3 ms·

”The United States’ lawsuit does not seek to stop or restrict the publication or distribution of Permanent Record. Rather, under well-established Supreme Court

”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.
- bb611 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    With respect to confidential information only... It helps to actual read the NDAs and not just blindly cite to them.
astolarz 7y ago
It sounds to me like they're trying to discourage other CIA/NSA/TLA agents from running off to a place like Russia and writing their own tell-all, even if those books are benign. “The United States’ ability to protect sensitive national security information depends on employees’ and contractors’ compliance with their non-disclosure agreements, including their pre-publication review obligations. This lawsuit demonstrates that the Department of Justice does not tolerate these breaches of the public’s trust. ..." That sounds like a reasonable explanation. Granted, I would not be surprised if that was only a small fraction of the real reason, and the vast majority is like you said: "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.

bb611 7y ago
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 7y ago
  With respect to confidential information only... It helps to actual read the NDAs and not just blindly cite to them.

astolarz 7y ago

It sounds to me like they're trying to discourage other CIA/NSA/TLA agents from running off to a place like Russia and writing their own tell-all, even if those books are benign. “The United States’ ability to protect sensitive national security information depends on employees’ and contractors’ compliance with their non-disclosure agreements, including their pre-publication review obligations. This lawsuit demonstrates that the Department of Justice does not tolerate these breaches of the public’s trust. ..." That sounds like a reasonable explanation. Granted, I would not be surprised if that was only a small fraction of the real reason, and the vast majority is like you said: "because we don't like him and we can."