'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.

19 of 163 comments (clear)

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 01:34 · 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?
3. 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.
4. 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
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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
10. 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).
11. 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.