6 ms·

> 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

> 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 ago
As with most things people do, it's a matter of doing it, and then justifying it afterward.
Rebelgecko 7y ago
Do 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 ago
  Classified 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".
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    That is a gross misreading of the text. He is talking about teaching about past governments and education in general. The Jefferson administration's withholding of a letter from the Aaron Burr trial because they contained national security information is the origin of the state secrets privilege in the United States.
    - xenophonf 7y ago
      Oh, I agree, which is why I said "kernel of an argument". Speaking of the Burr conspiracy, John Marshall issuing a subpoena to Jefferson regarding those papers is one of the earliest affirmations of the President being subject to the law and not above it.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        There is no "kernel of an argument" there either. Your quote is very obviously talking about history, not about state secrets.
- roenxi 7y ago
  If the government is allowed to overrule the first amendment for classified information, how can someone like Snowden report corruption? Because what Snowden reported does appear to be the early warning signs of actual corruption. Many of the things that were revealed about Australia were things I would quite have liked the opportunity to vote against as an Australian and I expect there are US citizens in a similar position. Democracies can't keep secrets, all the oversight mechanisms eventually rely on voters and fail if voters don't know what is going on. Making it clear to government employees that they will be sacked if they talk about something is fine. Short-term classification is theoretically a problem but workable in practice. However it is well worth noting that capability related to PRISM probably started under Bush, expanded under Obama and may already have been used to surveil a presidential candidate with what is being revealed about the Trump campaign. That isn't a lot of political generations. Who knows what the democrat campaign will be subjected to by the current administration. We still might not know the full details of what is happening if classified capability is involved. From a systems perspective this is a rapidly developing disaster where voters can't make good decisions because information is being hidden. So yes classified info is antithetical to free speech.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > how can someone like Snowden report corruption By simply reporting corruption. Where Snowden got into trouble is that less than 0.1% of the documents he leaked describe anything illegal.
    - colejohnson66 7y ago
      Well good thing he didn’t leak them! Instead, he gave them to The Guardian who reviewed them and only released what was pertinent.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        The Guardian released far more than what was illegal. Again, if Snowden went to the newspaper with just the one illegal US program that he uncovered, he would have been OK. Instead, he immediately leaked to China a list of compromised Chinese systems, among thousands of other documents he leaked through Greenwald that didn't contain anything illegal.
- hos234 7y ago
  Cheney and crew not only leaked stuff. They misused it to justify a pointless war that has had a high cost - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_aluminum_tubes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_aluminum_tubes But the way the law works is they get to retire in peace.
- cryptica 7y ago
  I think there is a big difference between publishing classified information and publishing something that may hypothetically contain classified information. I don't think the latter should be enforceable by a contract. I think any review/editorial process should be the writer's own responsibility.
- lenkite 7y ago
  I always found it funny that people say that if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. But hey that never seems to apply to the government.
tjpnz 7y ago
>Same thing goes for big corporations like Google which use contractual clauses to take possession of their employees' personal side projects. That is BS. >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. You can still work in tech for a decent wage, without having to sign away your personal projects or free speech. It's difficult to have much sympathy towards those who choose to work for Google et el and then complain about the conditions of their employment. They signed up for it despite there being other options.

rdiddly 7y ago

As with most things people do, it's a matter of doing it, and then justifying it afterward.

Rebelgecko 7y ago

Do 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 ago
Classified 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".
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  That is a gross misreading of the text. He is talking about teaching about past governments and education in general. The Jefferson administration's withholding of a letter from the Aaron Burr trial because they contained national security information is the origin of the state secrets privilege in the United States.
  - xenophonf 7y ago
    Oh, I agree, which is why I said "kernel of an argument". Speaking of the Burr conspiracy, John Marshall issuing a subpoena to Jefferson regarding those papers is one of the earliest affirmations of the President being subject to the law and not above it.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      There is no "kernel of an argument" there either. Your quote is very obviously talking about history, not about state secrets.
roenxi 7y ago
If the government is allowed to overrule the first amendment for classified information, how can someone like Snowden report corruption? Because what Snowden reported does appear to be the early warning signs of actual corruption. Many of the things that were revealed about Australia were things I would quite have liked the opportunity to vote against as an Australian and I expect there are US citizens in a similar position. Democracies can't keep secrets, all the oversight mechanisms eventually rely on voters and fail if voters don't know what is going on. Making it clear to government employees that they will be sacked if they talk about something is fine. Short-term classification is theoretically a problem but workable in practice. However it is well worth noting that capability related to PRISM probably started under Bush, expanded under Obama and may already have been used to surveil a presidential candidate with what is being revealed about the Trump campaign. That isn't a lot of political generations. Who knows what the democrat campaign will be subjected to by the current administration. We still might not know the full details of what is happening if classified capability is involved. From a systems perspective this is a rapidly developing disaster where voters can't make good decisions because information is being hidden. So yes classified info is antithetical to free speech.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > how can someone like Snowden report corruption By simply reporting corruption. Where Snowden got into trouble is that less than 0.1% of the documents he leaked describe anything illegal.
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    Well good thing he didn’t leak them! Instead, he gave them to The Guardian who reviewed them and only released what was pertinent.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      The Guardian released far more than what was illegal. Again, if Snowden went to the newspaper with just the one illegal US program that he uncovered, he would have been OK. Instead, he immediately leaked to China a list of compromised Chinese systems, among thousands of other documents he leaked through Greenwald that didn't contain anything illegal.
hos234 7y ago
Cheney and crew not only leaked stuff. They misused it to justify a pointless war that has had a high cost - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_aluminum_tubes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_aluminum_tubes But the way the law works is they get to retire in peace.
cryptica 7y ago
I think there is a big difference between publishing classified information and publishing something that may hypothetically contain classified information. I don't think the latter should be enforceable by a contract. I think any review/editorial process should be the writer's own responsibility.
lenkite 7y ago
I always found it funny that people say that if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. But hey that never seems to apply to the government.

tjpnz 7y ago

>Same thing goes for big corporations like Google which use contractual clauses to take possession of their employees' personal side projects. That is BS. >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. You can still work in tech for a decent wage, without having to sign away your personal projects or free speech. It's difficult to have much sympathy towards those who choose to work for Google et el and then complain about the conditions of their employment. They signed up for it despite there being other options.