Having known other people who have worked for the NSA, they've had to clear any publications with them before publishing (eg, academic papers in a field related to their work, resumes describing work done at the NSA, etc).
My understanding is they're enforcable for the rest of your life.
I'd expect to see this if anybody published a book without clearance. It's only newsworthy because it's Snowden.
This all makes sense to me. I share your same expectations.
Now, I'd also expect Snowden to make sure he is not breaching those NDA's. Afaik, he is not one to make these types of mistakes. Looking forward to his response.
It doesn't matter how careful he pays attention to his NDAs. He's required to get approval before he publishes. No approval, no publication. Publish anyway, and you're in breach of contract, even if the content would have been approved in the fist place.
IANAL, nor have I read the NDA's (I'm hoping they will be publicly released as part of discovery) but I doubt NDA's with either the NSA or CIA will have an expiry date.
A breach of contract on the plaintiff's side could but not necessarily will nullify the NDA.
The best outcome for Snowden I think would be if he can demonstrate a greater good, IE: that breaking this contract prevents a larger crime, that would be up to the court to decide.
I find it interesting to see that the DOJ is not trying to prevent publication, just trying to intercept financial gains based on the premise that he didn't submit copy for review. At this point they are not claiming that he is actually publishing any confidential material.
Somehow I doubt Snowden's main motivation for publishing this book is financial, so I don't know if this will hurt him much..
He released a lot more than the spying on US citizens.
This lawsuit also appears to be about a different thing: the publication of his book. From the complaint (which is the government's side), he was supposed to get pre-authorization for publication and didn't. Therefore, the money from the book goes to the USG instead of Snowden.
Yes, but (frustratingly) it is not illegal within the US jurisdiction for the US government to violate a non-US person's privacy. The US constitution's bill of rights only protects americans.
Hence why the key point is that the US intelligence agencies spied on US citizens without warrants. I agree that they shouldn't be spying on anyone in this way (get a warrant!), but spying on US citizens in this way is super duper illegal, and therefore most clearly shows that the program itself was illegal.
The US constitution's bill of rights only protects americans.
In general, this is false. EVERYONE gets the right to free speech, the right to an attorney and a trial by jury, etc. I wouldn't expect anyone to say that it's OK to take illegal immigrants as slaves because they're not covered by the 13th Amendment.
That said, I do see that legal opinions about Snowden's revelations say that the surveillance is OK for non-USAns. I don't understand how this is supposed to be.
Snowden exposed bulk metadata collection that was greenlit by the FISA court. They were granted explicit legal authority before doing it, so there's zero chance of anyone being criminally liable.
The more egregious spying program during the Bush administration (Stellar Wind) was exposed years earlier by the NY Times.
Whistleblower laws are a con. Principled reporters have never been treated fairly in the US. It's the same crap as "responsible disclosure"; it just gives the organization time to assemble the cover up. Publish without warning in the public interest, and the public will see the truly responsible party with their hands unclean.
Graciously give them six months to clean up their act, and they will instead use it to clean up their mess--which is actually just you. Publish afterward, and you will find that the plan to discredit and humiliate you was already loaded and ready to fire.
Courts have thrown out NDAs before because they were unreasonable or unconscionable - Snowden would argue that he signed an NDA under the pretense that the government was behaving according to its' own laws, and that the NDA should be thrown out because that reasonable expectation was violated.
The money is de minmus. There's the principle, but the vastly greater principle is learning and sharing Snowden's message.
I'm hoping there's a content liberation clause in Snowden's contract with Macmillan to make the book freely available. Given the efficiency of current samizdat distribution sites, that would largely be a formality. It would be welcome all the same.
The effective prohibition on compensated publishing (both Snowden and Macmillan would apparently be enjoined, though again, the case for Macmillan to cover its editing, printing, and distribution expenses might have legs) used to be effective at blocking the spread of information. That need no longer be the case.
If the NSA's excercise of its contract terms serves to both publicise and liberate the content, their own emasculation mechanism is emasculated.
> If anything, it's Classic POTUS, as his predecessor attempted to prosecute more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all prior POTUS' combined.
It should be noted that "all prior POTUS' combined" winds up being four prosecutions since 1945 prior to Obama. Double of nearly-zero is still nearly-zero.
300 million people don't work in a capacity where they could even be tried under the Espionage Act.
Those 7 prosecutions were an act of workplace violence done as a representation of the will of the People. It was deeply offensive for there to even be a single prosecution and a clear sign that the Executive did not represent our interests.
This makes the US government look like petty idiots. As is the government wasn't already the laughingstock of the entire world. They can't even arrest Snowden (not that they should) and now they want to bankrupt him. I assume Snowden would publish this book with a publisher that's not US based but I don't know the details. Hopefully it doesn't get a penny, this criminal government that forced him into exile.
If they don't it will be quite interesting, but in reading the book, I don't think his motivations were financial.
Dude is holed up in middle of nowhere totally uncertain of his future and wants to make sure this chapter, his chapter, of history is preserved from his POV.
I am afraid that it is not even a significant portion of the population that is pissed.
If it was, then Snowden leaks wouldn't have been almost forgotten in 5-6 years. People seem to have accepted governments can do whatever they want without any consequences.
Edit: Wanted to clarify that I am not even talking about the US, as part of the leaks it was revealed that NSA was listening to Angela Merkel's Phone. Germany has already forgotten that it seems.
If I'm ever sent a resume that lists employment at the CIA, NSA or DOJ, it's going straight into the circular file. Red flag that they lack morals.
Since the CIA won't allow past employees to list their work experience, their taint has leaked onto anyone ever employed by the State Dept or govt contractors as well.
The thing people seem unable to do with Snowden is separate the intention of his actions with the impact. I have no doubt he had the right intentions. Informing the people of the gross violations of civil liberties is a noble endeavor.
However, the impact that it had and the manner in which he conducted it, and the channels he went through to do so had a dramatically negative impact on sources and methods. Real people in the field were put into actual danger as a direct result of his actions. US National Security was hampered as a result. The biggest rejoicers were arguably our two biggest threats: Russia, whom we have been fighting a proxy war in the middle east for ages now, and China and that alone should tell you something. People who believe they are doing the right thing for their country were endangered, and my country's ability to keep us safe was hampered.
Surely there was a way to let the appropriate people in charge know about these programs, and maybe had a greater possibility of enacting actual change, because as it stands right now, while we are more informed as a people, exactly zilch has changed since 2013.
It's more along the lines of, and the maturity required to understand that, there are two sides to every story and the people on the "other side" are human beings, too, and in fact, not your enemy. Average Americans most of them, believe it or not. Chances are some of them have been your friend, neighbor, church member, frat bro/sorority sis, etc.
The fact that zilch has changed has nothing to do with him. We are the electorate and if people really gave a damn about it, which most people don't because this is too abstract and far from concrete for them, then things would have changed or at least started to. The biggest thing that's been done is Apple advertising privacy as a feature in their product releases.
Please show some evidence as to why you think the country's ability to keep us safe was hampered? Has the government shown anywhere that an attack that could have been thwarted wasn't?
People need to get off their high horse. Mass collection of data isn't a method of security. It's a method that's used to try and make up for lack of it. Let's collect all the shit we can and hope to find a needle in a haystack. We have more serious issues to take care of in this country. Sick people are walking around toting assault weapons and IMHO a large swath of the population is suffering from some sort of mental illness which is being allowed to rage unchecked.
Surely there was a way to let the appropriate people in charge know about these programs
They've been informed. Perhaps not in a way that you or they might approve of, but they've certainly been informed, loudly and clearly.
Of course,
zilch has changed
It would be a mistake to assume that blowing the whistle quietly, politely, and up the chain of command, might have had better results. The only difference would be that the public would still be in the dark to this very day.
You can say this about any whistle-blowing activity, really. In the short-run it's always better for stability to cover-up your crimes. I think there are 2 straightforward rebuttals to this:
1. It seem strange that you're blaming the whistleblower, and not the people who violated the constitution to begin with. This is (vaguely) like blaming the dentist for the pain of a root canal instead of your poor eating & hygiene.
2. In the long run, trust in its institutions is critical to US power. The US was a good place to do business specifically because you could trust that you would be treated fairly, speak freely, and the government shouldn't be spying on you. If these institutions stop working, the trust will eventually go away.
You suggest there could be some sort of "other way" that would actually enact change, that way is US citizens voting for lawmakers who care about this.
It's hard to buy the party line these days. The intelligence services come across as gigantic incompetent bureaucracies. They didn't prevent 9/11, concocted fake WMDs, thousand drone strikes later they are handing Afghanistan back to the Taliban, were fast asleep to the dangers of Fake news/Social Media issues and had no clue where Trump or Brexit came from. After all that why do you believe them?
> 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.
You aint gonna get rich off this, boy. If Snowden would sell the book online via Bitcoin and then have it shipped from wherever to the customers. How would they seize that money from him even if they got a judgment against him??
Evading the ability for law enforcement to track your activities isn't the same as following the law - I agree with a lot of other folks that this lawsuite is BS, but covertly shipping the book would give the US Government a pretty big motivation to just seize Snowden's assets.
They're not looking to get rich. They're just looking to keep more money out of Snowden's hands. Even if they fail to do so (sales outside the US's jurisdiction, or paid with crypto), they have yet another thing to pile onto his record that they might be able to use as leverage against him in the future.
> How would they seize that money from him even if they got a judgment against him??
They wouldn't. But in the event he ever has assets they can touch they have an enforceable judgment against those assets. (For example, if he ever chose to hire a US attorney for any reason, they government could sue the attorney for any amounts paid to them)
This is the "It is illegal to inform the citizen base that the government has removed their constitutional right" lawsuit.
The NSA and FBI removed every US citizen of their constitutional right, to privacy. Edward Snowden informed the US citzen base on their constitutional rights being removed.
This lawsuit is the government saying it is illegal for any US citizen to inform all other citizens when the government removes their constitutational rights.
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This hypothetical originalist would have an interesting time dealing with the ninth amendment, which explicitly states that the Bill of Rights is not a full listing of all human rights.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Inspectors can and do inspect the contents many types of mail, though, so I'm not sure this example is a good one for those championing privacy...
To elaborate: when using the US Postal Service, only domestic "First Class Mail" and "Priority Mail" (these are different and distinct from standard mail) is protected and requires a probable cause warrant to open and inspect. Other types of mail, as well as all packages shipped through private companies like UPS and FedEx, do not require warrants and can be opened and inspected whenever the post office or UPS/FedEx feel like it. There isn't an expectation of privacy for these packages, and certainly no constitutional protection of it.
fuzz4lyfe > When you send a letter it does not belong to the post office while in transit
txcwpalpha > Inspectors can and do inspect the contents... of mail
txcwpalpha > ...for packages
There's a scarecrow argument if I've ever seen one. Someone says A is 1. You say A isn't 1 because AB is 2. Sneaky.
There certainly is an expectation of privacy in my mail CORRESPONDENCE (which is what this whole thing is about... communication, not package sending). Why shouldn't there be for my e mail correspondence?
I did not say that A isn't 1. In fact, in my comment I specifically acknowledge that A is 1 (some types of mail are protected by the 4th amendment). Please do not try to construct a straw man.
The point is that there is already a determination that not all items sent through mail services have an expectation of privacy. If we're drawing a parallel between physical mail and e-mail, this lends to the belief that such a determination could also be made for items sent through electronic media, especially items sent through electronic media that is owned by private companies (ISPs), similar to how private shipping companies do not provide 4th amendment protection.
>There certainly is an expectation of privacy in my mail CORRESPONDENCE
Not all mail correspondence, which is the point. If you send a letter through USPS standard mail, there is no expectation of privacy. If you send a document through UPS, there is no expectation of privacy.
Also, you're getting hung up on the usage of the words "package" vs "correspondence" vs "mail" vs "letter". This is an unnecessary distinction. A letter is just a "package" that contains paper with information on it. The law doesn't see a difference. In my original comment, you should read the words package/letter/mail/correspondence interchangeably.
> some types of mail are protected by the 4th amendment
> The law doesn't see a difference
Wow the cognitive dissonance in that is painful to read. Your argument sounds like "Shrodingers cat". It is and isn't at the same time. Ultimately though, it has to collapse into one objective reality ;)
> If you send a document through UPS, there is no expectation of privacy.
Yeah, again, no. This is directly contradicted by supreme court cases like:
"No law of Congress can place in the hands of officials connected with the Postal Service any authority to invade the secrecy of letters and such sealed packages in the mail; and all regulations adopted as to mail matter of this kind must be in subordination to the great principle embodied in the fourth amendment of the Constitution."
But then again, some people view laws (like 39 U.S.C. 3623, supreme court precedents or other such concrete objective reality as impediments that must be overcome to see reality as they choose to see it.
> you should read the words package/letter/mail/correspondence interchangeably.
> some types of mail are protected
Aside from the obvious contradiction, that's not how language works. You should really look up these words in a dictionary. It will help you communicate better.
P.S. it is a scarecrow because you are answering someone talking about Letters with what happens to packages. This is textbook scarecrow arguments, where you change what is said to attack a new, different argument than the one provided.
It isn't cognitive dissonance just because you aren't capable of discerning the difference between the types of mail. It is possible (indeed, it is the case) that the law sees no difference between packages and letters while also making a disctinction elsewhere. In this case, the law makes a distinction between sealed mail and unsealed mail, but it does not consider the fact that they are "letters" or "packages" in this distinction.
Again, you're getting hung up on the words "letter" vs "package", and you're constructing a straw man around that. Please take your own advice and avoid such arguments.
I'll bite. Where is this distinction? With references please.
You keep saying things that are factually and demonstrably untrue: "if you send a letter through USPS standard mail".... but that isn't how mail works. Standard is for commercial packages. You keep saying things that are easy to see are false.
In fact, I provided sources, including a law called the Mail classification (39 U.S.C. 3623), "The Postal Service shall maintain one or more classes of mail for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection"
The whole idea from the beginning: The mail types you are talking about were specifically created to protect 4th amendment privacy protections. It was classed in to categories that were overall: individuals communicating = more protections... non-individuals doing non-correspondence stuff = less protections. (correspondence as understood: the exchange of ideas between people via the written word)
In fact, I gave you a reading where the supreme court specifically said I had an expectation of privacy in my correspondence. I'm still waiting for your evidence that backs up your claim... or for that matter any references or outside sources that verify what you say:
> If you send a letter through USPS standard mail, there is no expectation of privacy
It's worth noting that "Standard Mail" has a specific meaning here, and refers to things sent in bulk, like newsletters and flyers.
It is emphatically not the standard service you would use to mail your aunt a letter. That service is called First Class Mail, and is not to be opened.
That's incorrect. "Standard mail" is the type of mail service used for anything that isn't one of the other named mail services, such as First Class or Priority Mail. Things sent in bulk, such as flyers, are an example of standard mail, but that does not preclude anyone from using standard mail to send a normal letter.
Wow, you are stretching this into the realm of the unreal.
It's like saying no one is precluded from buying military vehicles and driving them, therefore they are not for the military.
This is what's needed for standard mail, and no, your letter to your friend will NOT qualify, when will you stop making things up or at least admitting to being wrong?
> Standard Mail. Standard Mail usually consists of flyers, circulars, advertising, newsletters, bulletins, catalogs, or other printed pieces that are generally identical in content. Standard mail must be less than 16 ounces and must meet a minimum quantity of 200 pieces or 50 pounds of mail.
Perhaps you have a lot more aunts than I do, but everything I can find suggests standard mail had a large minimum (200 pieces?) and preprocessing requirements.
Here’s a page, from the post office itself:
“At one time, it was called Third-Class Mail. Today, it's known as Standard Mail. In 2017, it will be called (USPS) Marketing Mail. The U.S. Postal Service has proposed a name change for Standard Mail to better signal to customers that this mail is used primarily to market a product or service.”
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Probably the same way civil asset forfeiture does, somehow precedent became the supreme law of the land as opposed to the constitution.
I really have no idea why the 4th amendment only applies to a subset of mail, just that it does. It'd be great if someone with more knowledge could explain the reasoning behind it.
I would imagine there is more of a compelling state interest in protecting against actual "things" (contraband, bombs, etc), whereas a letter can pretty much only contain "speech".
My original comment was apparently unclear in this, but in regards to the 4th amendment protections, there isn't a distinction between "things" being sent via mail and "speech" being sent by mail. Some letters of "speech" are not covered by the 4th amendment, just as some bulk shipments of "things" are covered by the 4th amendment.
That distinction isn't drawn in the 4th Amendment itself. It comes from from 39 CFR § 233.3, which defines the rules and procedures for searching mail ("mail covers"). There, a distinction is drawn between
(3)Sealed mail is mail that under postal laws and regulations is included within a class of mail maintained by the Postal Service for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection...
and
(4)Unsealed mail is mail that under postal laws or regulations is not included within a class of mail maintained by the Postal Service for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection....
I would guess the justification is that 1) the potential for mischief is much lower with a letter vs. an item and 2) the unsealed categories are usually cheaper (periodicals, etc) and the Post Office should be able to verify that the mailed item really qualifies for the lower rate.
Sealed vs Unsealed has more nuanced definitions than just "letter"/speech and "item"/things, though. If you look a bit further past the quotes you provided, you'll see:
>Sealed mail includes: First-Class Mail; Priority Mail; Priority Mail Express;
Shipped packages ("things") can be (but aren't always) sent as First Class or Priority Mail, and thus would fall under the "sealed" category as well.
OTOH, you can also send normal letters (not periodicals or marketing material) as "standard mail" which would make them unsealed (I don't know why you would do this as opposed to sending it as First Class or Priority, but you can).
Basically, USPS provides a service where, regardless of what you are sending in most cases, you can choose whether or not you want it protected by the 4th amendment. The origins of this "choice" (and why it isn't the standard to always being protected) is where I am more confused. And when talking about parallels to electronic media, I think this is an important point, because if this is the case for physical mail, it also stands to reason that electronic media for some reason might not default to being protected by the 4th amendment, either.
You're making this way more mysterious-sounding than it is.
As the text says, those first categories are INTENDED for sealed letters. Things shipped in those ways therefore retain the privacy protections of letters. You can put a (small) rock or whatever in there instead--that's your business--and if you do, the Post Office will never know because they're applying the letter-privacy standard and not looking inside.
The other categories are NOT INTENDED for letters. As a result, they don't get the protection intended for letters. You can, of course, try to send something confidential that way, but if it's exposed, that's on you.
That simply isn't the case though. First Class Mail (and Priority Mail) are specifically intended for both "letters" as well as "things". A glance at the USPS website shows this. Indeed, even in the CFR you quoted, it specifically mentions certain types of "package" services as sealed mail. I don't know where you're getting that there is a specific "intention" for anything.
No, first class mail specifically is for commercial sending. It even has commercial requirements:
> Standard mail must be less than 16 ounces and must meet a minimum quantity of 200 pieces or 50 pounds of mail.
Your obstinacy in the face of overwhelming evidence against what you are saying is amazing. I feel for you. Life is hard when you act that way (I should know, I've fallen in those patterns at times)
It’s literally what the CFR says: “maintained...for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection.” The word “for” clearly means “intended for” or “for the purposes of.”
You can put whatever you want in a priority mail envelope, but the size and weight limits are much more suited to a big document than an engine block.
Sadly precedent started out the supreme law over the obvious implications - see obscenity laws and their existence.
People are just too good at rationalizing and not questioning "the way things are" even in the face of the obvious evidence and become quite upset when the elephant in the room is pointed out.
They are different because of aggregation: the hundreds of signals an organization has from your activities are combined into thousands of derived signals, which you probably would not have offered the organization freely.
Just for example, by combining several data points, Skynet can infer that those people are acquainted and add that fact to the corpus about you both. You would never give a retailer a full dump of everyone in your address book, but it's pretty much given they know it.
> When you send a letter it does not belong to the post office while in transit.
You only have an expectation of privacy of the contents of the letter. You have no such expectation of anything on the envelope itself (e.g. sender/receiver address). The government contends that it only collects analogous metadata in transit, not the contents of the communication itself (although this is debatable).
That wasn't the only program. They were also tapping into cell phones and laptop webcams for remote surveillance on targeted subjects, but without any constitutionally required warrant checks in place.
Have you been paying attention? At the time that Snowden made his revelations, no approval was necessary for an NSA analyst to activate a webcam, for example. They literally just had to select from a menu of totally broad reasons on an internal web form documenting the access. They had a congressionally granted exemption from requiring case-by-case FISA approval. This is now all open and acknowledged, and found to be illegal.
Remotely interfering into a computer normally refusing access to force it to transmit vidoe/data is a blatent violation of the 4th Amendment and illegal, yes. The "Remotely interfering into" part specifically since you're entering into a person's property without a warrant.
If the webcam was already transmitting for a Skype call or whatever then you can argue over privacy in transit all you want but first you need the person to knowledgeably consent to starting the transmission.
Edward Snowden showed us that the NSA can and does access our webcams remotely. So they are watching you even when you don't know your data is leaving your house.
The only illegal domestic surveillance program Snowden leaked was phone metadata collection. Where did any of his leaks say that the NSA would hack domestic webcams at will?
If I entrust data to Google, or my possessions to the safe of a bank, I am still injured when that trust is broken. I gave conditional access to one entity, not to everyone, and not to the government.
Not trying to plug Andrew Yang here, but this is a big part of his platform. He's advocating for a right-to-data bill that would make any and all data collected and transmitted yours.
If that goes into place, your data immediately becomes subject to these amendments. It does away with some of the legal grey area that surrounds data.
Curious how this handles data that is not specifically about one person, but is about the relationships between many people?
Facebook's social graph, for instance: is the fact that I am friends with someone on Facebook my property, their property, or Facebook's property? Or this conversation we're having on HN: you could argue that we each own our words, but the conversation itself (including contextual replies, quoted text, arguments responded to, etc.) is its own entity that doesn't make sense when individual posts are removed, and that's why HN has a time limit for deleting your posts. What about a crowd shot that has various other people in the background? Is it property of the photographer, the clearly-visible foreground subjects, or anyone who happens to appear in it? Does that mean someone who goes around tourist attractions photobombing people has a right to claim all your family photos?
It is the basic premise for GDPR in the EU. While convoluted (it did not end up that bad, or as bad as you'd predict), it actually delivers this idea in a workable way.
The framers couldn’t’ve imagined the internet, and, despite that, what you say on the internet is protected by the first amendment as it is speech. Why would the fourth amendment be any different?
Because the first and fourth amendments guarantee different rights. The first guarantees that you essentially can't be arrested for speech. It says nothing about whether or not your speech can be collected and recorded. The fourth forbids the government with searching the enumerated items without cause or a warrant. Very different things.
My point was that the “originalist” view of the constitution falls apart when you see that the Supreme Court has ruled that speech that the framers couldn’t even imagine is protected. They've done the same with the fourth (you can’t search a car without a warrant or probable cause even if it’s in public... to an extent).
I was arguing that if you want to take an originalist view to the constitution, you’d need to give up your protection of speech online and in many other areas.
Among others, Neil Gorsuch is one originalist-friendly justice who has strongly argued against this interpretation of the 4th Amendment in a modern data transmission context.
In 1789, "papers", being made of actual paper, were in transit for much longer in 1789 and there are absolutely draconian laws against destruction and obstruction of the mail.
For example, 18 USC § 1702, which prohibits "with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same" also doesn't have a carve-out for governmental purposes.
I don't think that logic even works from an originalist perspective. If the bank holds a safe deposit box on your behalf it doesn't become the banks property unless you abandon it and searching it is no less legally problematic because its lies within the banks property.
One doesn't even have to reach into the realms of tech not imagined at the founders time to find useful analogies.
Furthermore the idea that a document written hundreds of years ago can't be reinterpreted in the context of framers intentions and new reality is fundamentally broken.
It means you have to rewrite from scratch every century.
Prior to the American Revolution, Franklin had been the postmaster for the British Crown, establishing postal delivery routes throughout the colonies. In the early days, it was only official government communications that passed through the post, and it was “sealed against inspection”.
Later, when the mail could be used by citizens, carriers would regularly read others’ mail along their long routes for entertainment.
Franklin, eager to maintain the sanctity of the mail in a time of political upheaval, developed a set of regulations and affixed locks to postal carriers’ saddle bags. Franklin’s early regulations became part of the basis for privacy law, as did the Fourth Amendment rule about unreasonable searches, which the Framers certainly intended to cover postal mail."
The answer is yes it is still your data. There are relevant supreme Court precedents which resolve this unambiguously. Hence why you need a warrant to tap a phone line instead of just claiming "it's the phone companies signal".
The constitution does not explicitly enumerate a right to privacy.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) explicitly established the right to privacy. Justice Douglas’ opinion states that such a right exists within the “penumbras” and “emanations” of the constitution. As there is no explicitly enumerated right, strict constructionists may oppose this interpretation.
Katz v. United States (1967) established a two part test to determine whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a given circumstance:
"first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'"
Smith v. Maryland (1979) established the basis for the government’s claim that the data collection program is permitted. The case focuses on whether an individual has an expectation of privacy for metadata they willingly give up to a third party. The court found that a warrant is not required to collect such information.
There's an episode of the West Wing that goes into this, "The Short List". One of the characters, Sam Seaborn is questioning a nominee of the supreme court about his position on privacy. It's classic Aaron Sorkin writing, but it might address your question.
Exactly. Where is the accountability for the government officials who deprived us of our rights in the first place? There's been none. They made a few perfunctory gestures toward self-control, and kept right on violating the Constitution in the same ways under programs with new names.
The problem with the Government is that the people in power feel like they have all the power and don't want to let it go. I think that robots would serve us better.
I see the same issue with the other debate raging on HN: Stallman and Free Speech.
The issue is that people -- not sure whether it was OP, or you -- conflate what is moral with what is legal.
One person starts off with a moral premise: people should have free speech, or people should have the right to say what the government is doing.
Someone else responds with what is legal: the law applies to government curtailment of free speech, or there was a contract in place.
Laws should reflect values, not vice-versa. What is legal should not be confused with what is right.
Note: I am not taking a moral position myself here. I just wish the legal position would not short-circuit the debate about what the correct moral position ought to be.
I agree with your observation and statement, but also want to add there is a moral argument that if one objects to a law or a contract, one should remove oneself from under it (leave the country/company) rather than break it, even if the law itself is immoral.
Not that I'm arguing one way or another how that applies in this situation, though.
There the concept of civil disobedience. You don't simply leave a country because you disagree with it, you change it. Refer to the King and the civil rights movement for more. Go further back to the other Martin Luther for even more.
Isn't the concept of political refugees contrary to what you are saying?
The way I see it, we acknowledge that sometimes a government can act outside of it's own boundaries in a repressive manner. That is why we help those who are fleeing persecution based on political activity.
Saying you can't push for change and run away when repression comes would mean that a lot of people I admire, including the Dalai Lama, are bad people. I disagree.
There's a difference between saying it's OK to flee repression, which I don't think anyone is disputing, and saying that given the option to flee, it's immoral to instead stay and practice civil disobedience, which was the claim made up thread.
There is also the option of ignoring it (piracy vs IP laws) and subverting it (many communities refuse to work with cops and handle justice themselves).
These are as illegal as civil disobedience (refusing to work with cops might be more legal in some countries). As to if they are more or less moral... what moral framework are we using to judge?
This leaves us at a problem. Legality seems far too poor a standard to judge actions upon outside of court (and sometimes even in court), yet any moral standard is quite subjective to each person. So how do we determine right or wrong? There is a reason this has been an open problem for all of recorded history.
>You don't simply leave a country because you disagree with it
Some do. See: secessionists or separatists. For historical examples, the English religious separatists who moved to Holland. Or the Confederates in the American Civil War.
To be clear, I'm not defending their position or arguing whether or not this is better than civil disobedience, but clearly there is a separatist/secessionist school of moral thought.
> I agree with your observation and statement, but also want to add there is a moral argument that if one objects to a law or a contract, one should remove oneself from under it (leave the country/company) rather than break it, even if the law itself is immoral.
There may exist a moral argument, but it's pretty easy to disprove that argument: In Nazi Germany, this principle would leave one to just leave Nazi Germany, otherwise cooperating with the Nazis.
The principle you're proposing would have led to the demise of many more Jews during WW2.
> would have led to the demise of many more Jews during WW2
That maybe has some implicit assumptions. If the entire populace of German adopted what you call the "principle", Germany would have fallen much faster and with less bloodshed.
Regardless...moral choices are usually pitted against other moral choices and that's part of what shapes our moral "fiber", for lack of better vocabulary. To do something or do nothing, both have risk analysis. Mostly, we do our best with what we have learned...which also greatly influences what we imagine for the future.
> That maybe has some implicit assumptions. If the entire populace of German adopted what you call the "principle", Germany would have fallen much faster and with less bloodshed.
I suppose you're right, but I don't think the assumption that there won't be a mass exodus is a very unreasonable assumption. Many reasonable ethical principles would have prevented the Nazis from even coming into power if everyone in the country applied it. I think if you were in Nazi Germany and as the Third Reich came to power it would be unreasonable to choose an ethical strategy that only works if everyone applies it, since in the moment, everyone was clearly not applying an ethical strategy.
We do have the benefit of hindsight here, though.
> To do something or do nothing, both have risk analysis. Mostly, we do our best with what we have learned...which also greatly influences what we imagine for the future.
Agreed, ethics is very situational, which is why trying to find widely-applicable rules is often a wild goose chase.
Sticking to your principles works on an individual level, you can't generalize to what the effect of that would be on the whole population. There were plenty of 'good' Germans who refused to become part of the madness. Plenty of them ended up just as dead as the victims on the other side of the conflict.
And in the end it did not matter much. But one thing is for sure: they kept their conscience clean and that counts for something as well.
I spent time in Israel and in Brooklyn, and I've personally met at least 3 Jews who were alive when I met them because of good Germans/Austrians who broke Nazi law to help them escape.
I think HN often concerns itself with whole populations because a lot of what we're talking about is public policy, and policies at large corporations, which do affect large populations. But the fact is that for most people, the ethical choices we get to make only touch a few people at a time.
Bystanders may be interested in Kohlberg's stages of moral development, which provides a descriptive (not prescriptive) framework for classifying moral arguments like this:
I don't think this is the "is ought" problem. Most people recognize the existence of ought, and ought is explicitly recognized as a pre-condition for legal authority.
That is to say that we all expect, whether it is justified or not from a philosophical perspective, that ought both exists and that it should be related to legality.
We're not dealing with an authoritarian state. Laws by democratic governments are supposed to be mutable.
It's possible say, that the laws haven't caught up to what we (as americans) consider moral. Or it's possible the laws themselves were driven by immoral actors. Or it's possible the law's were passed with good intentions but had side effects that were unforeseeable. Or it's just one big gray area -- which seems to be the case here.
People argue that Snowden's act was moral in the most absolute sense to inform the nation and expose the Government's secrets.
James Comey, someone I think to be of high moral standards, knew about the program [1] yet didn't release the information to the public. He refused to reauthorize the post 9/11 surveillance program -- going to extraordinary lengths to do so.
So what are we to do? Is it more moral to work within the system to change the laws, or to break them entirely?
> So what are we to do? Is it more moral to work within the system to change the laws, or to break them entirely?
The United States would not even exist without the latter. Imagine if the founding fathers had tried to "worked within the system" of British rule instead of carrying out what the latter would have considered an extraordinary act of treason.
Previous whistleblowers like Thomas Drake and Bill Binney tried to work within the system, and that didn't exactly go very well. Snowden learnt from their experiences that the only way to achieve any meaningful outcome was to break the law. I imagine if there had been a viable means for him to bring the issues to public attention legally he might have done so.
> Imagine if the founding fathers had tried to "worked within the system" of British rule.
Technically they couldn't since the colonies were without representation in the British Parliament, so they really couldn't, could they?
> Previous whistleblowers like Thomas Drake and Bill Binney tried to work within the system...
Sure but the Obama administration still looks bad for their handling of those whistleblowers. Binney and Drake still look like heros. No one said that whistleblowing was for the faint of heart. Nor were there any guarantees about your livelihood if you report on your employer or customers.
The only whistleblower statute I've known to be effective has been around medicare fraud -- first because medicare fraud is in the tens of billions, and second the reportee get's a cut of any future settlement or judgement.
It's unclear what Snowden's legacy will be. Sure, he informed us that the government might have been doing illegal things under the cloak of secrecy. But he released a lot of information and he didn't even try to go through the legal whistleblower channels first.
If he had gone through whistleblower channels I think it would have been harder for the US to use the word "traitor" to describe him.
Publishing timely facts makes you a journalist. Publishing older facts makes you a historian. There are no legal qualifications for asserting freedom of the press; everyone can do it.
Anyone that has not entered into a contractual agreement with the US to protect classified materials can publish classified materials. It's just that the professional journalists, already established with the large news organizations, are the only ones with the visibility and reputation to not get jailed, vanished, or discredited afterwards.
If you think the US won't break its own laws to protect its dirty secrets, you haven't seen enough leaks of its dirty secrets.
I understand all of that, and what a journalist is, thanks. I simply didn’t realize they were suing over the book and not, say, they yers of reporting from the Guardian, Le Monde, Intercept, etc based on documents passed to those publications’ journalists by Snowden.
Some people believe that being a journalist, and thereby enjoying the lawful protections guaranteed to journalists, requires press credentials. It is important to attack this belief whenever it is suggested, as it endangers all those journalists who are not fortunate enough to have a regular salary and a large media group backing them up.
If you take your camera out, and point it at something happening in the street adjoining your home, and plan to post the story to YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, your own web page, send to your local television station, insert into a blog or print book, or have any other form of intent to publish, then for the purposes of exercising your rights, you are in that moment a journalist.
There are no special rights that Clark Kent enjoys as a staff reporter that Peter Parker cannot invoke as an independent freelance photographer.
---
I believe that specifically, the NDAs in question have a clause requiring personnel who intend to publish books to allow the agency to perform a pre-print review, to ensure no accidental spillage of classified materials through publication. Due to the nature of the contracts, the sole arbiter of whether information is classified is the classifying authority, so even if something has been published internationally in a globally-recognized newspaper, and is now common knowledge to hundreds of thousands of people, the information is still classified until the authority declassifies it. Those subject to the NDAs are technically not even allowed to read that article in the newspaper, or that chapter of the book, unless they then immediately take steps to control the classified in it and report it to their security contact. Which is to say that you are supposed to wrap the newspaper or book up in an opaque cover and drop it off at your security office.
The actual security apparatus has evolved, but the legal framework is still very much from the 1950-1980 Cold War era, so if you do not do the patently ridiculous thing, you can be sued or prosecuted.
Snowden didn't give CIA, NSA, DIA, or whomever else he may have had NDAs with, the opportunity to edit his book before going to print, for obvious reasons, so he's in violation of the contracts. It is unlikely there is anything in there that has not already been published in newspapers. It seems like they're refusing to declassify information that can no longer seriously be considered secret, with the potential to cause harm to national interests, solely because as long as it remains classified, they can use the contracts to silence, suppress, or retaliate against the whistleblower.
Existing laws allow charging journalists for publishing classified information. There exists no freedom of the press protection regarding such publication. People seem to think that the Pentagon Papers case somehow created such a protection when it did not. In that case the Supreme Court ruled that the government couldn't prevent publishing of such information. It didn't rule that those that did couldn't be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. In fact several of the majority said in their briefs that the government could do exactly that.
Acting members of Congress can do it in a roundabout way, as long as they do it while speaking on the floor. Anything they says becomes part of the Congressional Record, which is available to the public and de facto unclassified.
The laws against publishing classified information only apply to people who are authorized to have it in the first place. As soon as that info makes its way to someone who is NOT authorized to see it, they can legally do whatever they want with it.
There is no legal definition of "journalist" in this context.
This is simply untrue. The laws regarding publishing classified information to those unauthorized to have it applies across the board. There is no exception for journalists. There has been a tradition of not prosecuting journalists for doing so and the Supreme Court ruled in the Pentagon Papers case that the government couldn't prevent publication but didn't rule that journalists could not be prosecuted after the fact for doing so. Several justices released their own briefs regarding the opinion because the reason for ruling against the prior restraint varied among the justices. In a few of them justices mentioned that the government could seek, likely successfully, criminal charges after the fact.
Surely this has nothing to do with moral objections and simply to do with the law.
The US Government took away citizens constitutional rights, and Snowden told everyone about it.
I like to think that even if Snowden is convicted of that, then that forces the US government to be convicted of wrong-doing also. i.e. you can't be convicted of telling secrets that aren't true.
The form itself may not, but it doesn't stand alone. There is the constitution, possibly legislation, legal precedent and gloss, and ultimately, the rulings of a jury, judges, and courts of appeal.
Which is why we have a rule of law and a justice system, and not simply contracts.
> The only people I'm aware of that can publish classified information without punishment are journalists.
Everyone has the right to publish classified information, unless they've signed an agreement not to. There's no Constitutional difference between journalists and non-journalists.
Because, AFAIK, there’s nothing binding the government from enacting a law against treason or espionage. So they did a century ago. The problem is not that (depending on who you ask). The problem is that they’re abusing “national security” to justify needing secret courts and claiming a legally protected action (whistleblowing[0]) is illegal.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Any law that allows the NSA carte blanche to observe my communication is a law authorizing unreasonable search and seizure, and is therefore unconstitutional.
Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating
to terrorism. [0]
Sec. 202. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating
to computer fraud and abuse offenses. [0]
Sec. 217. Interception of computer trespasser communications. [0]
"by striking ‘‘wire and oral’’ and inserting ‘‘wire, oral,
and electronic’’"[0]
Allows federal agents to follow sophisticated terrorists trained to evade detection. For years, law enforcement has been able to use "roving wiretaps" to investigate ordinary crimes, including drug offenses and racketeering. A roving wiretap can be authorized by a federal judge to apply to a particular suspect, rather than a particular phone or communications device. Because international terrorists are sophisticated and trained to thwart surveillance by rapidly changing locations and communication devices such as cell phones, the Act authorized agents to seek court permission to use the same techniques in national security investigations to track terrorists.[1]
This was just a cursory look into the Act. To be fair, it looks like there is a judge involved but who knows how rigorous the approval procedure is. It didn't read to me as a 'carte blanche' approval, but again, it may be in the eye of the beholder of the agency/judge.
"By law, NSLs can request only non-content information, for example, transactional records and phone numbers dialed, but never the content of telephone calls or e-mails." Also NSL's can be contested in court. No carte blanche to observe my communications.
DOesn't contain carte blanche for the NSA to observe my communications. There are limitations and checks. They may not be a strong as some would like but the law give far from carte blanche permission.
You’re quibbling over semantics in this thread. Yes, they don’t legally have carte blanche, but they sure act like it does. Have you even looked at the Snowden leaks? They may not be authorized to have carte blanche access to many things, but through programs like PRISM, they had essentially, the entire internet at their fingertips.
The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 only provides protection for government employees which Snowden was not and it also doesn't apply to intelligence agency at least when classified material is involved. The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 is the applicable law here and applies to government employees and contractors. It specifies the process of reporting waste,fraud or abuse when classified material is involved and provides protection if the process is followed. Snowden choose not to follow the provided process and therefore is protected under the law.
Snowden repeatedly attempted to follow internal processes and was stonewalled.
The most fundamental responsibility of his job was to uphold the US constitution. His bosses deserve to be charged with treason, which is why they are working so hard to attack him.
The only parties who could provide this evidence are govt agencies who are clearly not pleased with Snowden. Seems kind of silly to expect them to provide evidence to substantiate his claim.
In the absence of contrary evidence, we should take Snowden at his word because none of his releases have been discredited as fabrications and thats the only account we have of the situation.
> we should take Snowden at his word because none of his releases have been discredited as fabrications
That's a low bar. He didn't forge any of the documents he released. He did, however, repeatedly lie about what the documents contained and to corroborate hid interpretation, he wildly exaggerated what he was able to do while at the NSA.
"I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the President, if I had a personal e-mail.”
None of his leaked documents showed that capability. People complain about Clapper for getting a question wrong about whether phone metadata collection collected data about Americans after a line of questioning about whether the NSA creates dossiers on Americans, and he rightfully should be held to a high standard in Congressional testimony, but Snowden just straight-up lied repeatedly.
Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act process involves bringing the matter and any evidence to the Department of Justice. The DoJ then has a fixed time to either investigate or decide not to investigate. If they decide not to investigate the whistleblower can bring their complaint and evidence to the staff of the Senate Intelligence committee for the committee to decide if further investigation by the committee is warranted. If the DoJ does investigate they have to notify the Senate Intelligence committee of the investigation.
If Snowden had attempted to follow the lawful procedure there would be evidence of it at the DoJ, the Senate Intelligence committee and Snowden himself would have evidence due to his correspondence with the DoJ and Senate Intelligence committee.
Snowden got a job handling classified material. The government only trusted him to handle that material because he signed various contracts that said he would keep the material secret and that he would allow the NSA to read anything he wanted to publish so they could be sure he didn’t accidentally leak something (and, potentially, so they could plan for damage control).
This lawsuit is not actually about publishing classified material, but about not giving the NSA a chance to read his book before it was published. Since that’s a contract interpretation issue, and since there’s a law specifically making this contract legal, and since it’s a civil lawsuit (e.g., he can’t go to jail because of this particular lawsuit), I believe the government has a very strong leg to stand on.
I’m not saying this is what the law should allow. But I don’t expect the court to rule this law unconstitutional.
The most fundamental part of his job was to uphold the US constitution. After numerous attempts to stop the constitutional violations of the NSA from within, he chose to uphold the constitution rather than the orders of unelected power hungry spooks.
Frankly, hundreds if not thousands of people within the NSA deserve to be charged with treason. I would be shocked if this actually happened, though.
Upholding the constitution is not a citizen's job. It is the supreme court's.
You can invoke your constitutional rights as a citizen,but you don't get to enforce it on behalf of somebody else, nor do you as an individual, decide what action constitutes a violation.
Upholding the constitution is absolutely the job of public servants, which is why our country makes them take an oath. Not sure why you think otherwise.
CIA, NSA, Senators, all take this oath: “I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
I'd be curious to see an explanation of why just knowing about jury nullification would disqualify you from being on a jury - obviously if you intend to nullify or "helpfully" inform the other jurors about nullification you should disclose it and therefore be disqualified, but I do not see how knowledge of nullification counts as something that should disqualify you if you have no intention of nullifying.
There’s generally very loose discretion to eliminate potential jurors. Often without providing any reason at all.
A prosecutor, given the option and knowledge of the situation, would never willingly have a person on the jury that knows they could totally disregard the criminality of the charges at hand.
That works for the defense as well -- they're allowed to object to jurors too, for the same reasons: potential biases, ability to see through sophistry, etc.
Knowing that I could nullify does not in any way prevent me from properly concluding a verdict based on the laws that are in place.
It's only if I choose to actually nullify that I'm not doing jury duty properly, but the knowledge of nullification as far as I can understand in no way prevents me from doing jury duty properly.
Jury nullification gets its teeth from the principle of (no) double jeopardy: once a defendant in a criminal case is found not guilty of a charge, they cannot be re-tried on those same charges.
(There are an increasing number of loopholes, including of charges in another, or higher, jurisdictions, and/or on different charges.)
The prosecution has no right of appeal. The defence does.
This is not the case in a civil suit. Either party (plaintif, here, the US government, or defence, here, Snowden) may appeal an unfavourable decision, through courts of appeal or ultimately the Supreme Court.
Jury nullification specifically does not apply to this case.
What? No, this is a lawsuit for violations of the NDAs Snowden signed with NSA & CIA in particular regarding not submitting his manuscript for pre-publication review.
>>This lawsuit is the government saying it is illegal for any US citizen to inform all other citizens when the government removes their constitutational rights.
He can do whatever he wants but he has to suffer the consequences. Every state has secrets and employees with top clearances learn them by swearing to keep the secret. He can go to Congress or through the chain of command....or risk jail and financial ruin. Otherwise a CIA ex-chief could write a book and name all US spies in China or Russia...
Well, they claim the citizens of other countries are not protected by the US constitution. Not that I agree with them, but it might be harder to challenge this in courts.
Any country with resources is doing it to allies and adversaries alike and selective outrage requires top-shelf cherry picking. Everything is tapped everywhere.
This is not a criminal case, judging guilt for crime; it's a civil contracts case for injunction against profits, per the NDA.
And citizens not bound by the NDA, who happen into the information (as would be the case with numerous US-citizen reporters who've written on the Snowden stoy while including specifics of his information disclosures) are not enjoined. At least not in this case.
The NDA does make it remarkably difficult for anyone with specific insider knowledge to publish and profit by disclosure.
NB: I am a space alien cat, not a lawyer. I'm not defending any position, publication, or contract, or questions of possible criminal prosecution. Just clarifying what is at hand, and what language applies.
This is the "It is illegal to inform the citizen base that the government has removed their constitutional right" lawsuit.
While I applaud what Snowden did, the issue in this case is quite a bit different than what you have portrayed here. The issue is whether or not he violated the terms of his NDA. And of course he did, in a gigantic and very public way, and then admitted it and has given many speeches about doing it, wrote a book about it, and had a movie created portraying it.
Sadly, this is an open and shut case. I am not even sure why he would defend it though, as the case is a “Grenada” [1] and a judgment from a US court will have zero effect on him while living in Russia.
”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.”
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.
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.
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."
Can one of the internet lawyers out there explain why this is a civil lawsuit, and not a criminal lawsuit?
I'd think that if he committed an actual crime, it would be a criminal suit. I thought civil suits were for people trying to get money out of each other.
Or is this like how the feds couldn't get Al Capone for murder so they put him away for tax evasion?
There is already a separate criminal suit; this one is just trying to prevent him from profiting from his book, due to it (allegedly) containing intelligence info and violating his NDA.
From the link: "This lawsuit is separate from the criminal charges brought against Snowden for his alleged disclosures of classified information. This lawsuit is a civil action, and based solely on Snowden’s failure to comply with the clear pre-publication review obligations included in his signed non-disclosure agreements. "
No. Classified Info laws only apply to people who are authorized to have that info in the first place. This is why the US went after Snowden but not the journalists he worked with, as they broke no laws.
You also do not have an NDA with the government (I assume) and so owe them nothing but taxes.
I especially like the fact that he can’t fly back to the US since he has no passport, but at the same time he is being prosecuted. It’s been so long, why even care? Who is running the show on this?
Because no criminal charge that rests solely upon openly publishing facts would ever stand up against the 1st Amendment.
Before any cleared individual ever touches or sees classified materials, they sign an NDA that establishes personal responsibility for protecting classified material. This is separate and distinct from the criminal espionage and treason consequences, but they do their best to make you think they are closely tied with the training materials.
As it happens, openly publishing as a protected right is hugely different from the criminal act of selling or gifting secrets to a foreign adversary, so a civil suit is all they can do.
And given that it is a civil suit, Snowden would have a reasonable shot at an "unclean hands" defense, if the judges were truly impartial and objective.
A criminal charge has no effect as he can't actually be brought back for trial and can't be tried in his absence.
If you sue someone, you can serve their intermediaries (his bank or publisher etc). So then the case can proceed. By getting a judgement they can seize US book revenues.
Its a pretty cheap move imho but I think that's the logic: if you can't do something at least look like you're doing something.
For those wondering, the purpose here (part of a multi-pronged approach) is to restrict his income and seize his assets. The less money someone has access to, the less power they have. This makes it harder for him to live day-to-day, restricts his access to experts who won't work pro-bono, and ultimately will hurt his criminal defense should he ever return to the USA.
These guys don't fool around. Expect more pressure from other angles as well.
I strongly agree. Since Snowden himself is presumably in Russia, the U.S. government is effectively attempting economic sanctions against him. Their method is to scare anyone that might send him money with a lawsuit.
Can't Snowden's publishers just use the Irish tax loopholes and bill the US corporation "intellectual property" rights with the same value as the profits? So that the book's profits are 0?
This would also provide a strong justification for closing said loopholes.
He's broken the law in more than one ways. Regardless of his motives, he broke the law. We can't expect to hold Trump or anyone else accountable if we cannot hold responsible those who are entrusted to protect confidential information.
Yes, lets all blindly follow the will of the government without thinking for ourselves and in that way the government will be held accountable... oh wait. Can you name any major movements that created change without breaking a single law?
Rosa parks not sitting on the back of the bus is a great example
Well, I hope you're aware of all the laws that exist in this country. If you break one of them (however frivolous or unjust it may be), I hope you turn yourself in so we can hold you accountable for your crimes.
Moral absolutists confuse the hell out of me. By your own admission, you deserve a prison sentence for driving a car while living in Las Vegas. Regardless of your intent, you would have broken the law (repeatedly).
Somehow I doubt the US government is after a few dollars from his book sales. It is more of a message to anyone trying to publish "unapproved" material in the future - don't do it or we will make your life hell.
TLDR;
If you share the many dirty secrets of your employer, and then write a tell-all book about them. Your employer will sue you for breach of NDA.
This is especially true if your employer is The USA(NSA/CIA) and your last name is Snowden.
The briefing is largely about how the US wants to stop Snowden from collecting proceeds from the book, and how he has violated his NDA by not letting them preview a pre-published draft.
Do the worlds proceeds have to go through the US publisher (Metropolitan Books) or can the proceeds of books sold here in Europe go to Snowden? For example letting a European publisher sell the book in Europe.
500 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 235 ms ] threadMy understanding is they're enforcable for the rest of your life.
I'd expect to see this if anybody published a book without clearance. It's only newsworthy because it's Snowden.
Now, I'd also expect Snowden to make sure he is not breaching those NDA's. Afaik, he is not one to make these types of mistakes. Looking forward to his response.
You... you know who Snowden is, right?
Surely the NSA/CIA's NDAs are permanent?
A breach of contract on the plaintiff's side could but not necessarily will nullify the NDA.
The best outcome for Snowden I think would be if he can demonstrate a greater good, IE: that breaking this contract prevents a larger crime, that would be up to the court to decide.
I find it interesting to see that the DOJ is not trying to prevent publication, just trying to intercept financial gains based on the premise that he didn't submit copy for review. At this point they are not claiming that he is actually publishing any confidential material.
Somehow I doubt Snowden's main motivation for publishing this book is financial, so I don't know if this will hurt him much..
Wouldn't a great defense here be that the NDAs shouldn't be enforced because the actions covered were criminal? I mean, isn't that standard with NDAs?
This could be a chance to get this before the courts, was my actual (badly communicated) point.
This lawsuit also appears to be about a different thing: the publication of his book. From the complaint (which is the government's side), he was supposed to get pre-authorization for publication and didn't. Therefore, the money from the book goes to the USG instead of Snowden.
Hence why the key point is that the US intelligence agencies spied on US citizens without warrants. I agree that they shouldn't be spying on anyone in this way (get a warrant!), but spying on US citizens in this way is super duper illegal, and therefore most clearly shows that the program itself was illegal.
In general, this is false. EVERYONE gets the right to free speech, the right to an attorney and a trial by jury, etc. I wouldn't expect anyone to say that it's OK to take illegal immigrants as slaves because they're not covered by the 13th Amendment.
That said, I do see that legal opinions about Snowden's revelations say that the surveillance is OK for non-USAns. I don't understand how this is supposed to be.
The more egregious spying program during the Bush administration (Stellar Wind) was exposed years earlier by the NY Times.
Graciously give them six months to clean up their act, and they will instead use it to clean up their mess--which is actually just you. Publish afterward, and you will find that the plan to discredit and humiliate you was already loaded and ready to fire.
If the government prevails in the lawsuit hopefully Snowden will offer an e-book for purchase with cryptocurrency.
The money is de minmus. There's the principle, but the vastly greater principle is learning and sharing Snowden's message.
I'm hoping there's a content liberation clause in Snowden's contract with Macmillan to make the book freely available. Given the efficiency of current samizdat distribution sites, that would largely be a formality. It would be welcome all the same.
The effective prohibition on compensated publishing (both Snowden and Macmillan would apparently be enjoined, though again, the case for Macmillan to cover its editing, printing, and distribution expenses might have legs) used to be effective at blocking the spread of information. That need no longer be the case.
If the NSA's excercise of its contract terms serves to both publicise and liberate the content, their own emasculation mechanism is emasculated.
If anything, it's Classic POTUS, as his predecessor attempted to prosecute more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all prior POTUS' combined.
It should be noted that "all prior POTUS' combined" winds up being four prosecutions since 1945 prior to Obama. Double of nearly-zero is still nearly-zero.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10...
That administration also grossly misused their Section 702 powers passed with the 2008 FISA ammendments as well. https://www.newamerica.org/oti/blog/history-fisa-section-702...
I'm making the case that less than one a year in a population of 300+ million is, indeed, rare.
Those 7 prosecutions were an act of workplace violence done as a representation of the will of the People. It was deeply offensive for there to even be a single prosecution and a clear sign that the Executive did not represent our interests.
We should have impeached him for it.
Dude is holed up in middle of nowhere totally uncertain of his future and wants to make sure this chapter, his chapter, of history is preserved from his POV.
I am afraid that it is not even a significant portion of the population that is pissed.
If it was, then Snowden leaks wouldn't have been almost forgotten in 5-6 years. People seem to have accepted governments can do whatever they want without any consequences.
Edit: Wanted to clarify that I am not even talking about the US, as part of the leaks it was revealed that NSA was listening to Angela Merkel's Phone. Germany has already forgotten that it seems.
No, Germany hasn't forgotten. The US trying to listen Merkel's phone and vice versa is expected.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-intellig...
I don’t say it to be rude, but it’s similar to my coastal liberal friends thinking their bubble opinion applies in Ohio.
Since the CIA won't allow past employees to list their work experience, their taint has leaked onto anyone ever employed by the State Dept or govt contractors as well.
The excerpt I saw was about trying to enjoin Macmillan to transfer them any money they were giving Snowden & any agents, etc.
However, the impact that it had and the manner in which he conducted it, and the channels he went through to do so had a dramatically negative impact on sources and methods. Real people in the field were put into actual danger as a direct result of his actions. US National Security was hampered as a result. The biggest rejoicers were arguably our two biggest threats: Russia, whom we have been fighting a proxy war in the middle east for ages now, and China and that alone should tell you something. People who believe they are doing the right thing for their country were endangered, and my country's ability to keep us safe was hampered.
Surely there was a way to let the appropriate people in charge know about these programs, and maybe had a greater possibility of enacting actual change, because as it stands right now, while we are more informed as a people, exactly zilch has changed since 2013.
I'd suggest to read some Arendt.
Please show some evidence as to why you think the country's ability to keep us safe was hampered? Has the government shown anywhere that an attack that could have been thwarted wasn't?
People need to get off their high horse. Mass collection of data isn't a method of security. It's a method that's used to try and make up for lack of it. Let's collect all the shit we can and hope to find a needle in a haystack. We have more serious issues to take care of in this country. Sick people are walking around toting assault weapons and IMHO a large swath of the population is suffering from some sort of mental illness which is being allowed to rage unchecked.
They've been informed. Perhaps not in a way that you or they might approve of, but they've certainly been informed, loudly and clearly.
Of course,
zilch has changed
It would be a mistake to assume that blowing the whistle quietly, politely, and up the chain of command, might have had better results. The only difference would be that the public would still be in the dark to this very day.
1. It seem strange that you're blaming the whistleblower, and not the people who violated the constitution to begin with. This is (vaguely) like blaming the dentist for the pain of a root canal instead of your poor eating & hygiene.
2. In the long run, trust in its institutions is critical to US power. The US was a good place to do business specifically because you could trust that you would be treated fairly, speak freely, and the government shouldn't be spying on you. If these institutions stop working, the trust will eventually go away.
You suggest there could be some sort of "other way" that would actually enact change, that way is US citizens voting for lawmakers who care about this.
You aint gonna get rich off this, boy. If Snowden would sell the book online via Bitcoin and then have it shipped from wherever to the customers. How would they seize that money from him even if they got a judgment against him??
They wouldn't. But in the event he ever has assets they can touch they have an enforceable judgment against those assets. (For example, if he ever chose to hire a US attorney for any reason, they government could sue the attorney for any amounts paid to them)
The NSA and FBI removed every US citizen of their constitutional right, to privacy. Edward Snowden informed the US citzen base on their constitutional rights being removed.
This lawsuit is the government saying it is illegal for any US citizen to inform all other citizens when the government removes their constitutational rights.
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If your data has left your house, is it really your data, or is it Google's say?
Despite what the constitution says, human rights are not self evident, they must in fact be legalized.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
To elaborate: when using the US Postal Service, only domestic "First Class Mail" and "Priority Mail" (these are different and distinct from standard mail) is protected and requires a probable cause warrant to open and inspect. Other types of mail, as well as all packages shipped through private companies like UPS and FedEx, do not require warrants and can be opened and inspected whenever the post office or UPS/FedEx feel like it. There isn't an expectation of privacy for these packages, and certainly no constitutional protection of it.
txcwpalpha > Inspectors can and do inspect the contents... of mail
txcwpalpha > ...for packages
There's a scarecrow argument if I've ever seen one. Someone says A is 1. You say A isn't 1 because AB is 2. Sneaky.
There certainly is an expectation of privacy in my mail CORRESPONDENCE (which is what this whole thing is about... communication, not package sending). Why shouldn't there be for my e mail correspondence?
The point is that there is already a determination that not all items sent through mail services have an expectation of privacy. If we're drawing a parallel between physical mail and e-mail, this lends to the belief that such a determination could also be made for items sent through electronic media, especially items sent through electronic media that is owned by private companies (ISPs), similar to how private shipping companies do not provide 4th amendment protection.
>There certainly is an expectation of privacy in my mail CORRESPONDENCE
Not all mail correspondence, which is the point. If you send a letter through USPS standard mail, there is no expectation of privacy. If you send a document through UPS, there is no expectation of privacy.
Also, you're getting hung up on the usage of the words "package" vs "correspondence" vs "mail" vs "letter". This is an unnecessary distinction. A letter is just a "package" that contains paper with information on it. The law doesn't see a difference. In my original comment, you should read the words package/letter/mail/correspondence interchangeably.
> The law doesn't see a difference
Wow the cognitive dissonance in that is painful to read. Your argument sounds like "Shrodingers cat". It is and isn't at the same time. Ultimately though, it has to collapse into one objective reality ;)
> If you send a document through UPS, there is no expectation of privacy.
Yeah, again, no. This is directly contradicted by supreme court cases like:
"No law of Congress can place in the hands of officials connected with the Postal Service any authority to invade the secrecy of letters and such sealed packages in the mail; and all regulations adopted as to mail matter of this kind must be in subordination to the great principle embodied in the fourth amendment of the Constitution."
But then again, some people view laws (like 39 U.S.C. 3623, supreme court precedents or other such concrete objective reality as impediments that must be overcome to see reality as they choose to see it.
> you should read the words package/letter/mail/correspondence interchangeably.
> some types of mail are protected
Aside from the obvious contradiction, that's not how language works. You should really look up these words in a dictionary. It will help you communicate better.
In case you want to learn and not just teach people things you are making up: https://slate.com/technology/2013/06/nsa-surveillance-why-th...
P.S. it is a scarecrow because you are answering someone talking about Letters with what happens to packages. This is textbook scarecrow arguments, where you change what is said to attack a new, different argument than the one provided.
Again, you're getting hung up on the words "letter" vs "package", and you're constructing a straw man around that. Please take your own advice and avoid such arguments.
You keep saying things that are factually and demonstrably untrue: "if you send a letter through USPS standard mail".... but that isn't how mail works. Standard is for commercial packages. You keep saying things that are easy to see are false.
In fact, I provided sources, including a law called the Mail classification (39 U.S.C. 3623), "The Postal Service shall maintain one or more classes of mail for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection"
The whole idea from the beginning: The mail types you are talking about were specifically created to protect 4th amendment privacy protections. It was classed in to categories that were overall: individuals communicating = more protections... non-individuals doing non-correspondence stuff = less protections. (correspondence as understood: the exchange of ideas between people via the written word)
In fact, I gave you a reading where the supreme court specifically said I had an expectation of privacy in my correspondence. I'm still waiting for your evidence that backs up your claim... or for that matter any references or outside sources that verify what you say:
> If you send a letter through USPS standard mail, there is no expectation of privacy
It is emphatically not the standard service you would use to mail your aunt a letter. That service is called First Class Mail, and is not to be opened.
It's like saying no one is precluded from buying military vehicles and driving them, therefore they are not for the military.
This is what's needed for standard mail, and no, your letter to your friend will NOT qualify, when will you stop making things up or at least admitting to being wrong?
> Standard Mail. Standard Mail usually consists of flyers, circulars, advertising, newsletters, bulletins, catalogs, or other printed pieces that are generally identical in content. Standard mail must be less than 16 ounces and must meet a minimum quantity of 200 pieces or 50 pounds of mail.
Perhaps you have a lot more aunts than I do, but everything I can find suggests standard mail had a large minimum (200 pieces?) and preprocessing requirements.
Here’s a page, from the post office itself:
“At one time, it was called Third-Class Mail. Today, it's known as Standard Mail. In 2017, it will be called (USPS) Marketing Mail. The U.S. Postal Service has proposed a name change for Standard Mail to better signal to customers that this mail is used primarily to market a product or service.”
https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/names-and-prices-they-are-chang...
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Probably the same way civil asset forfeiture does, somehow precedent became the supreme law of the land as opposed to the constitution.
(3)Sealed mail is mail that under postal laws and regulations is included within a class of mail maintained by the Postal Service for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection...
and
(4)Unsealed mail is mail that under postal laws or regulations is not included within a class of mail maintained by the Postal Service for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection....
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/39/233.3
I would guess the justification is that 1) the potential for mischief is much lower with a letter vs. an item and 2) the unsealed categories are usually cheaper (periodicals, etc) and the Post Office should be able to verify that the mailed item really qualifies for the lower rate.
>Sealed mail includes: First-Class Mail; Priority Mail; Priority Mail Express;
Shipped packages ("things") can be (but aren't always) sent as First Class or Priority Mail, and thus would fall under the "sealed" category as well.
OTOH, you can also send normal letters (not periodicals or marketing material) as "standard mail" which would make them unsealed (I don't know why you would do this as opposed to sending it as First Class or Priority, but you can).
Basically, USPS provides a service where, regardless of what you are sending in most cases, you can choose whether or not you want it protected by the 4th amendment. The origins of this "choice" (and why it isn't the standard to always being protected) is where I am more confused. And when talking about parallels to electronic media, I think this is an important point, because if this is the case for physical mail, it also stands to reason that electronic media for some reason might not default to being protected by the 4th amendment, either.
As the text says, those first categories are INTENDED for sealed letters. Things shipped in those ways therefore retain the privacy protections of letters. You can put a (small) rock or whatever in there instead--that's your business--and if you do, the Post Office will never know because they're applying the letter-privacy standard and not looking inside.
The other categories are NOT INTENDED for letters. As a result, they don't get the protection intended for letters. You can, of course, try to send something confidential that way, but if it's exposed, that's on you.
> Standard mail must be less than 16 ounces and must meet a minimum quantity of 200 pieces or 50 pounds of mail.
Your obstinacy in the face of overwhelming evidence against what you are saying is amazing. I feel for you. Life is hard when you act that way (I should know, I've fallen in those patterns at times)
You can put whatever you want in a priority mail envelope, but the size and weight limits are much more suited to a big document than an engine block.
People are just too good at rationalizing and not questioning "the way things are" even in the face of the obvious evidence and become quite upset when the elephant in the room is pointed out.
Just for example, by combining several data points, Skynet can infer that those people are acquainted and add that fact to the corpus about you both. You would never give a retailer a full dump of everyone in your address book, but it's pretty much given they know it.
You only have an expectation of privacy of the contents of the letter. You have no such expectation of anything on the envelope itself (e.g. sender/receiver address). The government contends that it only collects analogous metadata in transit, not the contents of the communication itself (although this is debatable).
It's possible that with FISA, everything under the so called warrantless wiretap program might be legal -- you just don't have access to prove it is.
I haven't seen the 9-0 Supreme Court decision that says that warrantless wiretapping is illegal. Maybe you can point it out to me?
The point isn't that I disagree with you on what should be legal or illegal, I very much agree with you.
The point is, unless something enters a court of law for ajudication, it's very much in the land of the political.
And there's a lot of darkness surrounding the FISA court, much of which cannot be challenged. Is it legal? It looks like the courts say it is.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa/nsas-pho...
But in other surveillance cases, the supreme court has dismissed the cases.
If the webcam was already transmitting for a Skype call or whatever then you can argue over privacy in transit all you want but first you need the person to knowledgeably consent to starting the transmission.
If that goes into place, your data immediately becomes subject to these amendments. It does away with some of the legal grey area that surrounds data.
Facebook's social graph, for instance: is the fact that I am friends with someone on Facebook my property, their property, or Facebook's property? Or this conversation we're having on HN: you could argue that we each own our words, but the conversation itself (including contextual replies, quoted text, arguments responded to, etc.) is its own entity that doesn't make sense when individual posts are removed, and that's why HN has a time limit for deleting your posts. What about a crowd shot that has various other people in the background? Is it property of the photographer, the clearly-visible foreground subjects, or anyone who happens to appear in it? Does that mean someone who goes around tourist attractions photobombing people has a right to claim all your family photos?
Questions like these also partly explain why legislators are so reluctant to create law for such things.
The framers couldn’t’ve imagined the internet, and, despite that, what you say on the internet is protected by the first amendment as it is speech. Why would the fourth amendment be any different?
I was arguing that if you want to take an originalist view to the constitution, you’d need to give up your protection of speech online and in many other areas.
In 1789, "papers", being made of actual paper, were in transit for much longer in 1789 and there are absolutely draconian laws against destruction and obstruction of the mail.
For example, 18 USC § 1702, which prohibits "with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same" also doesn't have a carve-out for governmental purposes.
Another question would be: would mail be protected without that law and just by the 4th amendment itself?
One doesn't even have to reach into the realms of tech not imagined at the founders time to find useful analogies.
Furthermore the idea that a document written hundreds of years ago can't be reinterpreted in the context of framers intentions and new reality is fundamentally broken.
It means you have to rewrite from scratch every century.
Prior to the American Revolution, Franklin had been the postmaster for the British Crown, establishing postal delivery routes throughout the colonies. In the early days, it was only official government communications that passed through the post, and it was “sealed against inspection”.
Later, when the mail could be used by citizens, carriers would regularly read others’ mail along their long routes for entertainment.
Franklin, eager to maintain the sanctity of the mail in a time of political upheaval, developed a set of regulations and affixed locks to postal carriers’ saddle bags. Franklin’s early regulations became part of the basis for privacy law, as did the Fourth Amendment rule about unreasonable searches, which the Framers certainly intended to cover postal mail."
source: https://slate.com/technology/2013/06/nsa-surveillance-why-th...
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightof...
https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/is-th...
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) explicitly established the right to privacy. Justice Douglas’ opinion states that such a right exists within the “penumbras” and “emanations” of the constitution. As there is no explicitly enumerated right, strict constructionists may oppose this interpretation.
Katz v. United States (1967) established a two part test to determine whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a given circumstance:
"first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'"
Smith v. Maryland (1979) established the basis for the government’s claim that the data collection program is permitted. The case focuses on whether an individual has an expectation of privacy for metadata they willingly give up to a third party. The court found that a warrant is not required to collect such information.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaEBXmeaXbI
The SF86 form offers no leeway for moral objections. So in such a scenario, it would be better to not submit the SF86 form in the first place.
The only people I'm aware of that can publish classified information without punishment are journalists.
The issue is that people -- not sure whether it was OP, or you -- conflate what is moral with what is legal.
One person starts off with a moral premise: people should have free speech, or people should have the right to say what the government is doing.
Someone else responds with what is legal: the law applies to government curtailment of free speech, or there was a contract in place.
Laws should reflect values, not vice-versa. What is legal should not be confused with what is right.
Note: I am not taking a moral position myself here. I just wish the legal position would not short-circuit the debate about what the correct moral position ought to be.
Not that I'm arguing one way or another how that applies in this situation, though.
The way I see it, we acknowledge that sometimes a government can act outside of it's own boundaries in a repressive manner. That is why we help those who are fleeing persecution based on political activity.
Saying you can't push for change and run away when repression comes would mean that a lot of people I admire, including the Dalai Lama, are bad people. I disagree.
These are as illegal as civil disobedience (refusing to work with cops might be more legal in some countries). As to if they are more or less moral... what moral framework are we using to judge?
I'm pretty sure the Declaration of Independence (1776) was also unlawful as well...
Some do. See: secessionists or separatists. For historical examples, the English religious separatists who moved to Holland. Or the Confederates in the American Civil War.
To be clear, I'm not defending their position or arguing whether or not this is better than civil disobedience, but clearly there is a separatist/secessionist school of moral thought.
There may exist a moral argument, but it's pretty easy to disprove that argument: In Nazi Germany, this principle would leave one to just leave Nazi Germany, otherwise cooperating with the Nazis.
The principle you're proposing would have led to the demise of many more Jews during WW2.
That maybe has some implicit assumptions. If the entire populace of German adopted what you call the "principle", Germany would have fallen much faster and with less bloodshed.
Regardless...moral choices are usually pitted against other moral choices and that's part of what shapes our moral "fiber", for lack of better vocabulary. To do something or do nothing, both have risk analysis. Mostly, we do our best with what we have learned...which also greatly influences what we imagine for the future.
I suppose you're right, but I don't think the assumption that there won't be a mass exodus is a very unreasonable assumption. Many reasonable ethical principles would have prevented the Nazis from even coming into power if everyone in the country applied it. I think if you were in Nazi Germany and as the Third Reich came to power it would be unreasonable to choose an ethical strategy that only works if everyone applies it, since in the moment, everyone was clearly not applying an ethical strategy.
We do have the benefit of hindsight here, though.
> To do something or do nothing, both have risk analysis. Mostly, we do our best with what we have learned...which also greatly influences what we imagine for the future.
Agreed, ethics is very situational, which is why trying to find widely-applicable rules is often a wild goose chase.
And in the end it did not matter much. But one thing is for sure: they kept their conscience clean and that counts for something as well.
I'd have to disagree with you there.
I spent time in Israel and in Brooklyn, and I've personally met at least 3 Jews who were alive when I met them because of good Germans/Austrians who broke Nazi law to help them escape.
I think HN often concerns itself with whole populations because a lot of what we're talking about is public policy, and policies at large corporations, which do affect large populations. But the fact is that for most people, the ethical choices we get to make only touch a few people at a time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_...
The parent comment is a textbook example of stage 4, "law and order". The moral framework behind civil disobedience is stage 5, "social contract".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
That is to say that we all expect, whether it is justified or not from a philosophical perspective, that ought both exists and that it should be related to legality.
We're not dealing with an authoritarian state. Laws by democratic governments are supposed to be mutable.
It's possible say, that the laws haven't caught up to what we (as americans) consider moral. Or it's possible the laws themselves were driven by immoral actors. Or it's possible the law's were passed with good intentions but had side effects that were unforeseeable. Or it's just one big gray area -- which seems to be the case here.
People argue that Snowden's act was moral in the most absolute sense to inform the nation and expose the Government's secrets.
James Comey, someone I think to be of high moral standards, knew about the program [1] yet didn't release the information to the public. He refused to reauthorize the post 9/11 surveillance program -- going to extraordinary lengths to do so.
So what are we to do? Is it more moral to work within the system to change the laws, or to break them entirely?
[1] https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mueller-comey-ash...
Edited for clarity and succinctness.
The United States would not even exist without the latter. Imagine if the founding fathers had tried to "worked within the system" of British rule instead of carrying out what the latter would have considered an extraordinary act of treason.
Previous whistleblowers like Thomas Drake and Bill Binney tried to work within the system, and that didn't exactly go very well. Snowden learnt from their experiences that the only way to achieve any meaningful outcome was to break the law. I imagine if there had been a viable means for him to bring the issues to public attention legally he might have done so.
Technically they couldn't since the colonies were without representation in the British Parliament, so they really couldn't, could they?
> Previous whistleblowers like Thomas Drake and Bill Binney tried to work within the system...
Sure but the Obama administration still looks bad for their handling of those whistleblowers. Binney and Drake still look like heros. No one said that whistleblowing was for the faint of heart. Nor were there any guarantees about your livelihood if you report on your employer or customers.
The only whistleblower statute I've known to be effective has been around medicare fraud -- first because medicare fraud is in the tens of billions, and second the reportee get's a cut of any future settlement or judgement.
It's unclear what Snowden's legacy will be. Sure, he informed us that the government might have been doing illegal things under the cloak of secrecy. But he released a lot of information and he didn't even try to go through the legal whistleblower channels first.
If he had gone through whistleblower channels I think it would have been harder for the US to use the word "traitor" to describe him.
The only people I am aware of which published this were journalists, since day 0.
E: I see this is particularly in the context of his publishing his memoirs now after reading the filing. My apologies
Anyone that has not entered into a contractual agreement with the US to protect classified materials can publish classified materials. It's just that the professional journalists, already established with the large news organizations, are the only ones with the visibility and reputation to not get jailed, vanished, or discredited afterwards.
If you think the US won't break its own laws to protect its dirty secrets, you haven't seen enough leaks of its dirty secrets.
If you take your camera out, and point it at something happening in the street adjoining your home, and plan to post the story to YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, your own web page, send to your local television station, insert into a blog or print book, or have any other form of intent to publish, then for the purposes of exercising your rights, you are in that moment a journalist.
There are no special rights that Clark Kent enjoys as a staff reporter that Peter Parker cannot invoke as an independent freelance photographer.
---
I believe that specifically, the NDAs in question have a clause requiring personnel who intend to publish books to allow the agency to perform a pre-print review, to ensure no accidental spillage of classified materials through publication. Due to the nature of the contracts, the sole arbiter of whether information is classified is the classifying authority, so even if something has been published internationally in a globally-recognized newspaper, and is now common knowledge to hundreds of thousands of people, the information is still classified until the authority declassifies it. Those subject to the NDAs are technically not even allowed to read that article in the newspaper, or that chapter of the book, unless they then immediately take steps to control the classified in it and report it to their security contact. Which is to say that you are supposed to wrap the newspaper or book up in an opaque cover and drop it off at your security office.
The actual security apparatus has evolved, but the legal framework is still very much from the 1950-1980 Cold War era, so if you do not do the patently ridiculous thing, you can be sued or prosecuted.
Snowden didn't give CIA, NSA, DIA, or whomever else he may have had NDAs with, the opportunity to edit his book before going to print, for obvious reasons, so he's in violation of the contracts. It is unlikely there is anything in there that has not already been published in newspapers. It seems like they're refusing to declassify information that can no longer seriously be considered secret, with the potential to cause harm to national interests, solely because as long as it remains classified, they can use the contracts to silence, suppress, or retaliate against the whistleblower.
There is no legal definition of "journalist" in this context.
The US Government took away citizens constitutional rights, and Snowden told everyone about it.
I like to think that even if Snowden is convicted of that, then that forces the US government to be convicted of wrong-doing also. i.e. you can't be convicted of telling secrets that aren't true.
Which is why we have a rule of law and a justice system, and not simply contracts.
POTUS can also do it.
Everyone has the right to publish classified information, unless they've signed an agreement not to. There's no Constitutional difference between journalists and non-journalists.
[0]: Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act
Those laws are fundamentally illegal
Any law that allows the NSA carte blanche to observe my communication is a law authorizing unreasonable search and seizure, and is therefore unconstitutional.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
Sec. 202. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses. [0]
Sec. 217. Interception of computer trespasser communications. [0]
"by striking ‘‘wire and oral’’ and inserting ‘‘wire, oral, and electronic’’"[0]
Allows federal agents to follow sophisticated terrorists trained to evade detection. For years, law enforcement has been able to use "roving wiretaps" to investigate ordinary crimes, including drug offenses and racketeering. A roving wiretap can be authorized by a federal judge to apply to a particular suspect, rather than a particular phone or communications device. Because international terrorists are sophisticated and trained to thwart surveillance by rapidly changing locations and communication devices such as cell phones, the Act authorized agents to seek court permission to use the same techniques in national security investigations to track terrorists.[1]
This was just a cursory look into the Act. To be fair, it looks like there is a judge involved but who knows how rigorous the approval procedure is. It didn't read to me as a 'carte blanche' approval, but again, it may be in the eye of the beholder of the agency/judge.
[0] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-107hr3162enr/pdf/B...
[1] https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter
https://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/12333/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
1st amendment ensures the entire US is a free speech zone.
The most fundamental responsibility of his job was to uphold the US constitution. His bosses deserve to be charged with treason, which is why they are working so hard to attack him.
There is no evidence of this.
In the absence of contrary evidence, we should take Snowden at his word because none of his releases have been discredited as fabrications and thats the only account we have of the situation.
That's a low bar. He didn't forge any of the documents he released. He did, however, repeatedly lie about what the documents contained and to corroborate hid interpretation, he wildly exaggerated what he was able to do while at the NSA.
None of his leaked documents showed that capability. People complain about Clapper for getting a question wrong about whether phone metadata collection collected data about Americans after a line of questioning about whether the NSA creates dossiers on Americans, and he rightfully should be held to a high standard in Congressional testimony, but Snowden just straight-up lied repeatedly.
If Snowden had attempted to follow the lawful procedure there would be evidence of it at the DoJ, the Senate Intelligence committee and Snowden himself would have evidence due to his correspondence with the DoJ and Senate Intelligence committee.
This lawsuit is not actually about publishing classified material, but about not giving the NSA a chance to read his book before it was published. Since that’s a contract interpretation issue, and since there’s a law specifically making this contract legal, and since it’s a civil lawsuit (e.g., he can’t go to jail because of this particular lawsuit), I believe the government has a very strong leg to stand on.
I’m not saying this is what the law should allow. But I don’t expect the court to rule this law unconstitutional.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act
Frankly, hundreds if not thousands of people within the NSA deserve to be charged with treason. I would be shocked if this actually happened, though.
You can invoke your constitutional rights as a citizen,but you don't get to enforce it on behalf of somebody else, nor do you as an individual, decide what action constitutes a violation.
CIA, NSA, Senators, all take this oath: “I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331
When did Snowden try to stop phone metadata collection from within?
It just makes it a perfect candidate for jury nullification!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
A prosecutor, given the option and knowledge of the situation, would never willingly have a person on the jury that knows they could totally disregard the criminality of the charges at hand.
Knowing that I could nullify does not in any way prevent me from properly concluding a verdict based on the laws that are in place.
It's only if I choose to actually nullify that I'm not doing jury duty properly, but the knowledge of nullification as far as I can understand in no way prevents me from doing jury duty properly.
Jury nullification gets its teeth from the principle of (no) double jeopardy: once a defendant in a criminal case is found not guilty of a charge, they cannot be re-tried on those same charges.
(There are an increasing number of loopholes, including of charges in another, or higher, jurisdictions, and/or on different charges.)
The prosecution has no right of appeal. The defence does.
This is not the case in a civil suit. Either party (plaintif, here, the US government, or defence, here, Snowden) may appeal an unfavourable decision, through courts of appeal or ultimately the Supreme Court.
Jury nullification specifically does not apply to this case.
He can do whatever he wants but he has to suffer the consequences. Every state has secrets and employees with top clearances learn them by swearing to keep the secret. He can go to Congress or through the chain of command....or risk jail and financial ruin. Otherwise a CIA ex-chief could write a book and name all US spies in China or Russia...
[ asking because i don't know ]
What gives the NSA the right to capture private data from other countries?
Strictly, no.
This is not a criminal case, judging guilt for crime; it's a civil contracts case for injunction against profits, per the NDA.
And citizens not bound by the NDA, who happen into the information (as would be the case with numerous US-citizen reporters who've written on the Snowden stoy while including specifics of his information disclosures) are not enjoined. At least not in this case.
The NDA does make it remarkably difficult for anyone with specific insider knowledge to publish and profit by disclosure.
NB: I am a space alien cat, not a lawyer. I'm not defending any position, publication, or contract, or questions of possible criminal prosecution. Just clarifying what is at hand, and what language applies.
While I applaud what Snowden did, the issue in this case is quite a bit different than what you have portrayed here. The issue is whether or not he violated the terms of his NDA. And of course he did, in a gigantic and very public way, and then admitted it and has given many speeches about doing it, wrote a book about it, and had a movie created portraying it.
Sadly, this is an open and shut case. I am not even sure why he would defend it though, as the case is a “Grenada” [1] and a judgment from a US court will have zero effect on him while living in Russia.
[1] https://youtu.be/5yhxTyYEF9s?t=24s
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.”
They either get you for doing the illegal thing or for the money you should have paid them while doing it.
But once something is published, they can take action against the publisher/author.
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.
NDA available via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20998966
It helps to actual read the NDAs and not just blindly cite to them.
“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."
I'd think that if he committed an actual crime, it would be a criminal suit. I thought civil suits were for people trying to get money out of each other.
Or is this like how the feds couldn't get Al Capone for murder so they put him away for tax evasion?
From the link: "This lawsuit is separate from the criminal charges brought against Snowden for his alleged disclosures of classified information. This lawsuit is a civil action, and based solely on Snowden’s failure to comply with the clear pre-publication review obligations included in his signed non-disclosure agreements. "
So presumably not.
You also do not have an NDA with the government (I assume) and so owe them nothing but taxes.
No, both of those were crimes. They just incarcerated him on the one with the easiest case to convict.
Civil cases are often contractual cases. He had access to confidential information; they are essentially suing him for violating an NDA.
Before any cleared individual ever touches or sees classified materials, they sign an NDA that establishes personal responsibility for protecting classified material. This is separate and distinct from the criminal espionage and treason consequences, but they do their best to make you think they are closely tied with the training materials.
As it happens, openly publishing as a protected right is hugely different from the criminal act of selling or gifting secrets to a foreign adversary, so a civil suit is all they can do.
And given that it is a civil suit, Snowden would have a reasonable shot at an "unclean hands" defense, if the judges were truly impartial and objective.
If you sue someone, you can serve their intermediaries (his bank or publisher etc). So then the case can proceed. By getting a judgement they can seize US book revenues.
Its a pretty cheap move imho but I think that's the logic: if you can't do something at least look like you're doing something.
These guys don't fool around. Expect more pressure from other angles as well.
It's possible that Macmillan paid him an advance and so he already has the money. I don't know if the feds can do much in that case.
Also, it's entirely possible that there will be ways for the publisher to never repatriate profits from sales abroad and/or translations.
This is just petty stuff from petty bureaucrats.
This would also provide a strong justification for closing said loopholes.
Rosa parks not sitting on the back of the bus is a great example
Not that great an example. The only reason you know her name is because of her arrest and the lawsuit that followed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks#Parks_arrest_and_bu...
Which - fortunately - does not apply to Snowden.
Well, I hope you're aware of all the laws that exist in this country. If you break one of them (however frivolous or unjust it may be), I hope you turn yourself in so we can hold you accountable for your crimes.
Moral absolutists confuse the hell out of me. By your own admission, you deserve a prison sentence for driving a car while living in Las Vegas. Regardless of your intent, you would have broken the law (repeatedly).
This is especially true if your employer is The USA(NSA/CIA) and your last name is Snowden.
The briefing is largely about how the US wants to stop Snowden from collecting proceeds from the book, and how he has violated his NDA by not letting them preview a pre-published draft.