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."
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."
Snowden's contract still enforceable? (Score:2)
Re:Snowden's contract still enforceable? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Snowden's contract still enforceable? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like it is the publisher who may actually be out that advance. Snowden might not return it. Potentially, the publisher might have wanted / expected it to be that way.
Once the government squashes the book, maybe the e-book version can be leaked, somehow, mysteriously.
Re: (Score:2)
It's already available on your torrent site of choice.
Re: (Score:2)
No. That's not how it works. The publisher did not sign an NDA. They get to publish, make a profit. It's the proceeds that go to Snowden that are covered in the suit. He may not give a rat's ass about his share. The publisher sure doesn't.
The suit can go forward and have zip-shit effect, either monetarily or as a deterrent. Why would not making money on a book be a deterrent? Snowden's play is to have his matter judge by the court of public opinion.
A smart Snowden/publisher deal would be to consign Snowden
Re: (Score:2)
"So, sell the book at a loss, then the government will be forced to pay the loss?"
Uhhhh. Why would you think that?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
However as others have written that would still not prevent others from suing him for the profits made by this book in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
You can sue non-citizens. You can sue corporations. You can sue the government. You can sue just about anything.
Indeed, people have even tried to sue God [wikipedia.org]. One apparently even won.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's always about the money. Public safety, national security -- these things are always secondary to "the money".
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have any sense of proportion, do you.
Re: (Score:2)
Non-disclosures related to classified material are for life as far as I know.
Re: (Score:2)
The kind of NDA you sign when you get access to classified information of the sort Snowden had access to never sunsets.
Re: (Score:2)
There actually are laws and rules around what information is eligible for any classification, and nothing Snowden revealed was eligible.
Uh.....no.
The vast majority of what Snowden leaked were capabilities. Those are legal to classify.
There was a small number of things Snowden leaked that included how those programs were targeting people, and they had steps to explicitly exclude US persons. Which makes them legal to classify.
The only program Snowden leaked that collected on US persons was the one collecting phone records, and that was legal under an overly-broad 1979 SCOTUS decision (that needs to be revisited 'cause telephones from today
Re: (Score:2)
No, the US is making this a civil case because that's the appropriate venue for violating a contract. Also, they need to act against more people than Snowden. For example, they want to make Snowden's publisher give them the revenue from book sales.
Snowden's criminal case is still pending, since he's not in the US.
Also, civil trials can have juries. Depends on the jurisdiction and dollar amount.
Re: (Score:3)
I see one outcome of this (Score:3)
I see one outcome of this:
This will help Snowden sell more books.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we all need to PIRATE it.
Re: (Score:2)
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]
Speaking fees also vulnerable (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If the Gummint isn't suing to stop the Publication or Dissemination of Snowdon's book, doesn't that seriously undermine their legal argument that he leaked any "Trade Secrets", "Sources and Methods", or "Classified Information"?
Leaking the info is/was still illegal and against the lifetime NDA he surely signed for his clearance, but the horse has left the barn on keeping that info secret. He still violated the requirement to get a pre-publication review and have his book cleared. In addition, there are laws against people profiting from their illegal activity. My guess it that's the Government's angle.
Re: (Score:3)
Haha, yep. I had no idea he released a book. Just bought it.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Try again, assholes (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Try again, assholes (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They can arbitrarily seize your cash without even charging you with a crime.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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,
Snowden says he'd come home for a fair trial (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:Snowden says he'd come home for a fair trial (Score:5, Informative)
WRONG buddy. Obviously you've never heard of or understand the concept of "Jury Nullification."
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden knew the consequences of his actions before he acted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Snowden says he'd come home for a fair trial (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Glad I didn't have to scroll too far for this.
If I was on the jury, I would not convict.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Snowden says he'd come home for a fair trial (Score:4, Informative)
Except that's not entirely the case. There is at least this: Jury [umkc.edu] Nullification [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the thing. Snowden didn't actually reveal any illegal US domestic spying.
The one domestic program he did reveal was the NSA gathering phone records. Which is legal under an overly-broad 1979 SCOTUS decision that needs to be revisited due to technology changes.
That ruling declared phone records to be normal business records that could be disclosed without a warrant. At the time, the records weren't particularly revealing since we're talking about landlines and only the actual calls made over them.
M
WhistleBlower protection act (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden at the time when he stole the info was not an employee of the US government, he worked for booz allen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WhistleBlower protection act (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:WhistleBlower protection act (Score:5, Insightful)
Snowden observed what had happened to others before him who had followed those procedures. That observation informed his decision to not use those procedures.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get to ask for protection under a law you explicitly chose to disregard.
Re: (Score:2)
"This law protects whistleblowers."
"The people who blew the whistle under that law were imprisoned!"
"They're protected by armed guards, I don't see the problem."
Re: (Score:2)
"not provide personal profit" (Score:3)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the President trying to have a summit at one of his own hotels?
"looks bad" != "is bad" (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the President revealing classified information in a tweet to make himself look good.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah! Almost forgot about that. Where he tweeted the location of a military staging area.
He should release the book online (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: He should release the book online (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a case where cryptocurrency could be used, for the first time, to secretly funnel money across borders to a *good* cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever you mention crypto here all you get is hurr durr tulips. This is the perfect use for crypto currency.
Re: (Score:2)
Setting aside my personal judgement of the cause for a moment, you're right. This is precisely what cryptocurrency is built for.
Forget the nonsense about being intrinsic value, dodging tax obligations, or rejecting fiat currencies. Cryptocurrencies are just distributed ledger systems, and would make enforcing forfeiture like this extremely difficult for a court.
As to the historic nature of such an event, I'd expect you could find lots of drug dealers and other criminals who would justify their actions as "g
Makes me just want to send him money directly. (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Or I'll continue to do as I damn well please. Thank you very much.
Frank Snepp (Score:2)
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]
Was the NDA with the US government or ... (Score:2)
... 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.
He doesn't need the money ... (Score:2)
... because he makes a fortune giving speeches and shit.
The lawsuit is OK, but it's not going to matter.
ACLU weighs in ... (Score:3)
... 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.”
Re: (Score:2)
Because he was under contract to submit any book he writes for review.
You may not agree he should be required to do this, but that doesn't nullify the contract he signed where he agreed to submit anything like this for approval before it was published. He also agreed to not publish anything they didn't approve... NEXT!