3 ms·

This is the agreement that assigns royalties to the United States.

by swixmix 7y ago

singlow 7y ago
For revenue resulting from violation of the agreement. Seems like a reasonable stipulation. If you want to know the secrets, you can only use them for the purposes for which they were given to you. You cannot make profits by selling them or using them for your own advantage. You would like me to pay you to perform a service. I would like to pay you to perform the service, but I have to share my secrets. You have to agree to use the information I give you only for performing the service we agree to. If you do anything else with my secrets, I can sue you for the revenue you made from that. You will also probably go to jail if you do that. Charge appropriately for the service and do not expect to get additional benefits from the classified information. There is no assignment of royalties for anything you created independently.
GhettoMaestro 7y ago
Not exactly - classified information is already effectively "owned" by the USG from a stewardship perspective (not ownership). USG is supposed to protect and safeguard said info - said info is still technically public domain (owned) - it is just restricted due to national security implications. SF-312 clearly specifies to the person receiving classified information that they have unique requirements for handling and disclosure. That said, given SF-312, I think Chelsea Manning had a lot more downside exposure than Edward Snowden does. Ms. Manning shared the classified information in a very vindictive and dangerous way. Mr. Snowden was very careful in what and how he leaked with regards to the data in question. Both acts are still technically violations of SF-312 (among other stuff, like criminal law), but the extent of risk and damage done to the USG interests is always evaluated. (Have signed SF-312 multiple times in my life.)

3 ms·

This is the agreement that assigns royalties to the United States.

by swixmix 7y ago

This is the agreement that assigns royalties to the United States.

singlow 7y ago
For revenue resulting from violation of the agreement. Seems like a reasonable stipulation. If you want to know the secrets, you can only use them for the purposes for which they were given to you. You cannot make profits by selling them or using them for your own advantage. You would like me to pay you to perform a service. I would like to pay you to perform the service, but I have to share my secrets. You have to agree to use the information I give you only for performing the service we agree to. If you do anything else with my secrets, I can sue you for the revenue you made from that. You will also probably go to jail if you do that. Charge appropriately for the service and do not expect to get additional benefits from the classified information. There is no assignment of royalties for anything you created independently.
GhettoMaestro 7y ago
Not exactly - classified information is already effectively "owned" by the USG from a stewardship perspective (not ownership). USG is supposed to protect and safeguard said info - said info is still technically public domain (owned) - it is just restricted due to national security implications. SF-312 clearly specifies to the person receiving classified information that they have unique requirements for handling and disclosure. That said, given SF-312, I think Chelsea Manning had a lot more downside exposure than Edward Snowden does. Ms. Manning shared the classified information in a very vindictive and dangerous way. Mr. Snowden was very careful in what and how he leaked with regards to the data in question. Both acts are still technically violations of SF-312 (among other stuff, like criminal law), but the extent of risk and damage done to the USG interests is always evaluated. (Have signed SF-312 multiple times in my life.)