Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States

United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden (justice.gov) 182

The United States today filed a lawsuit against Edward Snowden, a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA), who published a book entitled Permanent Record in violation of the non-disclosure agreements he signed with both CIA and NSA. From a report: The lawsuit alleges that Snowden published his book without submitting it to the agencies for pre-publication review, in violation of his express obligations under the agreements he signed. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that Snowden has given public speeches on intelligence-related matters, also in violation of his non-disclosure agreements. 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.

The lawsuit also names as nominal defendants the corporate entities involved in publishing Snowden's book. The United States is suing the publisher solely to ensure that no funds are transferred to Snowden, or at his direction, while the court resolves the United States' claims. Snowden is currently living outside of the United States. "Intelligence information should protect our nation, not provide personal profit," said G. Zachary Terwilliger, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. "This lawsuit will ensure that Edward Snowden receives no monetary benefits from breaching the trust placed in him."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

Comments Filter:
  • I think it is very clear that for a number of years Snowden wasn't employed by CIA/NSA. Wouldn't his non-disclosure sunset by now?
    • by LatencyKills ( 1213908 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @12:44PM (#59204334)
      Can't speak to Snowden and what he might have signed, but the disclosure paperwork I signed back when I had my secret clearance was for life. Of course, if I violated that agreement that would be a criminal prosecution, not a civil one - so forget I mentioned anything; I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about.
      • Can't speak to Snowden and what he might have signed, but the disclosure paperwork I signed back when I had my secret clearance was for life.

        What were you working on?

    • And while every non-disclosure agreement is as unique as the parties and the agreement involved, terms of 1 â" 10 years are standard, with the duration of confidentiality lasting indefinitely on trade secrets and as long as possible (or as is necessary) for other forms of IP.Jan 30, 2017

      From my favorite site containing official government information. FAS(Federation of American Scientists).

      https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/sf312.pdf/ [fas.org]

      The classified non-disclosure agreement
      • Dunno where that idea came from; at least for the US, they're lifetime non-disclosure agreements. And that's not unusual for classified information; the Brits who worked on the Enigma decryption kept that a secret until Winterbotham's book "The Ultra Secret" was published in 1974, and most kept it a secret until it was officially declassified--or until they died. For the men, this often cost them their reputation, since they hadn't "fought" in the war.

    • I think it is very clear that for a number of years Snowden wasn't employed by CIA/NSA. Wouldn't his non-disclosure sunset by now?

      Nope. Non-Disclosures are lifetime commitments, you never get to walk away from that agreement. You are thinking Non-competes, which generally have to expire with a reasonable length of time.

      Certainly the non-disclosure Snowden signed when he worked for the government will be in force for the duration of his natural life (and beyond if they could enforce it). Of course this is a civil, not criminal, action. All they can do is take assets from him in civil court, if he has any. They can leave you pennile

      • by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @12:49PM (#59204354)

        I wonder what Snowden has that they can take?

        I should have read the article.. He published a book, they are taking the publisher and Snowden to court for any proceeds from it's sale. Ouch.

      • I wonder what Snowden has that they can take?

        Rubles.

        In all seriousness, though, this reads like it's more for show than it is for anything effective.

    • Isn't he stripped of his american citizenship? That would for sure make all such claims against him unenforceable. You can't sue an un-person.
      • Isn't he stripped of his american citizenship? That would for sure make all such claims against him unenforceable. You can't sue an un-person.

        What? That's stupid. You sure can sue a non-citizen who signed a contract in the USA in Civil court. The problem, if there really is one, is collecting if you win the civil suit. If the money you are trying to collect is not in the USA, it's going to take cooperation from foreign authorities to recover it.

        Remember that Civil law settlements are about $$ and things you can own. Winning a lawsuit in Civil court only gets you the right to take money or property from another and have that seizure supporte

      • by rednip ( 186217 )
        Birthright citizenship cannot be stripped as it's a 14th Amendment right, but naturalized citizen have in a few cases (mainly war criminals of WWII) had their citizenship removed. He could renounce his citizenship, some do it to reduce their taxes, but I don't think that he has done it (it's interesting to think if he pays U.S. taxes, I bet he does). Also, if renouncing all citizenship was enough to escape justice, many would be doing it. However, there are places where it is easier to 'escape American ju
      • You cannot lose your American citizenship like that. If you are a natural-born citizen there is nothing that can be done. Now if snowden wanted he could renounce his citizenship.
        However as others have written that would still not prevent others from suing him for the profits made by this book in the USA.
    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      Non-disclosure duration is treated differently based on the kind of information you're talking about.

      Since most kinds of confidential information is only confidential for a limited time, blanket NDAs are not viewed as reasonable by the courts. But I wouldn't count on getting out of an NDA for trade secrets.

    • It's always about the money. Public safety, national security -- these things are always secondary to "the money".

    • Non-disclosures related to classified material are for life as far as I know.

    • by jonwil ( 467024 )

      The kind of NDA you sign when you get access to classified information of the sort Snowden had access to never sunsets.

  • by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @12:43PM (#59204328)

    I see one outcome of this:

    This will help Snowden sell more books.

    • I see one outcome of this:
      This will help Snowden sell more books.

      The proceeds of which the Government hopes to recover ... from TFS (emphasis mine):

      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.

      • by zidium ( 2550286 )

        This is why we all need to PIRATE it.

      • I see one outcome of this:
        This will help Snowden sell more books.

        The proceeds of which the Government hopes to recover ... from TFS (emphasis mine):

        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.

        That's ok.

        As Snowden himself said last night in an interview on MSNBC's "The 11th Hour with Brian Williams", he makes a shitpot-ful of money doing speaking engagements and other "appearances" from his Russian apartment.

        So, Neener neener neener! Ain't technology grand?!?

        http://www.msnbc.com/11th-hour... [msnbc.com]

        • That's ok. As Snowden himself said last night in an interview on MSNBC's "The 11th Hour with Brian Williams", he makes a shitpot-ful of money doing speaking engagements and other "appearances" from his Russian apartment.

          And if those entities paying him are US based or do business in the US they may be just as vulnerable to US civil suit and the book publisher. In other words the US gov't can go after those speaking fees just like they go after the book royalties. They may merely be going with the book publisher first because it is the easier case to set a precedent with. This may only be the start of a campaign to dry up his sources of income.

    • Haha, yep. I had no idea he released a book. Just bought it.

    • I see one outcome of this:

      This will help Snowden sell more books.

      And make the government money because as soon as the publisher collects a dollar the government will take it.

      It's actually pretty shrewd tactic. Now, assuming they win, which publisher in their right mind will try to distribute this book? All the government needs to do is claim they are entitled to every dollar the publisher collects in the USA, then seize any assets up to that value in the USA. There will be zero profit and legal costs to pay for the publisher. They will lose money.. No profit means

    • I see one outcome of this:

      This will help Snowden sell more books.

      I just hopped up on Amazon and bought the Kindle version for 15 bucks.

      Streisand effect.

  • by ChromeAeonuim ( 1026946 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @12:49PM (#59204356)

    in violation of the non-disclosure agreements he signed with both CIA and NSA

    The Fourth Amendment, which Snowden swore an oath to uphold, trumps your NDAs. Go pound sand, you unconstitutional shits.

    Intelligence information should protect our nation, not provide personal profit

    Maybe go tell the military-industrial complex about the value of putting the nation above personal profit.

    • by pgmrdlm ( 1642279 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @01:04PM (#59204438) Journal
      You should take some time to check out how true your opinion is before shooting off your big mouth,

      A non-disclosure agreement may be enforceable even if a covenant not to compete is not. See Anderson Chem. Co., 66 S.W.3d at 439. An employee also has a common law duty not to use confidential or proprietary information acquired during employment adversely to his employer.Jan 16, 2018

      Settled court case good enough for you numb nuts? Pound sand yourself asshole.
      • Settled court case good enough for you numb nuts? Pound sand yourself asshole.

        Does that apply even though, as Snowden said, the Courts found that the surveillance program he "Whistleblew" about was declared "illegal" and "very possibly unconstitutional"?

        Oh, and speaking of Whistleblowing, where do the Federal Whistleblower Statutes stand vs. some non-statutory "Non-Disclosure" Agreement?

        Methinks that being a Whistleblower "outing" a surveillance program against U.S. Citizens beats a puny little NDA hands-down. Especially since the Government has already itself violated mandatory prov

      • Part of Snowden's job was to uphold the highest law in the land, the law that supersedes all others. That's what he was paid to do, that's what he swore to do, and that's what he did. It's not his fault other people were breaking the law, but now he's a criminal for it? That's why we have whistle-blowing laws, and it's a bit different than dealing with corporate competition or trade secret sorts of NDAs.
    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      The Fourth Amendment, which Snowden swore an oath to uphold

      IANAL, but this might be one reason the US filed a civil suit against him rather then a criminal one.

      • The Fourth Amendment, which Snowden swore an oath to uphold ,quote>IANAL, but this might be one reason the US filed a civil suit against him rather then a criminal one.

        Maybe Snowden (or those acting on his behalf) can file a counter suit against the US government for intentionally and grossly violating the US Constitution and thereby forcing him to either break those agreements or see the government continue to grossly violate the Rule of Law. Maybe a class-action suit on behalf of every US citizen seeki

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jeff4747 ( 256583 )

      The Fourth Amendment, which Snowden swore an oath to uphold, trumps your NDAs.

      You should not attempt to give anyone legal advice. 'Cause your advice is extremely wrong.

      The various NDAs and other agreements you sign when getting a security clearance are you waiving some of your constitutional rights. Such as your first amendment rights to speak about the classified stuff you are going to see.

      Second, the 4th amendment is the one about having to get a warrant and other due-process things. That doesn't have anything to do with this. After all, the government is following due-process

      • The various NDAs and other agreements you sign when getting a security clearance are you waiving some of your constitutional rights.

        That's how you know they're empty promises, not rights.

        • One of your rights is the right to waive the others when it suits you.

          If you want your trial to take much longer (let's say it's going to take a while to set up your defense, or you're out on bail), you shouldn't be forced into a speedy trial.

    • in violation of the non-disclosure agreements he signed with both CIA and NSA

      The Fourth Amendment, which Snowden swore an oath to uphold, trumps your NDAs. Go pound sand, you unconstitutional shits.

      I'm on Snowden's side, I think he did the country an enormous service and has been (predictably) badly mistreated for it. But the 4A really doesn't prohibit the seizure of funds from an illegal contract, which is what Snowden's contract with the publisher arguably was, given his pre-existing NDA. Any private company in a similar situation would have the same right to contest and request award of the proceeds of the book.

      Of course, the only reason the government is doing it is to harm Snowden, not becaus

      • Of course, the only reason the government is doing it is to harm Snowden

        No, the main reason the government is doing it is to dissuade other insiders from writing books. And although I'm thankful for Snowden's whistleblowing, I hope the government wins this case because it wouldn't be good to provide financial incentive to break non-disclosure agreements.

        Snowden knew he was breaking the law, and made that sacrifice willingly for the good of the country. I doubt he expected to keep the USA book sale profits,

  • by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @12:52PM (#59204370)

    https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]

    "I'm not asking for a pass. What I'm asking for is a fair trial. And this is the bottom line that any American should require."

    For Snowden, a fair trial means allowing the jury to consider his motivations rather than simply deciding the case on whether a law was broken.

    "They want the jury strictly to consider whether these actions were lawful or unlawful, not whether they were right or wrong," Snowden said. "And I'm sorry, but that defeats the purpose of a jury trial."

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 )
      Sorry, trials are about what is lawful or unlawful. That is how the law works. If you think they are wrong, you have elected representatives to change that.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @01:01PM (#59204424)

        WRONG buddy. Obviously you've never heard of or understand the concept of "Jury Nullification."

        • I wasn't referring to the jury. The defendant is asking for this.
          • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

            by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @01:51PM (#59204696)
            Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • I wasn't referring to the jury. The defendant is asking for this.

            The defendant is asking for the jury to be allowed to consider the totality of the circumstances, to enable them to judge whether the law should be applied to this set of facts. That is a fundamental role of the jury and the reason we have juries. If it weren't for juries' freedom to step outside of the strict interpretation of the law as defined for them by the judge, then there would be no need for juries at all.

            Yes, it's true that many judges and basically all prosecutors dislike and try to suppress

        • by jbengt ( 874751 )
          It varies by jurisdiction, but jurors take an oath that more or less says that they will "well and truly try the matters in issue and a true verdict render according to the evidence and the law." In that case, jury nullification breaks the juror's oath, even if it doesn't break the law.
          • It varies by jurisdiction, but jurors take an oath that more or less says that they will "well and truly try the matters in issue and a true verdict render according to the evidence and the law." In that case, jury nullification breaks the juror's oath, even if it doesn't break the law.

            keep on being a toady for the Government.

            Jury Nullification IS legal according to SCOTUS; but almost all Judges (improperly) won't hear of it, and SCOTUS also held that Judges cannot be compelled to offer it as an alternative in their Jury Instructions.

            https://criminal.findlaw.com/c... [findlaw.com]

            That's why you see Jury Nullification advocates trying to clue people in on this vital tool in the Jury's arsenal OUTSIDE of the Courtroom.

            And why people in the U.S. have (illegally!) arrested for Trespassing (in a Public Buil

            • keep on being a toady for the Government.

              Jury Nullification IS legal according to SCOTUS; but almost all Judges (improperly) won't hear of it, and SCOTUS also held that Judges cannot be compelled to offer it as an alternative in their Jury Instructions.

              Juries can decide on any grounds they want. However, defendants are not permitted to make an argument for jury nullification.

              How's THAT for your precious 1st Amendment protections???

              The 1st does not mean no consequences for speech, just no prior restraint.

          • Unless the evidence suggests "the written law isn't what's most important here." Oath needs to remove the word "evidence" if they want jurbots.
        • by Miser ( 36591 )

          Glad I didn't have to scroll too far for this.

          If I was on the jury, I would not convict.

          • The problem for Snowden is that juries are required to be the most ignorant people in the country. Anyone who has read or heard about Snowden enough to understand why he did what he did would necessarily be disqualified from serving on the jury. Only people who've remained wholly ignorant of the case can be considered unprejudiced and fit to try the case, and these people won't be allowed to hear of his motivations. And frankly, anyone so completely disinterested in their government's activities to have not

      • by mishehu ( 712452 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @01:02PM (#59204436)

        Except that's not entirely the case. There is at least this: Jury [umkc.edu] Nullification [wikipedia.org]

      • by bob4u2c ( 73467 )

        Sorry, trials are about what is lawful or unlawful.

        If that is the case, why do you need a jury? Why not a panel of judges or lawyers?

        The reason of course is that a jury is not there to determine if someone broke the law or not. They are there to determine if someone deserves to be punished for their actions (or in actions). That is why it is suppose to be a jury of your peers, not a jury of experts, but a jury of just regular folks.

        Take the case of stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family. The law is clear, stealing is stealing; but a jury who

        • by jbengt ( 874751 )

          If that is the case, why do you need a jury? Why not a panel of judges or lawyers?

          Because a jury of your peers is less likely to unjustly take the side of the authorities than a panel made up of the authorities.

          The reason of course is that a jury is not there to determine if someone broke the law or not.

          Wrong. Most jurors take an oath to make a true verdict according to the evidence. And common jury instuctions are include something like:

          You, as jurors, are the judges of the facts. But in determining what actually happened–that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts–it is your sworn duty to follow all of the rules of law as I explain them to you.
          You have no right to disregard or give special attention to any one instruction, or to question the wisdom or correctness of any rule I may state to you. You must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be. It is your duty to apply the law as I explain it to you, regardless of the consequences. However, you should not read into these instructions, or anything else I may have said or done, any suggestion as to what your verdict should be. That is entirely up to you.
          It is also your duty to base your verdict solely upon the evidence, without prejudice or sympathy. That was the promise you made and the oath you took.

      • by Khyber ( 864651 )

        "Sorry, trials are about what is lawful or unlawful."

        No, what is fair or unlawful is what the JURY DECIDES.

        I can tell your ass hasn't ever served as a juror. Let alone paid attention to historical case precedent nor the Constitution.

    • According to Snowden a fair trail would not be him receiving a parade when he shows up in the USA but it would be him and his lawyer being able to dictate what charges could be filed against him.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Sarten-X ( 1102295 )

        To quote an actual lawyer on the matter [twitter.com]:

        Snowden does not care about the rules. He does not care to abide by contracts or laws. He thinks he’s special. He thinks special rules should be set up for him.

        My clients abide by these rules every day. They challenge them, when needed, in a lawful manner.

        Don’t be like Ed.

        Years ago, Snowden set out to break the law, knew he was breaking the law, and fled because he broke the law. He also knew, just as everyone with a clearance does, that any related publications must be sent for review. Now he's chosen again to not follow the law, and there are consequences.

        It's the same narcissistic patterns we see in certain politicians and criminals. They think laws and consequences are for other people, not them, because they had really good reason

    • While that is the whole point of a jury system (your peers can decide to acquit you even if it's clear you broke the law, because they feel the law is unjust), I doubt he'll get what he wants. Judges are extremely careful to dissuade jurors of this notion, and will mislead them into thinking they do not have such a right. And during jury selection, the prosecutor will excuse any jurors who shows signs of knowing they have this right. The only place you can really learn of it is in school (except the gove
    • by shanen ( 462549 )

      And Trump will turn over his tax returns if he can get a fair trial, too!

      There are several books called No Place to Hide and only one of them is about Snowden. I recently read a pre-Snowden-disclosures (AKA "none dare call them whistleblowing") book that focused on the same topics... Kind of like reading pre-2016 books where Trump gets jovially mentioned in passing, almost like part of the scenery. No foreshadowing there!

  • by sdinfoserv ( 1793266 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @01:13PM (#59204490)
    Too bad the US Government Doesn't follow it's own laws:
    Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9) federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety.
    A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant
    • Snowden did not follow the whistleblower protection act.
      Snowden at the time when he stole the info was not an employee of the US government, he worked for booz allen.
    • by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
      Being a whistle-blower and publishing a book are not quite the same thing.
    • by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @01:48PM (#59204684)

      Unfortunately, Snowden didn't follow the procedures that would have let him be a whistleblower.

      Mostly 'cause he actually didn't have much to blow a whistle on. Collecting data on foreigners is legal, and the only program he leaked that collected on US persons was the phone records program, which is legal due to an overly-broad 1979 SCOTUS decision. (We need a new law or a new ruling to modernize that)

      The vast majority of what he leaked was capabilities. The few things he leaked that included targeting had explicit steps to exclude US persons, except for the phone program.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @01:21PM (#59204536)

    "Intelligence information should protect our nation, not provide personal profit"

    Except of course when you become a paid contributor to or employee of CNN or some other member of the established media.

    • Or the President trying to have a summit at one of his own hotels?

      • Or the President trying to have a summit at one of his own hotels?

        Well the Obama administration found the Trump hotel in Scotland a better deal than other local venues and had Air Force personnel stay there. Perhaps the summit will also find the Trump hotels a better deal. :-) Sure it "looks bad" but that doesn't mean it "is bad". Sure its a departure from normal Presidential decorum, but its Trump, we knew normal decorum would be lacking.

        I gotta ask, given Trump's propensity to actual do and say bad things, why the need to exaggerate and/or make up things? Isn't reali

        • If rolls were reversed Republicans would specifically say no one should stay at Obama's hotels while he's in office. Period.

          And if that didn't happen we'd be in our fifth congressional meeting/press conference declaring how ill advised, illegal, and immoral it was.

          • by drnb ( 2434720 )

            If rolls were reversed Republicans would specifically say no one should stay at Obama's hotels while he's in office. Period. And if that didn't happen we'd be in our fifth congressional meeting/press conference declaring how ill advised, illegal, and immoral it was.

            So you agree with me. The complaints are largely attempts at manufacturing a perception by political operatives.

      • > Or the President trying to have a summit at one of his own hotels?

        Or the President revealing classified information in a tweet to make himself look good.
  • by Kernel Kurtz ( 182424 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @01:25PM (#59204566)

    with some way for people to pay him directly, avoiding anything to do with America.

    Hell I'd send him a donation for nothing in return but his great public service.

  • by thedarb ( 181754 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @01:44PM (#59204670)

    I mean, I'm too lazy to look up how to do so, but telling me I can't send him the money for his own work? Yeah, fuck you. IF I want to read it, I'll find a way to send him the money. No one tells me who I can and can't choose to support.

    • I think the courts and laws in your country do tell you that.

      For example, fund terrorist organizations and see how far it gets you.
      Or offer to send money and fund the person who kills <insert name of political leader you dislike>.

      One might suggest if you don't like the laws of your country that you work to change them, follow them, or enjoy the laws of your country in whatever fashion they apply to you.
         
  • Didn't a similar thing happen to Frank Snepp who was an analyst in Vietnam and wrote a book called Decent Interval about his time there?

    After the book was published, CIA Director Stansfield Turner pushed for Snepp to be sued and, despite the objections of some Department of Justice officials, Turner prevailed. Since publication of the book could not be stopped under the constitutional law forbidding prior restraint of the press, the CIA sued Snepp for breach of contract. Snepp was accused of violating the non-disclosure agreement he had signed when he joined the agency that forbade publication of any material about CIA operations without the prior consent of the agency.[6] Ironically, President Jimmy Carter permitted the lawsuit against Snepp at the same time he had proposed the creation of a special unit to provide protection for civil service whistle blowers. In a press conference, Carter said that Snepp did not qualify as a whistleblower as he did not "reveal anything that would lead to an improvement in our security apparatus or the protection of Americans' civil rights." Carter also claimed that Snepp had "revealed our nation's utmost secrets", even though he had not been charged with violating any security laws like the Espionage Act.[6]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • ... with the contractor?

    The first question is one of standing. Also, Uber and Lyft are in running battles with several countries regarding whether drivers are employees or contractors. Snowden was not a government employee. He was a contractor.

    It may be the contractor who's responsible for hiring a person who violated the contractor's NDA.

  • ... because he makes a fortune giving speeches and shit.

    The lawsuit is OK, but it's not going to matter.

  • by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @04:48PM (#59205672)

    ... on lawsuit [aclu.org]:

    Below is comment from Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project and attorney for Snowden:

    "This book contains no government secrets that have not been previously published by respected news organizations. Had Mr. Snowden believed that the government would review his book in good faith, he would have submitted it for review. But the government continues to insist that facts that are known and discussed throughout the world are still somehow classified.

    “Mr. Snowden wrote this book to continue a global conversation about mass surveillance and free societies that his actions helped inspire. He hopes that today’s lawsuit by the United States government will bring the book to the attention of more readers throughout the world.”

No skis take rocks like rental skis!

Working...