
bdcravens 7y ago
> Or is this like how the feds couldn't get Al Capone for murder so they put him away for tax evasion? No, both of those were crimes. They just incarcerated him on the one with the easiest case to convict. Civil cases are often contractual cases. He had access to confidential information; they are essentially suing him for violating an NDA.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

kstenerud 7y ago

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 7y ago
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.
- wpdev_63 7y ago
  Edward Snowden should really setup a monero wallet and post the address on his site. I would love to give him some money at the end of the year.
- kzrdude 7y ago
  He's just released a book, I wonder how it is set up, can he earn the money from it or not?
  - likpok 7y ago
    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 7y ago
      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.

Simulacra 7y ago

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  > 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_bus_boycott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks#Parks_arrest_and_bu... Which - fortunately - does not apply to Snowden.
  - okmokmz 7y ago
    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this comment; it supports my argument
paxys 7y ago
There are times when breaking the law isn't just okay, it is absolutely essential, and this was one of them.
kzrdude 7y ago
NSA broke the law, how do we hold them accountable?
viklove 7y ago
http://www.legintent.com/three-laws-weird-almost-want-break/ http://www.legintent.com/three-laws-weird-almost-want-break/ Well, I hope you're aware of all the laws that exist in this country. If you break one of them (however frivolous or unjust it may be), I hope you turn yourself in so we can hold you accountable for your crimes. Moral absolutists confuse the hell out of me. By your own admission, you deserve a prison sentence for driving a car while living in Las Vegas. Regardless of your intent, you would have broken the law (repeatedly).

paxys 7y ago

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.

jjuhl 7y ago

Booooh! Bad USA, bad. No cookie for you.

mooreed 7y ago

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.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jhcl 7y ago

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.

seamyb88 7y ago

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

newguy1234 7y ago

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

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jacquesm 7y ago

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

DanielBMarkham 7y ago

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 7y ago
"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.
- DannyB2 7y ago
  Could Snowden hire a US lawyer to represent him? Snowden does not necessarily have to appear in court along side his advocate. If the US demands he appear in court, his lawyer could motion to allow Snowden to appear by tele-presence. After all, defendants in jail appear in court that way. There are legitimate practical reasons Snowden cannot physically appear.
  - dooglius 7y ago
    Why would he bother? I'm sure his publishers have their own lawyers.
- ryacko 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Shaffer_(intelligence_officer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Shaffer_(intelligence_... >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.

tptacek 7y ago

These guys sure do know how to sell a book.

dredmorbius 7y ago
The best publicity money can buy!

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

sandinmytea 7y ago

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.

jacquesm 7y ago
> It will not succeed I would not be so optimistic. >
ncmncm 7y ago
I did not understand any of that.
- wallace_f 7y ago
  Reading this user's comment history nearly gave me an aneurysm.
- hammock 7y ago
  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.

bloak 7y ago

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 7y ago
Curiously since Snowden is a US citizen he’ll have to file & pay taxes on that income.
- JetSpiegel 7y ago
  Or what? The US will send him to jail?

rblion 7y ago

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 7y ago
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.
alexanderdmitri 7y ago
General public conflates him with Assange, who had his own flurry of press recently.
13415 7y ago
It's a way to stop amazon book sales, I suppose.

markjenkinswpg 7y ago

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

justinmchase 7y ago
How can he stop this without inviting criticisms of being a Russian asset or some such accusation?
- burtonator 7y ago
  He could probably help with these accusations by releasing his tax returns. :)
  - skyyler 7y ago
    I don't follow US politics. How would that help? Legitimate question.
    - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
      It wouldn't. They're just trying to get their talking point in.
    - hsod 7y ago
      The public presently has very little information about Trump’s personal financials. He has refused to release his tax returns despite long precedent and intense political pressure. His excuses for this have been very weak. The idea is that the reason for this secrecy is that he is hiding something which would be politically damaging, such as the long-rumored (and denied) financial links to Russian oligarchs
    - Retric 7y ago
      Many suspect he is deeply in debt to and sustained by various Russian banks. A positive cash flow would dispel some of that concern. I personally doubt he is, but it’s a more reasonable concern considering how unwilling he is to disclose his financial situation.

Overtonwindow 7y ago

Proceeds from treason should be seized.

wpdev_63 7y ago

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.

Circuits 7y ago

"This lawsuit demonstrates that the Department of Justice does not tolerate these breaches of the public’s trust." - Unless of course it's the Department of Justice doing the violating.

nexuist 7y ago

This is...good for Bitcoin?

iddan 7y ago
Oh yeah

samstave 7y ago

Snowden is a national hero. Period. I don’t care what any one thinks otherwise, but we would be a more authoritarian and fascist place without Snowden, Schwartz, (whom YC funded and he was suicided), Manning etc So fuck the #pedopaths and fuck anyone who is against any of the above and fuck you YC for being against truth. This is what killed Aaron Schwartz https://drop.space/watch/amazing-polly-epstein-stories-you-won-039-t-find-in-the-news_neOckakLRhVKjF6.html https://drop.space/watch/amazing-polly-epstein-stories-you-w... He wasn’t stealing JSTOR docs - he was going after pedopaths and he went to the MIT media lab to get docs on the pedopaths and was then suicided because he knew the truth And I’ll be downvoted by idiots who think they are smart and don’t know the real world we live in. As an aside - where are all you jerks who work for palantir? Your company was just on NPR today talking about how you have been ghosting. If you work for palantir, you are a criminal, period. I love the downvotes by the willfully ignorants. Keep them coming.

ebg13 7y ago
> Aaron Schwartz Swartz
TimTheTinker 7y ago
I suspect the downvotes are responding to your tone (which is acerbic/combative), not the content of your assertions. Personally I'd be interested in hearing you out if your manner of speaking was more intellectual.
- samstave 7y ago
  That sounds great, may you please list out questions and I can try to answer them. (Yes I get heated and pissed off here on HN as I have been here for over a decade and there are tons of self righteous nerds on HN who think they are the big swinging dick in the room, regardless of the fact there are tech titans here as well, but I’ve built many a thing in Silicon Valley and my pedigree goes deep, I just don’t flaunt it with simple fucking downvotes) So ask away, please.
  - deleted 7y ago

dbrower 7y ago

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 7y ago
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

mv4 7y ago

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

n8henry 7y ago
His book came out today.

Swizec 7y ago

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 7y ago
In Snowden's case, he was a contractor and the specific whistleblower law covering the NSA did not apply to him.
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    That is so convenient, isn't it? The government don't need to follow the law which suppose to protect the whistleblowers.
    - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
      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.

djsumdog 7y ago

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.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
eternalny1 7y ago
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.

motohagiography 7y ago

How small.

xodice 7y ago

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 7y ago
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.
- monocasa 7y ago
  He was under a deadline, and then gave the files to journalists to decide what they thought was in the best interest, and then those journalists ran everything they were going to release by the DoD beforehand. What more should he have done?
  - mirimir 7y ago
    I think that he should have dumped everything. Or at least, everything that didn't put individuals at risk. I get where he was coming from. But the people in charge of releasing stuff seem too clueless and/or deferential.
    - mhh__ 7y ago
      Dumping all of it online would have been like wikileaks, which I think would've been a mistake in that Wikileaks have been very open about aiming to use there releases to influence politics rather than merely releasing for the sake of knowledge e.g. "Maximum political impact" which does make them less credible (Aside from the dubious links to and decision not to criticise russia)

wearethenow 7y ago

justforyou 7y ago
It's disrespectful to the first ammendment to conflate it with astroturfing.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

markhahn 7y ago

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

no_opinions 7y ago

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-470510 https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/chancellor/basic-law-... 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/20160925/intelligence-service-act.html https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/votes/201609..., 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 7y ago
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.

sunstone 7y ago

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.

whataburg 7y ago
Snowden is a fugitive who betrayed his country and has open criminal felony indictments against him, hides in Russia, and refuses to return home to America to face justice. Capone was a mafia boss who was immune to direct criminal prosecution, hence the tax evasion charges. It's unlikely the CIA is "butt hurt" about Snowden.

swixmix 7y ago

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-nondisclosure-agreement-0 https://www.gsa.gov/forms-library/classified-information-non... Download SF312-13.pdf.

gigama 7y ago
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.
dredmorbius 7y ago
I'd be really curious as to how closely Snowden's lawyered the book to not include any classified information, with this clause in mind.

aussieguy1234 7y ago

This just makes me more likely to read the book

gigama 7y ago

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.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Tepix 7y ago

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 7y ago
He should give it away for free with a strongly encouraged donation.

stevespang 7y ago

Even before 911, The Branch Davidian mass murder in Waco proves that the US Gov't will murder innocent US citizens and then forbid anyone to investigate the details, such as gathering soil samples. Same happened at 911 site,although samples were snuck out and Dutch researchers proved evidence of nano thermite was planted in the trade towers.

terrycody 7y ago

For what then? Disgusting reality.

flycaliguy 7y ago

So who got the PDF link then?