'Citizenfour' Producers Sued Over Edward Snowden Leaks

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Citizenfour' Producers Sued Over Edward Snowden Leaks

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @01:13AM from the indicting-a-ham-sandwich dept.

An anonymous reader writes with this news from The Hollywood Reporter: Horace Edwards, who identifies himself as a retired naval officer and the former secretary of the Kansas Department of Transportation, has filed a lawsuit in Kansas federal court that seeks a constructive trust over monies derived from the distribution of Citizenfour. Edwards ... seeks to hold Snowden, director Laura Poitras, The Weinstein Co., Participant Media and others responsible for "obligations owed to the American people" and "misuse purloined information disclosed to foreign enemies." It's an unusual lawsuit, one that the plaintiff likens to "a derivative action on behalf of the American Public," and is primarily based upon Snowden's agreement with the United States to keep confidentiality. ... Edwards appears to be making the argument that Snowden's security clearance creates a fiduciary duty of loyalty — one that was allegedly breached by Snowden's participation in the production of Citizenfour without allowing prepublication clearance review. As for the producers and distributors, they are said to be "aiding and abetting the theft and misuse of stolen government documents." The lawsuit seeks a constructive trust to redress the alleged unjust enrichment by the film. A 1980 case that involved a former CIA officer's book went up to the Supreme Court and might have opened the path to such a remedy.

163 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Does he stand a chance? by Roodvlees · 2014-12-23 01:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Assuming he thought this through, does that mean the US law is against the people knowing what their government is doing?

--
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
1. Re:Does he stand a chance? by khallow · 2014-12-23 01:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  He doesn't stand a chance because he doesn't have standing.
2. Re: Does he stand a chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 01:33 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Yes. And a few years later, once the Republican president has gotten comfortable with his job, if you make a comment like that, you will disappear. Welcome to the USSA.
3. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 01:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Assuming he thought this through, does that mean the US law is against the people knowing what their government is doing?
  The government is using mass surveillance and torture, and I've seen every talking head on the subjects try to weasel out by saying "it's just metadata" or "they're just terrorists." As far as the law is concerned, it's written by weasels of the weasliest kind.
  Yes, the US government is committing acts of pure evil. Yes, they don't want us to know. What do you want to do about it?
4. Re:Does he stand a chance? by tylikcat · 2014-12-23 01:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  ...and if he did have standing, so would all other US citizens. Which would be terribly amusing.
5. Re:Does he stand a chance? by mrchaotica · 2014-12-23 01:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Indeed. If such a "fiduciary duty of loyalty" really exists, then I'd love to participate in a class-action lawsuit against a bunch of our traitorous, war-criminal politicians!
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
6. Re:Does he stand a chance? by NotDrWho · 2014-12-23 01:57 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  And it would call into question all the many times that the courts have said in the past that individual U.S. citizens have no standing to sue over stuff like the CIA torture program.
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
7. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 02:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The only thing you can do. Vote third-party.
8. Re: Does he stand a chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 02:05 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I'd love to force the government to obey the law/constitution, but as an ordinary citizen (not someone with deep pockets/connections with powerful leaders) against a corporate government that rewrites the law for its own interests , what can I realistically do? Not just symbolic acts like voting, but ways that will actually affect change while still allowing me to work my 9-5 and take care of my family.
9. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 02:13 · Score: 0
  
  Calling them weasels is an insult to weasels and honey badgers everywhere!
10. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 02:29 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  For folks who are interested, Cryptome has posted the filing: Case 2:14-cv-02631-JAR-TJJ.
11. Re:Does he stand a chance? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2014-12-23 02:33 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I'm going to go with "No, and Yes".
  
  Unfortunately, US law is absurdly unfavorable to we 'the people' knowing what is actually done in our name (it's difficult enough that there's so damn much of it; but it's also deliberately obfuscated and/or hidden in assorted vital areas).
  
  However, this guy just oozes crackpot. Nobody with a rather histrionic CV? Check. Legalbabble slurry of novel legal theories designed to dodge basic problems like "standing" and "even if Snowden is totally screwed, it's not obvious why that would make it illegal to make a movie about him". Check.
12. Re: Does he stand a chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  I think he may have a chance. In the NDA that Snowden signed, one of the remedies the government can exercise is seizure of the money that is made from classifed information. that is why prepublication review is an important step. As to why the US government is not exercising this right, who knows.
  The key legal question is the argument that as a US citizen he has standing. I don't think that argument is completely unwinnable.
13. Re:Does he stand a chance? by jythie · 2014-12-23 02:37 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, but the 'standing' argument only really works when the judge wants to dismiss a case. Standing is a really nebulous concept, and just like playing the Commerce Clause game, it can be as narrow or wide as the official using it wants it to be.
14. Re:Does he stand a chance? by jythie · 2014-12-23 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  Voting 3rd party just makes the problem worse.
15. Re:Does he stand a chance? by bluefoxlucid · 2014-12-23 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Metadata is data.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
16. Re:Does he stand a chance? by s.petry · 2014-12-23 03:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Good job repeating the propaganda citizen, we have reserved an extra slice of cheese for your next compensation package. You did now however follow the main line "Vote Democrat and Republican or you waste your vote" so we will be removing said extra slice of cheese.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
17. Re: Does he stand a chance? by Jesrad · 2014-12-23 03:24 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  That provision only covers money made from the information itself, and not the money made from how the information got divulged, nor information about the information.
  It's a subtle but significant difference.
  
  --
  Maybe we deserve this world ?
18. Re:Does he stand a chance? by DoofusOfDeath · 2014-12-23 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming he thought this through, does that mean the US law is against the people knowing what their government is doing?
  When I worked for the DoD, we were cautioned to not read newspaper pieces describing what Snowden revealed, because it violated the terms of our security clearances.
19. Re: Does he stand a chance? by jeffmeden · 2014-12-23 03:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That provision only covers money made from the information itself, and not the money made from how the information got divulged, nor information about the information.
  It's a subtle but significant difference.
  That's presuming that Citizen Four is about simply how the leaks took place, and does not mention any of the material in them. Given the completely cavalier attitude adopted by the central figures (Snowden, Poitras, Greenwald, etc) toward sharing the information, I doubt that this is the case.
20. Re:Does he stand a chance? by hairyfeet · 2014-12-23 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing propaganda about it, as long as the US uses the all or nothing with no secondary choosing? Then third party just doesn't have a chance.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
21. Re: Does he stand a chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 03:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That might work against Snowdon but the others didn't sign that NDA.
22. Re:Does he stand a chance? by gizmo2199 · 2014-12-23 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Except that in a first-past-the-post voting system, voting for a third party is the same as throwing your vote away, it's called Duverger's Law
  
  --
  This Sig does not Exist.
23. Re: Does he stand a chance? by locketine · 2014-12-23 04:15 · Score: 2
  
  They were hardly cavalier with the information. Our own government allowed a contracted network admin total access to everything... now that's being cavalier.
  
  --
  Think globally but act within local variable scope.
24. Re: Does he stand a chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  Democrats are trying to kill minority babies and are replace black people with mexicans.
  They hate the poor. I don't understand why poor people hate themselves so much to vote for the racist Democratic Party
25. Re: Does he stand a chance? by NatasRevol · 2014-12-23 04:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And by everything, you mean knowledge of their illegal behaviors.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
26. Re: Does he stand a chance? by NatasRevol · 2014-12-23 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  You cannot. Voting won't help. Working for change won't help.
  Honestly, unless you're a multibillionaire with the power to actually affect change, about the best thing you can do is take your life's savings & go live in another country as a rich ex-pat. That way, you are at least further away from the long arm of the (un)law.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
27. Re: Does he stand a chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  Confirmed. -Democrat that eats babies.
28. Re: Does he stand a chance? by jeffmeden · 2014-12-23 04:31 · Score: 2
  
  They were hardly cavalier with the information. Our own government allowed a contracted network admin total access to everything... now that's being cavalier.
  He had a top secret clearance and worked as a system administrator on some of the lowest level pieces of the NSA's infrastructure (backup systems, etc) meaning that for him to do his job they had no choice but to give him at least some possible paths to get at the data. Whether or not he used stolen credentials to facilitate the access that let him download all the documents is a question still open.
29. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  Complete nonsense. If a judge finds he has standing in this case, you'll see six million lawsuits against Dick Cheney and six million lawsuits against Barack Obama inside of six months. Utter chaos. And probably a half dozen against the judge himself.
30. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Teancum · 2014-12-23 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  How is it propaganda? As long as the current system of electing representatives exists in the USA, you will be stuck with two political parties. At best, you might have one political party that really screws up, only to be replaced by another major party (like what happened when the Republican Party replaced the Whigs).
  At least try to explain what points this video seems to miss? It explains precisely why two political parties exist in America, and why they are both almost identical in philosophies as well. It is indeed a waste of a vote and is not mere propaganda, at least from a mathematical view and a basic understanding of human nature.
  Other voting systems can encourage much more diversity of political opinions in governance, which is what I presume you mean by advocating for third party candidates.
31. Re:Does he stand a chance? by penandpaper · 2014-12-23 04:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You may not "win" with your vote but it is definitely NOT throwing your vote away. Throwing your vote away would be not voting entirely which happens too often in the USA.
  At least with a 3rd party vote, the growing disparity would at least signal to politicians that there is a larger (and growing) voting bloc that could be won. Or signals to the major parties that they are losing their support. Why should either politicians or the party's change if either A) most people do not vote or B) the people who do vote will vote for them regardless to ensure the other lizard doesn't win?
  There is every reason in the world to vote. Just like there is a reason to vote for what you believe and not against what you are afraid of. Apathy is a bigger problem in the American voting system than first-past-the-post. (Even if the later may contribute to the former).
32. Re: Does he stand a chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  Because they're afraid to rise against the rich. The hate themselves for being so cowardly so they hurt themselves by voting for whoever's running in the elections.
  No one who ever ran in an election ever cared for the people.
33. Re:Does he stand a chance? by NatasRevol · 2014-12-23 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Did they actual show you how it violated those terms, or was it just a vague threat?
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
34. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Teancum · 2014-12-23 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  I know this happened, but it really makes no sense to me either. If the information is already in the public domain available to ordinary citizens and even enemies of the country, what is the point of further restrictions from that information? Are they deliberately trying to disable the intelligence community from being able to do their job by not giving them enough information?
  I can understand perhaps for law enforcement purposes, if you were one of those officers involved with investigating Snowden or potentially could be called into that investigation, that you might want to be cautious about a chain of evidence in term of trying to prove guilt eventually in a courtroom. This can include (obviously, given the circumstances) investigators who are employed by the Department of Defense, so this could be a general precaution. It also would be something you should in general be avoiding for almost any investigation for that matter so Snowden shouldn't be singled out either.
  If you can explain the logic why this order went out, I would love to understand it.
35. Re:Does he stand a chance? by s.petry · 2014-12-23 04:49 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Telling people to either not vote, or to only vote D or R will never change the status quo. There is no possible way to get away from the currently broken system claiming "the US is a two party system" (which it is not and has never been) by doing nothing.. or doing the same thing over and over.
  Results _require_ action! If you want to change the system you need everyone voting and voting against the status quo. Promoting Einstein's definition of insanity will never make things better. It can't, and this expectation is exactly insane. "Oh, if we only voted for this Democrat or That Republican things would be different". Yet this is what gets repeated over and over.
  If you don't like the path the US is on, vote for anything except the status quo! The argument of "those guys are bought and paid for too" may or may not be true, but if they are they surely don't receive the amount of money and pandering that the D and R candidates do.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
36. Re:Does he stand a chance? by DoofusOfDeath · 2014-12-23 04:50 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Did they actual show you how it violated those terms, or was it just a vague threat?
  It was a vague threat, but the DoD can pull a security clearance for various reasons, which means sudden unemployment for the worker. So having ones clearance threatened is akin to be threatened with firing. Except it's a kind of firing that means you can't easily work anywhere else in that "industry" either. So it's a pretty attention-grabbing threat.
  But it also shows the absurdity of the DoD leadership. They were specifically saying that people with clearances couldn't see info that everyone else on the planet could see. This kind of insanity was a major factor in me leaving the DoD. The movie "Catch 22" makes a lot more sense after you've worked with those people.
37. Re:Does he stand a chance? by DoofusOfDeath · 2014-12-23 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  If you can explain the logic why this order went out, I would love to understand it.
  I can't explain it. Such apparent idiocy was a major factor in me leaving the DoD.
38. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  Metadata are data.
39. Re: Does he stand a chance? by __aanbvm4272 · 2014-12-23 04:56 · Score: 2
  
  "a derivative action on behalf of the American Public," Derived or not I myself do NOT like someone linking ALL the American people as if we agree with the crap dealt on our behalf. I would like to counter sue Mr Horace Edwards for false representation. As you can see by my signature I think Mr Snowden deserves the highest standing in the nation. Then let's see who complains. Respect your whistleblowers as the media has become irrelevant.
40. Re:Does he stand a chance? by s.petry · 2014-12-23 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  And we will change our broken system of FPTP gerrymandered electoral college how exactly? Last election there were exactly 0 candidates willing to change the system. Primarily because their livelihood depends on the current broken system. We don't see any traction on things like term limits for the same reason.
  Sure, I agree that there is a huge hurdle. We have to jump it to move forward.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
41. Re:Does he stand a chance? by __aanbvm4272 · 2014-12-23 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  "Then third party just doesn't have a chance." You would like everyone to think so...knock it off. The FACT is when enough people have HAD IT They will become the majority. In some states it is the case now and independents have candidates worth electing. That is the key, No more duopoly No more redistricting No more fear. No matter what the powerful do, the people have a voice when united. Replace all the obstructionists. Anyone can be the President Bush proved it. So elect Snowden for President... What a middle finger that would be to the mucky mucks, Eh?
42. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Catbeller · 2014-12-23 05:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  He'll be granted standing.
  Which is really grating, as we as citizens don't have standing to sue the Federal spies for illegal activities because, as the court said, we don't have standing because we can't prove we were spied on.
  Snowden's revelations give us that standing, as he's proven that they are spying on ALL of us. But try to argue that in front of a Fox-News-watching judge who thinks ISIS is running up his street, any second now.
  But they'll have no problem entertaining this suit. Because it's not about justice, it's about power. They have it all, and we have none. That's what total surveillance means. They know what we're doing, and we aren't allowed - AT ALL - to know what they're doing.
  Wait until someone who has an axe to grind starts using the Security State API.
  And it's not just about the US. We've exported surveillance tech and surveillance laws all over the world. Now we have hundreds of would-be ultimate tyrannies about to be born.
43. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Catbeller · 2014-12-23 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Only if you are filing suit against Snowden and/or Manning. Else, you've no standing if you want to know what they're doing. Because Terrorism/Pedophiles/Gambling/Drugs/Anti-corporate uprisings/Union/Commies/Islamists. Because they say so. Because they'll drag you away and hold you naked in a solitary cell until you die if you manage to score a hit against them.
  This is what tyranny means. Sadists and idiots take control - and those sadists and idiots who are not in power cheer them on vociferlously while masturbating, thinking about the torture they love so damned much. So much is explainable if you stop trying to comprehend this logically and instead realize about 12-33 per cent of the population is composed of sadists.
44. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Catbeller · 2014-12-23 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think politicians are in charge anymore. Who is? Good question.
45. Re: Does he stand a chance? by Catbeller · 2014-12-23 05:33 · Score: 2
  
  Fuck the NDA, and fuck contracts. The "spy-government" ignores any agreements or contracts or laws, as Snowden demonstrated. Why we are arguing legal niceities with a pack of criminals and would-be tyrants? The law doesn't apply to them. We can't even find out who the spy-government IS. They exist above the President, the Congress, or any law. We can't stop them. They'll take direction, until they don't feel like it. Why not? Who can stop them? The only intel operative that's gone to prison is the one who ratted them out on torture. Cheney and his people outed the entire Iran nuclear spy program by leaking Valerie Plame's name to take revenge on her husband. People REALLY were tortured and killed becaues of that - and no one is called on it. And they can stop you before you leave your house, because they know who YOU are. You can't play politics or law with a group that controls and monitors all communications.
46. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Catbeller · 2014-12-23 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  That's just masturbating, pardon my Latin.
47. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Jack9 · 2014-12-23 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  > Voting 3rd party just makes the problem worse.
  In every way, it does not.
  
  --
  
  Often wrong but never in doubt.
  I am Jack9.
  Everyone knows me.
48. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Cardoor · 2014-12-23 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  politicians throughout history have rarely been 'in charge'. remember when christian bale thought raz-al-gool was the asian guy instead of liam neeson? yeah. like that.
  
  at the risk of recommending a 'banned book', checkout 'zinn's people's history of the united states.'
49. Re:Does he stand a chance? by anagama · 2014-12-23 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but in the past those lawsuits cast the Feds as the bad guys (which they are of course) but in this lawsuit, the Feds are the putative good guys (LOL). Considering how rotten and corrupt the system is, top to bottom, I would be surprised if they dismissed this case on standing grounds. They'll wiggle around that in some way because in the American court system of today, getting to a specific predetermined result by any twisted means is what counts.
  For example, when justice Roberts commented on the recent case in which it was determined that ignorance of the law is no excuse, unless you are a cop, he supported that opinion with this:
  
  Chief Justice Roberts conceded that the court's decision at first blush ran afoul of the maxim that "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
  On reflection, he said, the maxim holds the government and its citizens to the same standard where it counts.
  "Just as an individual generally cannot escape criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law," Chief Justice Roberts wrote, "so too the government cannot impose criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law."
  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12...
  They aren't even trying to pretend they are making sense any longer. They just talk horseshit and expect us to eat it.
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
50. Re: Does he stand a chance? by laird · 2014-12-23 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  The question, of course, is whether it's legal for an NDA to require people to conceal illegal activities when their employer is trying to conceal them.
  
  --
  Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
51. Re: Does he stand a chance? by laird · 2014-12-23 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Revealing illegal government activity, on the other hand, appears to be relatively effective at triggering some change. Far more than reporting the illegal government to the employer and to the government, both of which Snowden did first, with no result at all.
  If the government doesn't want people to "blow the whistle" publicly for their illegal activities, they might want to either consider not engaging in illegal activities, or responding to the notifications made through proper channels, so that people aren't forced to reveal the criminal activities publicly.
  
  --
  Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
52. Re: Does he stand a chance? by Coren22 · 2014-12-23 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  What is an illegal activity? Is Snowden competent to determine that something is illegal when numerous judges and lawyers have determined that it is legal?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
53. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Coren22 · 2014-12-23 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  What is missing from your analysis is that the number who don't vote because they hate the current system make up more people than vote for either party currently.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
54. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  Snowden committed high treason against every American
  He didn't commit high treason against THIS American, motherfucker. Speak for your own pathetic self.
55. Re: Does he stand a chance? by NatasRevol · 2014-12-23 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  How do you know anything has changed?
  The CIA refused to give access to over 9000 pages to the torture commission.
  They're still hiding a LOT.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
56. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 07:43 · Score: 0
  
  The logic is simple. Secret information that has been inadvertently released to the public is still considered secret. Information does not automatically become declassified just because someone managed to leak it. Why, you ask? Because.......If information would be detrimental to the US in the hands of our enemies, that fact does not automatically change post-release. You don't just say "Aw shucks! Some malcontent managed to leak our super-secret info to the press, so let's just admit it really was super secret stuff and declassify it so that the info can be even more widely disseminated than it already has".
  Just because information has been leaked and the bad guys MIGHT find it if they were diligent enough to look, you really have no way of knowing whether they REALLY DID notice or realized the significance of what they were looking at even if they did take notice, For that reason, standard policy is not to admit that leaked secret info is, indeed, secret, and you don't automatically declassify it because then all you have done is make it EVEN EASIER for our adversaries to search on and find that leaked info. I don't know about you, but I want to make it AS HARD AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE for our adversaries to do bad things to us.
57. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  It's a technicality. Your security clearance is dependant on (among other things) your stated commitment to not read classified documents you are not cleared for. There are legitimate reasons for this, specifically "you can't tell what you don't know".
  If you have security clearance you have to wait for the documents to be de-classified (if ever).
  There should be an common sense exception for things in the public domain but these rules were created before the internet existed and foreign powers didn't indiscriminately share everything. Just because the Soviets knew how good US submarines were didn't mean China knew too.
58. Re: Does he stand a chance? by david_thornley · 2014-12-23 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  If Snowden revealed secret programs, why would you expect them to have been ruled legal by numerous judges and lawyers? Some of the NSA's activities have been tested in court, but many (perhaps most) have not been.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
59. Re:Does he stand a chance? by david_thornley · 2014-12-23 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  There is some logic here, but it's tricky and thin.
  If information is released publicly, there's still reasons to keep it classified. Once it's unclassified, anybody with a FOIA request can verify it, but if it's still classified there's at least some plausible deniability. The government can claim that some of the documents don't really mean what they say, or were faked, or whatever. It may not apply in any particular situation, but somebody has to make that determination, and until formally declassified it's still classified.
  It's easier and simpler to tell people not to read classified information than to tell them not to read classified information except from publicly available sources. It makes investigation easier: if you know that document X should not be in the browser cache, it's easier if you don't have to figure out where it came from.
  Security clearances are not mandated except if you want a certain job, but are rather voluntary, and in this case there's some reason to have strict rules that are clear and don't involve judgment.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
60. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Teancum · 2014-12-23 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not trying to say that just because some information was leaked to the press that it automatically needs to be declassified. It is very likely (almost certain) that information being passed around in the public by news reports is imprecise, lacking some critical details, and certainly not the complete story. There are indeed valid reasons for keeping something classified even when the whole report or project has been dumped out into the open in a public manner (however that happened).
  I have seen some books and reports getting classified simply because of a single word that is different from a public document. I understand how that can be a big deal.
  Still, you are confusing the declassification process or the need to maintain secrets with something that is already out in the public domain. It is two very different situations, and here you are trying to tell an analyst that they can't have access to information that they may even need to know simply because some upper level official is hoping to make that public knowledge secret again. My complaint is about telling somebody who is dealing with this kind of information that is in the public domain that it is somehow a secret.
  It is just denying reality, and doing so officially. If your next door neighbor knows something about a piece of intellgience, somebody who is a civilian, why should a government agent be expressly prohibited from learning about that same fact?
61. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Teancum · 2014-12-23 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  There should be an common sense exception for things in the public domain but these rules were created before the internet existed and foreign powers didn't indiscriminately share everything.
  This is a cop-out excuse. The duplication of information has been a problem since Gutenberg developed the printing press and enabled the mass dissemination of knowledge. To claim this is a new phenomena and something that needs common sense rules simply goes to show how silly such rules are in the first place.
  There is a good reason why the 1st Amendment exists in the U.S. Constitution, and specifically mentions printing presses (something the authors of the U.S. Constitution knew about). The 1st Congress also passed laws about official state secrets, including their applicability with activities related to the War Department. The damage that a faithless traitor could make was also seen in the form of Benedict Arnold, whose damage of the American Revolution still can't be completely determined, and was made very apparent at the beginning of the USA to those making such rules.
62. Re:Does he stand a chance? by scarboni888 · 2014-12-23 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  Answer: money
63. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 10:54 · Score: 0
  
  Hey listen, just wondering, if you maybe could make an exception to your rule and reply to this?
  It would mean an awful lot to me and I'd sure appreciate it!
  Thanks in advance,
  Anonymous
64. Re:Does he stand a chance? by scarboni888 · 2014-12-23 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Einstein never said that: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014...
65. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Teancum · 2014-12-23 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to make a difference and change what is happening, you need to change the way voting takes place, not just simply throw your vote away by voting for a 3rd party. You had better believe that it takes action, but merely voting "present" isn't going to matter.
  Study up on alternative voting systems, and when you get the opportunity make sure that you encourage something other than First Past the Post voting happens. I convinced the members of my local voting precinct to change to Instant Run-off voting instead. Yes, there are other voting systems, but almost anything is better than First Past the Post. That was just for minor stuff, but you need to give ordinary people the experience of voting in some other manner, even if it is just for class president or who is going to be stuck going on a beer run at midnight.
  It is much more than just money in the system, it is noting that the entire system for voting is broken in a critical way.
66. Re: Does he stand a chance? by dbreeze · 2014-12-23 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  If that's the situation we've reached in America now then it's all over with and not worth saving anyway. i'd liken it to the observation on porn vs. art...... I know it when I see it.
  Is there a victim? is there a lie/deception involved? Where's the $ going to and coming from......? It ain't hard to spot "criminal", "legal" is where the criminals are making their hay these days.......
  Not meaning to bust on ya Coren, but considering I was felonized for growing a few plants in a closet that only came to the attention of law enforcement due to thieves taking it, getting caught with it, and then sending LEO back to my place..... while elements of our government are gleefully wiping their arses with the document that codifies our God given rights...... I get a little peeved.....
  As long as We the People remain hamstrung by "legal" as interpreted by criminals and their lackeys....... our kids don't stand a snowball's chance in hell......
  Throughout human history judges and lawyers have determined all manner of shit as "legal". Thank God for those rare individuals like Edward Snowden who've had the balls to take a stand and call shit for the shit that it is. We wouldn't have an America if it weren't for men and women like him.
  
  --
  When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
67. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Teancum · 2014-12-23 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  I would suggest you watch the video I referenced. It explains not only why you have two parties, but also why the vast majority of people don't want to bother voting either. At a recent municipal election that I participated in, my city had an abysmal 5% voter turnout. I have to presume it is because the other 95% of the registered voters didn't feel it was worth their effort in spite of the fact that over half of the taxes they pay go to those municipal officials. That was a non-partisan election too! (aka no party affiliation was permitted on the ballot.... candidates ran strictly on their own name alone).
68. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Teancum · 2014-12-23 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not advocating or asking to have explained why documents should remain classified. What I'm complaining about is why federal agents whose job is to process information are being explicitly told they can't learn about classified information from a public source like a newspaper or a blog when ordinary citizens are capable of obtaining that information? It is this duplicity that I'm complaining about which makes federal agents have less knowledge about stuff happening than ordinary citizens... in some situations.
  If some CIA analyst can pick up the Washington Post and read the same newspaper that is dropped onto the desk of Kim Jong Un, why should he go through some mickey mouse bullshit to declassify that same newspaper article?
69. Re:Does he stand a chance? by s.petry · 2014-12-23 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  Except as I stated to someone else, the system won't change with the same players in the system. No candidates in the last election, or the one before that, or the one before that, ad nauseam, have changing our system on their agendas. Zero, zip, nada, primarily because their livelihood depends on the current broken system. If it's fixed, they lose their jobs (or have a strong chance of doing so). We could use the same exact arguments to discuss term limits, which have also been discussed by the populace but never voted on favorably by the politicians who rely on this broken system for their paychecks.
  I surely agree that the current system is horribly broken. Maintaining the system won't "fix" it, so enough people have to vote to change the system in order to invoke changes./p.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
70. Re: Does he stand a chance? by dbreeze · 2014-12-23 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  https://movetoamend.org/
  You should check 'em out and mebbe lend a hand.......
  
  --
  When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
71. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 11:58 · Score: 0
  
  Metadata (plural common noun) are data.
  Metadata (mass noun) is data.
  The mass noun is more appropriate in the context in which the term is being used.
72. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 12:10 · Score: 0
  
  Are you insane? Diagnosed, even? It sure sounds like it.
73. Re:Does he stand a chance? by dbreeze · 2014-12-23 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, it's becoming abundantly clear that the greatest real adversary of the average American is...... our own goverment. Much the same for average majorities of populations around the globe. Having lived in a few other cultures around the world it's obvious to me that the vast majority of us all just want a decent life with Creator-bestowed Rights and Liberties and a better tomorrow for our children. Unfortunately, that's just not enough for a very few who now control the goverments around the world.
  Simon Barsinisters are real, and it's up to each and every one of us to pop those Power Pills and become Underdogs if we're to save the day. Start by voting for someone without MSM/big money support..... just to see what happens....
  
  --
  When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
74. Re:Does he stand a chance? by rtb61 · 2014-12-23 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  The government has a duty of responsibility to ensure the public is informed of any actions the government takes that will have a substantive impact upon how the public will vote at the next election. This is especially true in party politics. So a law suit against the currently in power political party, that failed to inform the public of actions that political party took when in power that would impact the vote of the public is quite reasonable and would be targeted at the income of those politicians directly and indirectly derived from the elected position. You have to remember those politicians did purposefully conspire to keep information from the public when they knew the public would disagree with those actions and seek redress at the next election. This does infringe electoral laws, where a political party is banned from pilfering government funds for electioneering purposes, this really does include keeping secrets as part of that political party marketing exercise. So no matter the nature of the secret, if it will have a material impact upon the next election, the political party in power is required to release that information, rather than spending government funds to keep the public uninformed, so that the public will still vote for them in that next election. This would also tie into the government failing to prosecute criminal actions by the government, which can also be tied to political parties seeking to gain and keep power and be subject to similar class action redress.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
75. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Lehk228 · 2014-12-23 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  it's actually legit, the reason is that part of having a security clearance means agreeing not to look at material you are not cleared to look at, the fact that something leaked does not unclassify it, and so it would be like rummaging through a report on the bosses desk.
  
  the end result is a bit absurd but not because of some special rule made for this kind of situation but rather the interaction of existing rules that do have a regular purpose day to day.
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
76. Re:Does he stand a chance? by amiga3D · 2014-12-23 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  If you think about what you just said you are basically saying the government can't have secrets. Classified material is protected by law. Releasing it to the public is a criminal act and the people making this movie are basically accomplices along with Snowden. The people have the right to elect representatives to run the legislative branch and participate in selecting the electoral college that elects the President. They don't have the right to micro-manage the government and decide what is classified and what is not.
77. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Teancum · 2014-12-23 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  One thing you can do in many states is to get an initiative or referendum started that can take the issue directly to the voters. My experience in such matters is that when such ground rule changing questions get on a ballot (with enough publicity and other factors too), the voter turnout is usually quite strong. I also find that the voters tend to get the issues involved.
  Getting the rules for how people get elected, with single alternative vote, instant run-off, or some other voting system will go a long, long way to fixing the system. It can happen, and I've even participated in getting such things done including forcing the state legislature where I live to pass a law instead of waiting for the results of the referendum to be counted. No, I wasn't just a signature gatherer but somebody who was organizing the whole thing. I've been involved in three such petition drives and know a little bit about how to get stuff like that done for a relatively small cost (in the mere thousands of dollars range, not millions, for a state-wide effort).
  The question that needs to be asked is how much do you really want to see a change, or are you merely going to cast your lone 3rd party vote and think that will make a difference?
78. Re:Does he stand a chance? by dlgeek · 2014-12-23 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  [The Plaintiff] also sues on behalf of the United States of America in the nature of a private attorney general, under theories of a derivative action, as well as a third party beneficiary of any relevant agreement[s] Defendant Snowden executed and other obligations he breached.
  
  Anytime you see the phrase "Private Attorney General", run... (it's one of those freemason-of-the-land catchphrases).
  
  3. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff, and the American people he represents have a recognized right to seek derivative and direct and indirect relief against officials who have a duty to act under the extraordinary facts of this case and recoup for the United States Government, the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated.
  
  Yeaahhh... uh-huh, sure.
  
  The complaint is actually signed by a practicing attorney. I'm shocked it wasn't pro-se.
79. Re:Does he stand a chance? by hairyfeet · 2014-12-23 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  Not gonna happen because the third parties won't be allowed to debate, won't be given equal air time, and will be ignored by the MSM. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn't so but there is a reason why most of the EU gets multiple parties to choose from and us only two, its because our current system is designed to give us this outcome.
  From the electoral college to the lack of secondary choice the current system is designed to make launching a functional competitive third party all but impossible. If you do not believe this answer me these questions WITHOUT looking them up...what was the name of the Green Party candidate for POTUS in 2012? The Libertarian? You can't because even though those 2 parties have existed for decades as far as the system is concerned they may as well not exist. Even at the state level the number of third party wins historically have been so low as to be nonexistent, so until the system itself is changed a third party vote is just throwing your ballot in the bin...although considering how corrupt both parties are now I'm not sure if that isn't what you end up doing regardless.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
80. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-24 09:15 · Score: 0
  
  Also what gives this bastard ti right to sue on behalf of ME. I am the American Public or part of it and if anyone should be sued it is the people in the NSA/CIA or course we have laws to protect goverment employees from action. Me as part of the American Public thinks Snowden should get a fucking medal for what he has done.
  We tend to forgot this country was founded by people who stood up to wrong doing by an oppersive government.
  We have become sheep.
  
  Edwards appears to be making the argument that Snowden's security clearance creates a fiduciary duty of loyalty — one that was allegedly breached
  
  Actually their argument shows Snowden was fulfilling his oath. I took one of those oaths one time. "To defend the Consistution and The People of the United States" Not at anytime did I swear to defend the "Goverment" of the United States. There is a reason the Fore Fathers wrote it that way.
  So by leaking the documents Snowden was actually fulfilling his oath by showing proof of our government commiting crimes aganist The People of the United States. Something he swore to protect.
81. Re:Does he stand a chance? by doccus · 2014-12-24 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  The misuse of power given through a public trust should be punishable by death when it is clear that treason has occured. Snowden and anyone complicit with his act of treason against the people of the United States of America should all have bounties placed on their heads by the real United States of American government. This law suit is pretty much an ineffectual joke given that Snowden committed high treason against every American.
  Every single bloody patriot started out as a treasonous actor. Unfortunately. When you have tyrants in power, you have no choice. America was BUILT on "treason". That's where the declaration of independance came from. And also why they decided to have a charte rof rights and freedoms, so that no longer would any patriot have need to commit a treasonous act in order to preserve their liberty. Couple of hundred years later, and guess what? Everybody f**ing FORGOT the importance of it, and just discarded that "flawed document" (as obama seems so fond of saying). What5 the hell is WRONG with everybody? People spilt, no, POURED blood on the mud during the battle for independance.. Does it no longer matter?
82. Re:Does he stand a chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 14:31 · Score: 0
  
  Biggest flaw in his argument:
  Possibility a) You can't steal from yourself. :D
  Possibility b) He's not the owner. :d
  It's a classic catch-22.
83. Re:Does he stand a chance? by david_thornley · 2014-12-29 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  From what I've read, it seems to be simpler to investigate whether somebody with a security clearance has seen classified information they aren't cleared for than to determine how they have seen it, and it's simpler to enforce rules about access to classified information that don't have exceptions. It's not like a certain amount of information hit the New York Times and that's known; different news sources may have different information from (say) the Snowden leaks, so it would be necessary to investigate a large number of news sources to see if specific classified information could have come from there.
  I suspect that there are reasons for simple and inflexible rules here. It may be easier to get compliance with such rules than to have more flexible and judgment-based ones. It does lead to absurdities. We've probably all heard of scientists who don't have the clearance to read their own previous works. I've got a couple of books on tanks where armor information on a certain tank is given in the first of the series and listed as classified in the second, and contemporary Soviet works (which were sometimes translated and released in the US) would happily list classified information on US tanks. One game designer in the 70s managed to get a Soviet book so he could learn about US tank armor, and a US book listing Soviet tank armor (no secret Soviet information in the Soviet book, of course).
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I guess it's time to watch that movie. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 01:23 · Score: 5, Funny

There must be something worth seeing in there.
1. Re:I guess it's time to watch that movie. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 01:37 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Exactly, and here is where you can go see it.
2. Re: I guess it's time to watch that movie. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 01:43 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Once that site gets taken down by the govt, you can find it on the pirate bay
Cartooney. by bmo · 2014-12-23 01:27 · Score: 3, Informative

Yet another self-obsessed legal "expurt" suing over a ham sandwich"
Horace Edwards, who identifies himself as a retired naval officer and the former secretary of the Kansas Department of Transportation, has filed a lawsuit in Kansas federal court that seeks a constructive trust over monies derived from the distribution of Citizenfour. .
Court: Does he have standing
Court looks
He hasn't been damaged, You must have some sort of injury, financial or physical, or whatever, to have any standing in a tort.
Court: Come back when you have standing, now go away and stop wasting our time.
The only "person" who can bring an action that has any weight behind it is the US Government, or some other person who has been directly harmed. That would be under the purview of the Justice Department or one of the armed services or someone who has suffered some loss that must be made whole.
Granted that I have a "GED in Law," but that's my best bet as to what's going to happen.
--
BMO
1. Re:Cartooney. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, when I saw the completely spurious reasoning in every single point you've made, I thought simply "this guy has obviously never been to law school or studied legal history."
  But when I got to the "gold trim" part, it all became obvious. Whacko conspiracy theorist.
  The trim simply means it's an indoor ceremonial flag and has been customarily been used on such flags for hundreds of years. It has no bearing on the type of court or its authority vis a vis the Constitution. Not only do we actually have separate admiralty courts which operate under completely separate sets of laws and rules, but even they derive their authority directly from the Constitution and cannot rule on matters other than those flowing directly from their authority as defined therein.
2. Re:Cartooney. by will_die · 2014-12-23 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  What does the gold trim actually mean. They got a good deal on flags with gold trim on them or they looked how it looked.
  Beyond that nothing it means nothing, the flag I have for hanging outside has the same thing, I needed a flag and I found it for cheap.
3. Re:Cartooney. by rhazz · 2014-12-23 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  The only "person" who can bring an action that has any weight behind it is the US Government, or some other person who has been directly harmed.
  And the US government has also failed to publicly show actual harm, haven't they? Though I suppose they could always just say "We were harmed because -REDACTED-".
4. Re:Cartooney. by flopsquad · 2014-12-23 02:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Correct (IAAL*). He has suffered no legally cognizable injury or adverse effect (nor even a plausible connection to harm). So no standing.
  
  Also, there is no legal theory under which he has a cause of action. In order for there to have been a tort, the defendants must have owed this guy a duty, then breached that duty, and that breach must've been the factual and proximate cause of actual harm. But Joe Random USA was an unknown, unforeseeable, causally unconnected nonparty who suffered no harm. Snowden et al owed him no duty, certainly not a fiduciary one.** So no tort.
  
  What about his quasicontract theory of unjust enrichment? Maybe he's taking the term too literally. It's not simply that someone was enriched and you find it unjust. It's that you had a real or implied contract with the other party and they benefitted to your detriment. Did this guy half finish building Snowden a deck and then not get paid? No? Then he can't sue for unjust enrichment. Similarly, he couldn't, as a random citizen, sue on my behalf if I was the one who built the deck for Snowden. Nor could he sue North Korea for "unjustly enriching" themselves at Sony's expense.
  
  *I am not your lawyer and this is not legal advice.
  
  **Snowden may have owed the US govt a fiduciary duty, or duty of confidentiality or loyalty. But despite this guy being a retired naval officer, he is not the US govt.
  
  --
  Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
5. Re:Cartooney. by bluefoxlucid · 2014-12-23 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  "Standing" has been dramatically changed in US law. It now allows people to claim they could be potentially harmed, or could be harmed, or could have been harmed, to make a lawsuit.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
6. Re:Cartooney. by deadweight · 2014-12-23 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  Wow - that is a GREAT conspiracy/truther/nutjob post. I cannot be anything but impressed as to how many elements were seamlessly woven into the whole. BTW - the real life not-insane version of this is sovereign immunity. If you go to sue the *government*, the first part of the suit is to determine if the government feels like being sued. If the answer is no - then you get to pound sand. THIS issue is the opposite. The suit here is trying to do what the plaintiff thinks the government should be doing and is not - trying to confiscate profits from this movie. I guess his damages are the 0.0000000001% increase in taxes because of this lost revenue or some other nebulous reasoning the judge will toss.
7. Re:Cartooney. by Catbeller · 2014-12-23 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  The harm being, they were outed performing illegal activities. Not to mention insanely immoral.
8. Re:Cartooney. by putzin · 2014-12-23 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you can provide some clarification here. I read the article as this dude is suing the movie (producers, studio, distributors, et al), and not Snowden directly. I think this makes it even less likely he has standing. If he does, then it seems anyone can sue any movie studio, publisher, or entertainment type service claiming that the money they are making is unjust for reason X and they need to take all their profits and stuff them into a trust for Y. Then the trust for Y either goes back to the government in this case, or is distributed to the legal team and some coffee and cookies goes out to 'mericuh. (Sorry, this isn't done by an American, it's being perpetrated by someone who lives in 'mericuh and all the absurdity that surrounds that sub culture)
  Where will the money go if he wins? As a side note, if it goes back to the gov't, it might be a good way to help reduce taxes. Sue all the entertainers, stuff all the trust monies into the treasury, ..., profit!
  
  --
  Bah
9. Re:Cartooney. by flopsquad · 2014-12-23 18:18 · Score: 2
  
  I went back and skimmed the complaint and... a few things. One, the whole thing is (predictably) batshit crazy. Legit verbiage in what look like the right places, but saying "on information and belief" before "Nixon put space monkeys in my timecube" doesn't somehow make it uncrazy.
  
  Two, turns out Snowden is a named defendant, and he is in big trouble for enriching himself with all this Russian hospitality.
  
  Three, you're correct--this constructive trust idea (along with everything else in the complaint) has absurd consequences. It's a clever but completely untenable attempt to game the threshold questions (standing, jurisdiction).
  
  --
  Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
Wrong target ... by Alain+Williams · 2014-12-23 01:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

those being taken to court are those who have committed crimes that have been exposed by Edward Snowden; ie members of the NSA, high ranking officials in the USA government, ... These are the very people who will not be prosecuted, they have many friends in high places who will keep then free. Many of these friends want to protect them so that they, in turn, will be protected when their crimes become noticed.
1. Re:Wrong target ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  While we all may not like it, I don't think you can point to a law that was broken, and who you could convict if they were brought to court.
The Adventures of Snowden by tepples · 2014-12-23 01:29 · Score: 1

Snowden movie... making news around Christmas time... This isn't a sequel to The Adventures of Snowden (1997), is it?
1. Re:The Adventures of Snowden by Sneftel · 2014-12-23 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  It's a prequel to "The Snowdens of Yesteryear".
  
  --
  The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
2. Re:The Adventures of Snowden by NotDrWho · 2014-12-23 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  Sure beats that awful Snowden 2: Lost in St. Petersburg. Man, they really phoned it in on that one
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Word of the America people by Aethedor · 2014-12-23 01:30 · Score: 2

responsible for "obligations owed to the American people"
If that's his charge, I say let the American people speak out a verdict instead of a jury or judge.

--
It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
1. Re:Word of the America people by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  Careful what you wish for...
2. Re:Word of the America people by Aethedor · 2014-12-23 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  America always wants to force democracy to the rest of the world, so it should not complain about the downsides.
  
  --
  It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
3. Re:Word of the America people by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 01:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  America has never forced democracy on any country.
  It has always forced its puppet dictators in by coup d'etat, and called it democracy.
4. Re:Word of the America people by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  This.
  Every time the population votes for the "wrong" person, america steps in to overthrow the person voted in.
5. Re:Word of the America people by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2014-12-23 02:16 · Score: 2
  
  Take the quotes off "wrong". Too many people view democracy as a holy justifier of dictatorship, as if, because it was voted in, it is therefore ok.
  Democracy is a tool of freedom. Freedom is the master, not the servant of it, and is not something to be waved away because some charismatic demagogue can briefly convince 51% of the population to grant him infinite power.
  Politicians tout democracy rather than freedom because freedom means freedom...from them, while democracy means massive powers authorized to them.
  I'm not saying the US playing the game of "oh well, if it's gonna be a dictator, might as well be one friendly to us" is something noble, but I am so sick of this drooling, unthinking slavishness to the Holy Shrine of Democracy, when it yields little to no freedom.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
6. Re:Word of the America people by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2014-12-23 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't you get the memo, citizen? "the American People" (Like "The Troops") aren't something you actually listen to in order to represent the will of. Rather, they are an additional decoration to be wrapped around the will of some asshole who allegedly understands them better than they understand themselves, typically in a manner (coincidentially, of course) highly convenient to their own interests.
  
  It's basically the American version of 'dictatorship of the proletariat'(where you had a dictatorship that was 'of the proletariat' only in the sense that it allegedly served the interests of that group; not in that it bothered to actually consult them).
7. Re:Word of the America people by orgelspieler · 2014-12-23 07:01 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, except it's not always a dictator that the US overthrows.
"fiduciary duty of loyalty" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 01:31 · Score: 0

So, the USoA government is The American People and therefore anything they say is good and just for no other reason?
This of course justifies fucking over all those "foreign enemies" even if the making of those same enemies is entirely the predictable consequence of your own wilful actions. Right. Always good to know where you stand, for example if you are a foreigner and therefore enemy of the state by default.
Anyway, if you are an American Citizen now you know where your duty of loyalty lies: With the United States of America Government, and no mistake.
1. Re:"fiduciary duty of loyalty" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  The "duty of loyalty" isn't related to his American citizenship, but rather to the fact that he promised, and signed documents stating that he would not do the things that he in fact actually did.
Bench Laughs by some+old+guy · 2014-12-23 01:38 · Score: 1

I wonder if the judge will be able utter the phrase "dismissed with prejudice" while laughing his robe off.

--
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
.torrent by Endymion · 2014-12-23 01:44 · Score: 1

So why isn't a torrent of Citizenfour soumewhere on the net? There isn't even a terrible shakey-cam recording anywhere on the net. This is very unusual.

--
Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
1. Re:.torrent by mean+pun · 2014-12-23 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  I think the movie is only in the phase where they leak the names of the main characters, or perhaps some teasers from the script.
2. Re:.torrent by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  it had a very limited release so far i believe, mostly film festivals and such
Kind of a SLAPP by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 01:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

This reminds me of a SLAPP ("Strategic lawsuit against public participation").
Want to be a whistle-blower? You'll lose your job, possibly go to jail (or wind up in exile), and now face being sued for "fiduciary responsibilities".
It's easy to imagine this is just one guy working on his own, but it doesn't require a large tinfoil hat to imagine that he's getting help from high places.
Gag Whistleblowers and Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 01:51 · Score: 0

If Monsanto thinks it's ok to sue Vermont over GMO labelling or Hawaii for banning GMO, I think everything is possible in this rotten USA.
1. Re:Gag Whistleblowers and Free Speech by dcw3 · 2014-12-23 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  I may not agree with Monsanto's labeling, but I do agree that they should be allowed to sue over it. They are directly impacted by the chance, so why should they not be allowed to fight it?
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
Random dipshit has no standing to sue by NotDrWho · 2014-12-23 01:56 · Score: 2

Sorry, random dipshit, but you have no legal standing to sue. Case dismissed.

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Lacks standing by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 02:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

I agree. Another frivolous lawsuit seeking money or fame. In reality, just another loser.
prior oath to defend the Constitution by raymorris · 2014-12-23 02:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Aside from the question of standing, Snowden probably would have taken this oath before taking the NSA secrecy oath:
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.
His prior oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, takes precedence in my mind.
1. Re:prior oath to defend the Constitution by IMightB · 2014-12-23 03:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Sounds to me likw he is upholding that oath and proctecting the Constitution against domestic enemies.
2. Re:prior oath to defend the Constitution by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  Wasn't Snowden a Contractor for the NSA and not an actual government employee? I wonder if that would factor into this question and if he even had to take an oath at all.
3. Re:prior oath to defend the Constitution by Teancum · 2014-12-23 04:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And forgetting this critical law too:
  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
  It sort of is flat out a part of protecting the constitution to actually give a damn about what these words mean, and to understand that actions like this agent seems to be doing is making a law to abridge freedom of speech. Snowden is in breach of contract for spreading information he was privy to, but the information he revealed and is already in the public domain is something you can't re-classify and make private again. That is precisely what this guy is trying to do.
4. Re:prior oath to defend the Constitution by Teancum · 2014-12-23 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Those contracts are even more detailed than a simple oath of office, and spell out with penalties what the consequences of revealing national secrets might be. Snowden is screwed even more because of the contract as opposed to simply being told verbally that some information is supposed to stay private within the government.
  The question at hand is that once the Snowden documents have been spread all over the internet, significant parts published in newspapers and spead even more widely beyond even the internet, can somebody use that information and then subsequently repress the publication of a document or other artistic work when that information is already widely available? As significant, can somebody make money from that repackaging of that information?
5. Re:prior oath to defend the Constitution by Shadow+IT+Ninja · 2014-12-23 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, the oath taken by members of the US military spells that out even further. It says that you have to disobey orders which violate the constitution or any treaty signed by the US (e.g. The Geneva Convention). This was adopted after the Vietnam War to make it perfectly clear to ordinary soldiers that the argument "I was just following orders," does not fly. Snowden, however, was a contractor so I don't know exactly what oath he took.
6. Re:prior oath to defend the Constitution by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2014-12-23 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Aside from the question of standing, Snowden probably would have taken this oath before taking the NSA secrecy oath:
  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.
  His prior oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, takes precedence in my mind.
  The problem for him is his definition of all enemies, foreign and domestic could be very different than a court's. An interesting defense but if you guessed wrong the consequences will be severe.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
7. Re:prior oath to defend the Constitution by Catbeller · 2014-12-23 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Contracts override revealing criminal activities or the secret creation of a police state? If contracts override such, perhaps the drug cartels should simply start making people sign NDAs. They'd be invincible.
8. Re:prior oath to defend the Constitution by Teancum · 2014-12-23 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  The contracts specifically reference parts of the U.S. Code noting that penalties involved for violating what happens under such contracts can be prosecuted under federal law. So yes, these contracts do override specific laws.
  Drug cartels can also write up such contracts, but I doubt you will get them to have a federal judge be the enforcement and interpretation arm of those cartels. That is the difference. On the other hand, if you work for IBM or some other private company (with damn good lawyers writing up employment contracts), you similarly don't want to violate the terms of your contract as you will end up in front of a federal or state judge where you can be prosecuted for violating trade secret laws criminally as well as HUGE civil penalties that would trash your life fiscally.
  There is a reason why NDAs are effective. I also wouldn't want to screw with an NDA given to you by a drug cartel as that might end up with a horse head laying next to you instead.
9. Re:prior oath to defend the Constitution by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 12:17 · Score: 0
  
  That is indeed exactly what he is doing, despite what various talking heads (and writing ones, yep, looking at you coldfjord) are trying really, really hard to make you believe instead.
10. Re:prior oath to defend the Constitution by dbreeze · 2014-12-23 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  Thar ya go! You tell 'em sweet smell 'em!
  
  --
  When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
Standing by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 02:19 · Score: 0

Mssr. Edwards has no standing. only the US government does.
1. Re:Standing by dcw3 · 2014-12-23 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't "we the people" have standing?
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
Hollywod Accounting by Roger+W+Moore · 2014-12-23 02:36 · Score: 1

The other reason he doesn't stand a chance is because of Hollywood accounting which ensures that even major blockbusters never make a profit so there will be no profits to capture.
1. Re:Hollywod Accounting by gstoddart · 2014-12-23 03:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Ah, but remember, it cost a lot to make a massively profitable movie look like it lost money. A small independent film might not have the resources to commit fraud on such a scale as the Hollywood guys do.
  It's like Wall Street, the small player lacks the ability to rob people nearly as efficiently as the big players do.
  Remember, this movie might not be a "major blockbuster", so there might not have been as much money allocated to the "hide the money" campaign.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I'd really like to know... by Opportunist · 2014-12-23 02:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

Say, when there's a class action lawsuit, one can opt out and not participate, as far as I know.
Would it be possible to "opt out" of this one? I think it would be quite the statement if suddenly a sizable portion of the US population stood up and said that they certainly do NOT want to sue Snowden et al. But reserve the right to join a countersuit...

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What happened to Kansas? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 03:30 · Score: 0

Republican politics with the lie of libertarianism sprinkled on top.
Tremendous Fail by Lawrence_Bird · 2014-12-23 03:32 · Score: 2

He has no standing. This is not a book written by Snowden so there is no "preapproval" requirement. The movie is a journalistic documentary. Is same complainant also suing WaPo, NYT, LAT, etc for releasing the same information and being paid?
I wonder, is he suing over the "We shot Bin Laden" movie? All of that was also classified.
1. Re:Tremendous Fail by Catbeller · 2014-12-23 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  No, no. Standing is granted -- if the government hates the target. This is what corruption means. Ask anyone living in Italy. Helplessness becomes ingrained in the culture. The bad guys always win, while wearing powdered judicial wigs and spouting serious-sounding horseshit that boils down to, "Fuck you. We own you."
Obligatory Dilbert strip by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 03:34 · Score: 0

An appropriate Dilbert strip.
Wow. I have several lawsuits to file by gurps_npc · 2014-12-23 03:52 · Score: 1

The number of ex-Bush employees that have violated their fiduciary duty of loyalty is just shocking.
We can start with the fascist pig that thought a water boarding wasn't torture, and move on to Cheney, who when questioned about torture ignores our own actions and instead discusses the the crimes of our opponents - as if the ends justifies the means.

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Meanwhile... by js096467 · 2014-12-23 03:56 · Score: 3, Informative

Chelsea (Bradley) Manning is still serving her 35 year sentence in a military prison.
1. Re: Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  And Snowden will be joining her. :) That is, assuming the Russians don't kill him first.
People who are against Snowden are FASCISTS. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 04:24 · Score: 0

Don't EVER forget who they are when it comes time to vote or to choose friends.
damn your black heart, Barbara Streisand! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 04:42 · Score: 0

in all seriousness I almost certainly would have missed this if not for TFA but now have the Atlanta release (1/17 in Sandy Springs across from Lowe's for other ATL /.-ers) calendared & will be encouraging as many of my friends as possible to see it!
thank you, Horace Edwards!
p.s. wonder if NSA, FBI, CIA, etc will have people in the audience recording/identifying attendees?
Re:Wow. I have several lawsuits to file by dcw3 · 2014-12-23 05:27 · Score: 1

I'll be happy to match your ex-Bush list one for one with someone from the Clinton or Obama groups. Don't pretend it's a one party issue.

--
Just another day in Paradise
Interesting Tactic by PPH · 2014-12-23 05:31 · Score: 1

Instead of having the CIA/NSA/State Department file charges, they find someone to file charges on behalf of the American public. It would seem that these agencies have the duty of protecting the public and would be expected to file a lawsuit if justified. But then members of the agencies could be called in cross examination to testify as to the exact nature of the harm done. And that's the sort of thing TLAs hate to do on the record.
So, call up a buddy. Have him file suit. But he can't "spill the beans" on any internal processes or documents, since he has been retired for some time and not privy to current events.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Bring it, asshole by Sloppy · 2014-12-23 05:35 · Score: 1

"I wish to sue Thomas Paine for the damage he has done to the British people." -- Horace Edwards, if he'd lived in the 1770s.
Can you name the brilliant invention, that was made to solve the problem of people like Horace Edwards? It was called America! Fuck yeah!

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Horace Edwards is an idiot by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 05:50 · Score: 0

Horace Edwards is an idiot!
Fuck you and everything you stand for!
Democrats hate freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 06:08 · Score: 0

Democrats are taking our freedoms away and people are not caring!
Why do people let them take away our food? Why do people let them attack our churches? Why do people let them keep hurting the poor?
I want in by barbariccow · 2014-12-23 06:50 · Score: 1

I want in on this! I have pain and suffering every day. I feel "snowed in" knowing now that my government doesn't follow the law, and spies blindly on everybody. How do I cash in on this with Horace? Slashdot! Help!
Re:Wow. I have several lawsuits to file by gurps_npc · 2014-12-23 07:03 · Score: 1

You are correct. The problem is with the lunatic that thought this was worth suing over, as many, many people belonging to both parties have repeatedly violated the false legal theory he is trying to use to sue.

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
When was the last time... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 12:16 · Score: 0

A Hollywood movie made a profit? I thought their accounting system insured that no matter how much they made, they'd never actually make a profit.
In other words, it doesn't matter what the result of this case is because no movie ever makes any money.
identifies? by Lehk228 · 2014-12-23 13:10 · Score: 1

"identifies himself" either he is or he isn't, unless this otherkin shit has expanded to military ranks in which case i "Identify as" a rear admiral.

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
What of the weasels? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-23 13:46 · Score: 0

What is your problem with weasels bro? Weasels are cute and cuddly and misunderstood creatures. Just because one weasel screwed you over once doesn't make all weasels weasly.
Re:Edward Snowden by dbreeze · 2014-12-23 15:22 · Score: 1

What the hell are you talking about? "...as a consequence of his betrayal." Betrayal of whom, or what....?
I'm not sure if Snowden ever took an oath to defend the Constitution but this ol' Jarhead did and I call on every US citizen to take up that oath and realize that it trumps all other contracts or agreements one might make in this society.
I'll tell ya what's terrible and sad... an AC twerp poking his head out from under his rock to make some thinly veiled threat about a man who's actually got a pair. Get back under your rock worm.......

--
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
Re:Edward Snowden by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-24 06:56 · Score: 0

Ah, a true jarhead in every sense.
If you can't see the betrayal in compromising the most highly classified foreign intelligence collection programs we had to the Russians, the Chinese and the rest of the entire world before fleeing to a perch in Moscow where Snowden continues to deride the US at every opportunity, the only explanation is that you have to be one of THE most profoundly, abjectly ignorant human beings to have ever walked the planet. I marvel with all the awe and open wonder of a child that you're able to feed and clothe yourself.
Shoot the messenger by RockDoctor · 2014-12-25 02:55 · Score: 1

A successful strategy for millennia. not.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"