SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Update: DannyB adds: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/edward-snowden-nsa-cbs-this-morning-interview-today-2019-09-16/
When pressed on whether he considers what he did unlawful, Snowden refused to take a position but said "it's not hard to make the argument that I broke the law." He went on to say that the government continues to allege that his disclosures caused harm but, according to Snowden, has yet to show evidence of that harm.
"They never show evidence for it even though we're now more than 6 years on, it would be the easiest thing in the world to show. We've never heard that story," he said. "If they had some classified evidence that a hair on a single person's head was harmed, you know as well as I do, it would be on the front page of The New York Times by the end of the day."
Snowden also took issue with the common refrain that leaking classified documents violated the oath of secrecy he took upon entering the CIA. He said an oath of secrecy does not exist.
"One of the common misconceptions in one of the earlier attacks, that we heard in 2015, that we don't hear of so much anymore is that I violated this oath of secrecy. That does not exist. There is a secrecy agreement, but there is also an oath of service. An oath of service is to support and defend, not an agency, not even the president, it is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies – direct quote – foreign and domestic. And this begs the question, what happens when our obligations come into conflict."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday September 17 2019, @08:30PM (7 children)
The government wants all of the proceeds from any sales of Snowden's book(s). (Not profits, but gross sales.) Snowden makes no money, the publisher is out printing costs, marketing, advertising, shipping, and other costs. Who knows about any advance the publisher already paid Snowden.
The people who rely on government handouts and refuse to work should be kicked out of congress.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @08:36PM
He should fight it in court with his U.S.-based lawyers, and if he loses, leak the book or release it into the public domain.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday September 17 2019, @09:00PM (5 children)
I can see that Snowden might be on the hook (good luck collecting anything from him) for anything he might get, but why would the publisher be out anything? They did not agree to any NDA.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday September 17 2019, @09:17PM (4 children)
Playing Devil's (eg, US Government's) advocate for a second . . .
The publisher is publishing classified information.
Snowden signed an NDA.
(maybe: that NDA had a clause that all proceeds from any profit making activities can be seized)
Other reasons the publisher should not be allowed to publish, and/or any proceeds must be seized as deterrent to others not to think they can profit from publishing classified information.
The people who rely on government handouts and refuse to work should be kicked out of congress.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by vux984 on Tuesday September 17 2019, @11:02PM (3 children)
That's not how 'classified information' works; classification is a system for restricting access/distribution. It doesn't cover civilian entities who have not made any commitment to keeping classified secrets secret. And there is ample court precedent that you can publish leaked classified information pretty much with impunity. For example...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/why-the-press-can-publish-any-classified-material-it-likes/371488/ [theatlantic.com]
No. An NDA is a simple contractual agreement. It can't create obligations on parties that are not signatory to it. Can you imagine? Microsoft signs an agreement with Facebook, and now somehow YOU owe Microsoft money because Facebook did something with something you posted. It's nonsensical.
If you read some of the better written articles, it comes out that:
"The government included Snowden's publisher in the lawsuit "to ensure that no funds are transferred to Snowden, or at his direction, while the court resolves the United States' claims."
In other words, no the publisher is not on the hook for anything, they're just involved because the US is trying to intercept any funds before they are remitted to Snowden where they will be beyond their reach.
(Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Wednesday September 18 2019, @01:03PM (2 children)
Can any funds be even transferred to Snowden now? Given his situation I'd expect all his bank accounts to be closed. So I guess can only use same techniques as for money laundering. Good luck blocking that. Assuming they even would pay him, which is unlikely.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Wednesday September 18 2019, @01:11PM
Getting him the money probably isn't that hard (insert bitcoin to wallet and forget about it), it might be harder for the book publisher when the taxman and court-officers comes around wondering where the money went ...
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Thursday September 19 2019, @05:31PM
"Can any funds be even transferred to Snowden now?"
Absolutely; and any number of ways. A simple cashiers cheque would do. Or a wire transfer to any account he controls, or directs them to send it to (e.g. his wife, or other agent acting on his behalf, or any other international bank account he's opened in his own name. Nevermind bitcoin etc.
"Assuming they even would pay him, which is unlikely."
Why on earth would it be unlikely for this publisher to pay him whatever they agreed to pay him?