15 ms·
The Feds Get Permission to Seize Edward Snowden's Book Profits
- alexnewman 7y agoEdward Snowden just gave me permission to steal and distribute this book. Have fun
- DyslexicAtheist 7y agodid he? I noticed he wrote: The government may steal a dollar, but it cannot erase the idea that earned it. I wrote this book, Permanent Record, for you, and I hope the government's ruthless desperation to prevent its publication only inspires you read it—and then gift it to another. -- https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207624251953549312 https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207624251953549312
- mikro2nd 7y agoSo read it and send Ed a dollar (or Bitcoin equiv.)
- post_break 7y agoI think it's illegal to send him any money due to him being an enemy of the state.
- DyslexicAtheist 7y agonot in the US so I probably would be fine (maybe)
- bynkman 7y agoIf that's the case, maybe donate to the EFF.
- hanniabu 7y agoEFF = Electronic frontiers foundation?
- DyslexicAtheist 7y agotoo late, I already paid the Ethiopian Football Federation
- A4ET8a8uTh0 7y agoThe mere fact that you can't say for sure his exact status should raise a giant red flag about the state of our republic. He is certainly targeted and watched. If you send him money, you will likely be watched more carefully as well. Buying his book is a symbol of defiance more than anything else. That said, Snowden is not covered by official sanctions and does not even come up on Dow Jones as PEP or person of interest. source: sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov dowjones.com
- DyslexicAtheist 7y agowouldn't it be normal for indictments to be under seal? I agree with all your points though.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 7y agoAgreed, but it does not make sending him funds illegal by virtue of being enemy of the state ( although I will admit I struggle with parsing that phrase ), which is the question posed by the original poster. Edit: brackets edit2: also, the fact that he may be potentially indicted does not mean it is illegal to give him money. Those are two separate issues
- post_break 7y agoBut there was this executive order? https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/01/executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-engaging-significant-m https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/0...
- A4ET8a8uTh0 7y agoOk. I am not an attorney. My views are my own. No purchase necessary. Not FDIC insured. YMMV. Consult a real lawyer. Don't be an idiot. You right in a sense that when you read this, Snowden could easily be argued to fit the mold. However, you will note that it later says that the actual designation ( verified here with treasury link I added ) is up to SOS and other involved individuals. Note, that at the time I checked it, Snowden was not on that list and apparently has not been since issuance of this EO. At least not yet. edit, because there always exceptions: see wikileaks and note neither he nor his creation was sanctioned by OFAC either. However, that did not stop the state from making donations.. challenging.
- mmjaa 7y agoAmerican problems.
- feanaro 7y agoTo be just a tiny bit flippant about it, is it illegal not to live in the USA too?
- jacquesm 7y agoHe's not an enemy of my state.
- Aaronstotle 7y agoHow would they know you sent him money? Furthermore, unless it's a large amount of funds, I don't think anyone will be prosecuted for sending him funds.
- mikro2nd 7y ago1. I am not in your state. 2. Is Bitcoin money?
- chasing 7y agoDoes it say somewhere in the article that the government is attempt to prevent its publication? Sounds like they're just stripping his profits.
- gknoy 7y agoWhen one cannot prevent the publication, one can prevent any reward that the author might get from it. It's not a far stretch to consider this to be aimed (at least partially) at discouraging such publications.
- mark-r 7y agoIf by profits we're talking about the publisher's and not just Snowden's, this could be a very effective way of getting the book off the shelves.
- buboard 7y agothere's a case that deplatforming of this kind is similar to censorship
- mattynice 7y agoHe most certainly did: In response to: "Perhaps you'll consider releasing it under creative commons 2.0 at some point :)." He said: "I don't own the rights—the publisher does—but if you're extremely online, you can find a copy in the usual places." https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207628691234316288 https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207628691234316288
- colejohnson66 7y agoThat’s not saying you’re free to do so. That’s saying, if you want to, here’s how. There’s a fine line between the two. In other words: He doesn’t own the rights, so he can’t tell you what you can do with it; Only the publisher can.
- mmjaa 7y agoI'm cool with that. I will steal it, for sure, and make sure it gets read.
- alexnewman 7y agoFor all the people who downvoted me. Steal this book is a famous title. Please consider upvoting me back.
- abfan1127 7y agoSome people are saying to release the book. It seems the better thing to do is sell it for cost. I'd buy it if the the Feds didn't get a dollar.
- mark-r 7y agoI wonder if you can buy a foreign version from Amazon?
- jethro_tell 7y agoWell, they probably aren't going to take the profits from amazon, it's going to go to the publisher, then they will probably garnish the payments to snowden or freeze the accounts or something like that.
- jonawesomegreen 7y agoTwitter thread from Snowden: https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207624251953549312 https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207624251953549312 > The government may steal a dollar, but it cannot erase the idea that earned it. I wrote this book, Permanent Record, for you, and I hope the government's ruthless desperation to prevent its publication only inspires you read it—and then gift it to another. > The court's ruling is a hack intended to circumvent First Amendment limits on what the gov't can censor. They can't (yet) ban the book, so they ban profit to try and prevent such books from being written in the first place.
- hinkley 7y agoThey aren't stealing dollars from the publisher though, right? So the controversy is going to sell more copies, and they'll make a mint on this book. I'm sure he'll just get a huge advance on the next book and most of this will come out in the wash.
- farss 7y agoI believe they might go after the publisher in this case, and that Snowden already got a good advance they presumably can't get to while he's in Russia.
- wahern 7y agoThe ruling is based on a claim that "Snowden breached several contracts with and fiduciary duties to the United States". The crux here is that Snowden was an employee and contractor. If he didn't have that prior, voluntary relationship, then the government likely wouldn't have any firm ground to stand on. I don't see how you could eliminate such a claim without also eliminating the ability of the government to require and enforce secrecy from private contractors and employees more generally. For example, imagine IRS workers writing a tell-all book about the tax returns of various people. IMO Snowden is a persecuted patriot and should be pardoned for any and all crimes (notwithstanding the legitimacy of some of the alleged crimes). But that doesn't mean the government doesn't have legitimate interests in censuring some forms of information. "Free speech" is a term of art and until very recently in nobody's wildest imagination would it cover the disclosure in the first instance of internal government data by government employees and contractors.
- nimbius 7y agoThe logical next-step is to ensure this book is stocked in every public library in America. If the US Government intends to capture the profits from this book, then there is ample incentive to purchase copies for public consumption as it is now effectively purchased at-cost.
- rhacker 7y agoIt would be cool to see this go second hand by a fan. A fan that could buy up all the copies at a bulk rate (say $2 for 1M copies) Then re-sell those at the original price. Since it's now a used book, that fan could donate the profit to the original author, whoever that is.
- DataWorker 7y agoI wouldn’t want to be that other guy. He might get disappeared via extraordinary rendition or rape allegationed into exile in some small embassy suite. No thanks!
- buboard 7y agoor someone from abroad could be buying them and sending copies to the US. kind of funny but would highlight the absurdity of the case
- jedimastert 7y agoI get the feeling that sending Edward Snowden a bunch of money would at least be cause for concern, if not actually illegal. I know "bitcoin" and all that, but if you're goal is to find some sort of legal loophole I don't think this is it.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ne0flex 7y agoUnfortunately, there was an Executive Order[1] signed by Obama in 2015 that "Blocks the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities". Section 2 states: "I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order." Where Snowden, or people similar to him, fall within the category of persons described within Section 1. [1]:https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/01/executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-engaging-significant-m https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/0...
- no_opinions 7y agoIt would be great if there was world peace, happy families and spouses that stayed together forever, and no foreigners targeting your country. People often forget that foreign governments are targeting USA and US persons abroad. There isn't another move left but to have surveillance tools and ingest a lot of data. If the advantage is lost, it will be someone else having it. This also extends to military things. It'd be nice if we all cooperated as countries and built a space elevator. But that's a child's fantasy, in the end there's a power dilemma. The thing with surveillance / war industry / etc. is there isn't a better alternative. It's not about being bullheaded and mean - it's about the very real threat of losing dominance and having foreign powers boss you around. This has happened to many countries throughout the history of civilization. Instead of complaining about surveillance in intelligence, which likely doesn't relate to you, why not complain about "normal" civil liberties in a criminal law context - for instance, stricter rules around stored data. Other things include better social benefits, affordable housing, better representation as consumer (e.g. right to repair)? I bet security will mean a lot more when the system being protected helps the common person more. :)
- buboard 7y ago> Other things include better social benefits, affordable housing, better representation as consumer (e.g. right to repair)? Moving to china is a good way to ensure all those, and you get free and pervasive surveilance as a bonus. what's not to love
- no_opinions 7y agoThey also don't have many social benefits, consumer representation or affordable housing. If they had to pay US companies back for all the IP they've stolen / used without licensing, they'd be broke.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- buboard 7y agoWell they did all the work, he just wrote the book about it... If in the US, you'd better return the book and ask for a refund
- onetimemanytime 7y agoTo be fair, Snowden was given access to a lot of stuff because he promised not to reveal them outside of the chain of command. He did, and claimed that the chain was broken and the people needed to know. Fine. The government didn't even try to ban the the book (it would have been impossible anyway.) But, why should he profit ??
- lacker 7y agoI don’t care about Snowden making a profit, but I do care about the first amendment. The government is not allowed to impose a fine on speech they don’t like. That is not “free speech”.
- onetimemanytime 7y agoNot a free speech case at all. He said all he wanted. The book is out and anyone can buy, just the person that broke the legal agreement (not to share the classified stuff he learned in books without prior clearance) will not make money of that info. Otherwise anyone can do a few years in jail and then make $x million by telling what he saw while working for CIA/NSA etc.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago> Otherwise anyone can do a few years in jail and then make $x million by telling what he saw while working for CIA/NSA etc. Why do you think that the only two alternatives is to allow people to sell secrets to foreign governments and sell revelations about illegal actions of the state or to punish both in the same way? Why do you think it is impossible to distinguish those two cases?
- disintegore 7y agoI think his point is that the law is being applied consistently. If Snowden received a pardon (and he absolutely unarguably should) this would not be problem.
- LatteLazy 7y agoThat's pretty obscene.
- ur-whale 7y agoLooks like the gov't hasn't heard of the Streisand effect. Which in is case, is a very good thing.
- choward 7y agoI know. I had forgotten about the book until I saw this article. I think I'll buy it now and more importantly I'll read it.
- rahuldottech 7y agoNo point in buying it, now. You're better off just downloading it now.
- choward 7y agoOf course. Good point.
- sprash 7y agoGovernment institutions are very well aware of the Streisand effect. This is rather a sign of the fact that this book may contain only useless information or even disinformation.
- kneel 7y agoSteal the book and send bitcoin to Snowden.
- fakegalitarian 7y agoHey kid, wanna blow up a federal building? (Bitcoin is not anonymous at all)
- post_break 7y agoJust remember Obama signed an executive order that prohibits you from donating to Snowden. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/01/executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-engaging-significant-m https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/0...
- edoo 7y agoHe also passed a whistle blower bill that actually removed protections from government whistle blowers that are reporting illegal actions of the government. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/obamas-war-whistle-blowers/351051/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/obamas-...
- AndrewBissell 7y agoWorth noting that Snowden requests donations to the families in Hong Kong who sheltered him while he was fleeing U.S. authorities: https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207629293230137344 https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1207629293230137344
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- lern_too_spel 7y agoIf what you claim is correct, the judge wouldn't have had to block proceeds from the book sales. It isn't correct. That executive order authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to impose sanctions on specific individuals who have engaged in the particular behavior described. The Secretary of the Treasury has not imposed such a sanction on Snowden. https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/ https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/
- the_watcher 7y agoThe actual reason surprised me, I expected it to be Son of Sam law related (can't profit from works related to a crime, so the debate would entirely be about whether or not he committed a crime), but since he hasn't been tried I don't believe that law can apply (recently learned this from a podcast about Anna Delvey, who was able to keep an advance related to her fraud because it came prior to her conviction).
- hota_mazi 7y agoA lot of people seem to think this is some kind of retaliation specifically targeted at Snowden and trying to prevent him from publishing his book. Two quick facts: - Nobody ever tried to ban his book. - The government receiving the profits of that book comes from a simple and universal rule that nobody is allowed to benefit from a crime. It's a rule that makes a lot of sense, whether you agree that person is a criminal or not.
- Sargos 7y ago>Nobody ever tried to ban his book The only reason this is "true" is that they legally can't and there's no loopholes to even try to use. If they had any way of even remotely doing this they would have.
- hinkley 7y agoIn a work environment, especially after a buyout, you will hear people say how X is important, while also cutting all funding for X. When a company says something is important but then cut the legs out from underneath it, they aren't being honest. They don't actually like X, they're just trying to avoid a conflict and hoping people will just forget about it. Demonetizing something is policy, be you government or corporate.
- arkanciscan 7y agoGlad I torrented it then! Always relish an opportunity to steal from the federal government!!!
- snapetom 7y agoPlaying Devil's Advocate, the Feds are going after Snowden not on the premise of censoring him. Instead, they are arguing that as part of his employment agreement, they have the right to vet anything IP related he publicly discloses. It's similar to many employer-employee relationships. I've had to pass my slide deck to my manager to screen before speaking at conferences and many companies have an officially sanctioned engineering blog as an outlet. Obviously Snowden is close to heart for many in HN, and I personally see him as a hero. However, when viewed as contract law instead of censorship, shouldn't the Feds be allowed this seizure?
- jstanley 7y agoHave you read the book? It's more like an autobiography than a spilling of secrets. There's nothing in the book about CIA or NSA operations that isn't already public knowledge.
- snapetom 7y agoAdmittedly I haven't read it. Are the operations information in the book from his leaks?
- SkyBelow 7y agoDouble Devil's Advocate: Is not the enforcement of an NDA action done by the government that limits the speech of a person? Is that it is being done on behalf of a private entity enough to clear up the First Amendment implications of this? If so, how far can this be abused?
- buboard 7y agoi don't think people are arguing the legality of the ruling but the pettiness of it and how it makes them look even worse
- snapetom 7y agoClearly it's petty. The Feds have a history of taking one misguided step based on ignorance and never backing down no matter how stupid they look. We don't disagree on that. However, a lot of the comments here are based arguing First Amendment. Employees enter in all sorts of employee-employer agreements that limit First Amendment rights.
- cryptica 7y ago> Snowden's former work agreements with the CIA and NSA are clear that he (and any other employee) must submit the contents of books or speeches for review. I noticed that there seems to be a trend to use legal technicalities to enforce bizarre rules that completely defy the intent of the constitution. I'd be questioning whether it should be legal for any company or agency to force prospective employees to sign away their most basic human rights as part of a work contract. Same thing goes for big corporations like Google which use contractual clauses to take possession of their employees' personal side projects. That is BS. How would they like it if the government told CEOs and other corporate executives that in order to be an American citizen and live in America, they need to sign away their rights to all the work they did and all the assets they amassed while living in the US? Imagine if every developed country in the world demanded the same. That's what it's like in today's institution and corporation-dominated world. You can't work for a decent wage unless you're prepared to give up all your basic rights. It's disturbing that nobody is protesting this. It ought to be criminal. If the company can't make sure that employees don't work on side projects during company time then it's because managers are incompetent and such poorly run company doesn't deserve any legal protection.
- rdiddly 7y agoAs with most things people do, it's a matter of doing it, and then justifying it afterward.
- Rebelgecko 7y agoDo you think that the existence of classified information is antithetical to the 1st amendment? I don't see how a nation can have secrets without being able to enforce at least some limitations on free (and commercial...) speech.
- xenophonf 7y agoClassified information is antithetical to Thomas Jefferson's ideal of a well informed citizenry to whom government is ultimately responsible and accountable. He affirmed this idea throughout his political writings, but most notably in Bill 79, "A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge." Its preamble reads as follows: Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes; And whereas it is generally true that that people will be happiest whose laws are best, and are best administered, and that laws will be wisely formed, and honestly administered, in proportion as those who form and administer them are wise and honest; whence it becomes expedient for promoting the publick happiness that those person, whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue, should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance; but the indigence of the greater number disabling them from so educating, at their own expence, those of their children whom nature hath fitly formed and disposed to become useful instruments for the public, it is better that such should be sought for and educated at the common expence of all, than that the happiness of all should be confided to the weak or wicked:... Bill 79 was mostly about public schooling, but it contains the kernel of an argument for more open governance and against ubiquitous secrecy in language like "give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes".
- praptak 7y agoWhen 9/11 happened, the predominant reaction worldwide was sympathy. Do you think that after all the subsequent actions of US government another similar event would elicit a similar level of sympathy if it happened now?
- skissane 7y agoYes, I think if thousands of innocent people were murdered again, there would be more sympathy, and about the same amount. Most people are able to separate the actions of the US government from those of individual office workers, firefighters, plane passengers, etc, the vast majority of whom had effectively zero personal input into or responsibility for US government policy.
- buboard 7y agoyes, the terrorist attacks originate in places where the US has actively bombed/messed up. not because of objections to surveillance
- friendlybus 7y agoThe US has always done bad things. That's how you get so much quantity of stuff, but behind it all there are grains of good if you look. The reaction to 9/11 was interesting for most it was unpredictable and the day the US stopped being the untouchable top dog. It is easy to feel sympathy for an attack on home soil that had already delivered the aims of the aggressors who died in the attack, there were few loose threads. It became black and white. The fall of gwbush in that time period really degraded the faith in the rich old white guy. The belief it was all under control and we could blindly have faith that the great president has it all sorted was deeply undermined. That warm and free feeling from the 90s died on 9/11. As long as the next tragedy is just bad, I.e. incompetent or silly the US will be okay. If something truly evil comes out there's going to be trouble.
- snowedin 7y agoI posted this in another thread, but it didn't get much traction. It's a serious question. Isn't Snowden's book an auto-biographical memoir? Given this, is there really classified information contained in the book? Can someone who has read it give an example? I've watched Snowden's Rogan interview, where he covers the material in the book, and I don't remember anything that was classified.
- farss 7y agoIt doesn't really matter, they can still use pre-publication review to jack you up by redacting even what is otherwise publicly available information and delay publication until the news cycle has moved on. The process is arbitrary and politicized, and widely considered to have become a First Amendment issue, which is not surprising, since the modern review process emerged in the 70s when the CIA was trying to mute public criticism by former employees of the lies, abuse, and failures of the Vietnam War. [1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/path-dependence-and-pre-publication-review-process https://www.lawfareblog.com/path-dependence-and-pre-publicat... [2] https://shadowproof.com/2019/12/18/us-government-censorship-system-lawsuit-snowden-nsa/ https://shadowproof.com/2019/12/18/us-government-censorship-...
- snowedin 7y agoGotcha. The argument here is that it may be that there is no classified material in the memoirs, but it doesn't matter. The publication review process can be used as an effective censorship measure in any case. Another commentator wrote something similar here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21837795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21837795 There's a thought experiment in that thread about whether or not pulling proceeds and profit is standard operating proceedure or really arbitrarity and politically applied. Do you happen to know if there are examples of this pattern and process being applied in non-politically motivated situations?
- farss 7y agoArguably the judgement against the book by the Navy Seal in the Bin Laden raid was a non-politicized example. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/24/matt-bissonnette-pay-us-government-confidentiality-osama-bin-laden https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/24/matt-bissonnet...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jacquesm 7y agoWonder if Bolton will see his profits seized as well from his 'tell all' book.
- dang 7y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21832129 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21832129 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21828389 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21828389
- boring_twenties 7y agoOn Amazon, I see $17.99 for the brand new hardcover, and the cheapest used copy ("very good" condition) is $23.13. Damn it. Guess I'll buy the used one anyway. Oh and thanks feds for reminding me about this, I totally forgot that this book existed.
- HoveringOrb 7y agoNow I don't have to sorry I pirated it.
- manicdee 7y agoHow to evade taxes like a multinational: 1. Each book is charged as a print unit to the parent company overseas 2. The cost per print unit is higher than the shelf price 3. Every sale is now a loss
- stazz1 7y agoLame. Freedom of Speech is dead with this one.