For revenue resulting from violation of the agreement. Seems like a reasonable stipulation. If you want to know the secrets, you can only use them for the purposes for which they were given to you. You cannot make profits by selling them or using them for your own advantage.
You would like me to pay you to perform a service. I would like to pay you to perform the service, but I have to share my secrets. You have to agree to use the information I give you only for performing the service we agree to. If you do anything else with my secrets, I can sue you for the revenue you made from that. You will also probably go to jail if you do that.
Charge appropriately for the service and do not expect to get additional benefits from the classified information.
There is no assignment of royalties for anything you created independently.
Not exactly - classified information is already effectively "owned" by the USG from a stewardship perspective (not ownership). USG is supposed to protect and safeguard said info - said info is still technically public domain (owned) - it is just restricted due to national security implications.
SF-312 clearly specifies to the person receiving classified information that they have unique requirements for handling and disclosure.
That said, given SF-312, I think Chelsea Manning had a lot more downside exposure than Edward Snowden does. Ms. Manning shared the classified information in a very vindictive and dangerous way. Mr. Snowden was very careful in what and how he leaked with regards to the data in question.
Both acts are still technically violations of SF-312 (among other stuff, like criminal law), but the extent of risk and damage done to the USG interests is always evaluated.
Assuming this is posted re: the civil litigation against Snowden, and is meant to initiate a debate.
I'll bite: If he signed this, it's pretty much open and shut that he has to forfeit all proceeds from any sales of a book or other medium containing said secrets. However, if the medium does not actually contain any secrets, but is rather about his ordeal and experiences as a whistleblower, well that's not covered by this document. Hence why the state is suing instead.
That would need to be settled in court. Which I guess is the point of the NDA case. And it will almost certainly tie up any income from a book until resolved.
Otherwise, I doubt that Russia will care any more about this than they've cared about extradition demands. But even if his book was published in Russia, global distribution would be difficult. While I'd actually prefer to pay with Bitcoin via Tor, that wouldn't work generally.
Anyone that has been granted a security clearance in the United States government has signed a SF-312. I can't think of any exceptions off the top of my head...
it covers everything that needs to be covered and no doubt it has been tried and tested in many court cases. It's not like USA doesn't have lawyers able to write 350 page NDAs
In criminal cases involving leaks, agreements like these often cited in complaints as foundation the defendant knew and acknowledged the sensitivity of the information.
Like Snowden's case, they tried to work around the Publication Review board and all spoke to journalists.
There are mechanisms for people in the situation to file complaints without going public: House and Senate Intelligence Committees, or to the CIA's Office of the Inspector General. (Jeffrey Sterling's case mentioned this, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1639333.html#foot...)
13 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 20.7 ms ] threadYou would like me to pay you to perform a service. I would like to pay you to perform the service, but I have to share my secrets. You have to agree to use the information I give you only for performing the service we agree to. If you do anything else with my secrets, I can sue you for the revenue you made from that. You will also probably go to jail if you do that.
Charge appropriately for the service and do not expect to get additional benefits from the classified information.
There is no assignment of royalties for anything you created independently.
SF-312 clearly specifies to the person receiving classified information that they have unique requirements for handling and disclosure.
That said, given SF-312, I think Chelsea Manning had a lot more downside exposure than Edward Snowden does. Ms. Manning shared the classified information in a very vindictive and dangerous way. Mr. Snowden was very careful in what and how he leaked with regards to the data in question.
Both acts are still technically violations of SF-312 (among other stuff, like criminal law), but the extent of risk and damage done to the USG interests is always evaluated.
(Have signed SF-312 multiple times in my life.)
I'll bite: If he signed this, it's pretty much open and shut that he has to forfeit all proceeds from any sales of a book or other medium containing said secrets. However, if the medium does not actually contain any secrets, but is rather about his ordeal and experiences as a whistleblower, well that's not covered by this document. Hence why the state is suing instead.
Otherwise, I doubt that Russia will care any more about this than they've cared about extradition demands. But even if his book was published in Russia, global distribution would be difficult. While I'd actually prefer to pay with Bitcoin via Tor, that wouldn't work generally.
On May 20, 2013, Snowden flew to Hong Kong after leaving his job at an NSA facility in Hawaii...
Perhaps this older revision[2] may be more relevant for the time; wasn't successful in discovering a complete revision history of the form.
Leaving it to the lawyer types to diff and discuss.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden
[2] https://www.secnav.navy.mil/dusnp/Forms/sf312.pdf
EDIT: As it were, item 5 is still there.
- Jeffrey Sterling: https://fas.org/sgp/jud/sterling/indict.pdf, https://fas.org/sgp/jud/sterling/
- John Kiriakou: https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/documents/kiriakou-compl...
Like Snowden's case, they tried to work around the Publication Review board and all spoke to journalists.
There are mechanisms for people in the situation to file complaints without going public: House and Senate Intelligence Committees, or to the CIA's Office of the Inspector General. (Jeffrey Sterling's case mentioned this, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1639333.html#foot...)