×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pentagon Aims To Buy Up Book

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the sorry-we're-all-out dept.

Government 347

jamie writes "Operation Dark Heart, a book about the adventures and frustrations of an Army officer who served in Afghanistan, has ruffled some feathers at the Pentagon. From the article: 'The Defense Department is attempting to buy the entire first printing — 10,000 copies — of a memoir by a controversial former Defense Intelligence Agency officer so that the book can be destroyed, according to military and other sources."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

347 comments

Is this really censorship? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33547860)

They're buying the damned book themselves, paying cash for it. It's not really censorship if they, instead of banning it, go through entirely legal channels to simply purchase every copy of it, is it?

Grey area?

Re:Is this really censorship? (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#33547872)

Your tax dollars at work...

Re:Is this really censorship? (5, Interesting)

KarrdeSW (996917) | more than 3 years ago | (#33547910)

I think at the point that they are using any resources (yours or their own) to make some determination as to what you can/cannot read. That is censorship.

Re:Is this really censorship? (4, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548034)

But when the first printing sells out, the publisher is only going to print more. Clearly this is a scam to funnel taxpayer money into the pockets of this "former officer", paying a hefty fee to the publisher to launder the dough.

Re:Is this really censorship? (3, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548096)

...Clearly this is a scam to funnel taxpayer money into the pockets of this "former officer", paying a hefty fee to the publisher to launder the dough.

How and where, exactly, is this made "clear"?
Oh. You were joking? Silly me for missing the sarcasm. In that case, it's not the least bit funny. This action by our nation's military is deeply troubling. No matter how you figure who is writing the check, that the military is attempting to suppress information that the public has a right to see is frightening in it's implications.

Re:Is this really censorship? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548294)

This isn't really anything new. About the only reason it's news worthy today is because of all the "we are spending too much" and "Wikileaks is teh evil". It's happened in the past and I first remember hearing about it was back in 7th or 8th grade in US history class (circa 1984).

anyways, it seems this has happened in the past and my US history teacher made the same claim that laws concerning disclosure of national security and military secrets make it illegal for someone to publish a book like this so it has to be an obvious ploy to divert money to the former employee's pockets. Otherwise existing laws would allow them to swoop in on the writers and confiscate the books without payment as they would be violations of existing laws.

Re:Is this really censorship? (5, Interesting)

tacarat (696339) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548324)

I fail and read the article. The book will still be publicly available after things like specific names and other sensitive bits of information get sanitized. By not doing so, lives and missions are placed in jeopardy with little real benefit for society [wikipedia.org]. The publisher will be releasing the book for the public, but the DOD is compensating them for the loss they'd incur from not being able to sell the original printed products.

Does the public have the right to all the information? Sure, in time. There are procedures under the Freedom of Information Act to get it later on, like when revealing it will cause minimal damage (and probably just PR damage). Demanding to know it right now just because of curiosity? Would you like identifying information to be posted on 4chan? There are many "reasonable and normal" people out there who would react in the same way as them.

Re:Is this really censorship? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548234)

But when the first printing sells out, the publisher is only going to print more. Clearly this is a scam to funnel taxpayer money into the pockets of this "former officer", paying a hefty fee to the publisher to launder the dough.

I, uh ... what?

Re:Is this really censorship? (5, Informative)

deapbluesea (1842210) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548288)

But when the first printing sells out, the publisher is only going to print more.

Did you even RTFA? Let me sum up since you seem to be too lazy:

The first run was printed after the author received permission from the Army Reserve. The Pentagon got wind of it after the first printing and discovered that there was a lot of material that shouldn't have been printed in the first place. The publisher and author then worked with the Pentagon to redact the questionable material, but that left the publisher with 10000 books sitting in a warehouse that can't be sold.

Since the Army Reserve is really the unit that screwed up in this case by not sending the manuscript up the chain for higher level review, the responsibility for paying for all those books rests with the DoD in general. It's actually the honourable thing to do in this case - along with firing whoever signed off on it in the Reserve component.

Re:Is this really censorship? (-1, Offtopic)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548376)

"the responsibility for paying for all those books rests with the DoD in general. It's actually the honourable thing to do in this case - along with firing whoever signed off on it in the Reserve component."

and the proper method of said "firing" would be from the main guns of a battleship currently in international waters

Re:Is this really censorship? (2, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548348)

"I think at the point that they are using any resources (yours or their own) to make some determination as to what you can/cannot read. That is censorship."

So is security classification. Perhaps we should not have any such, and trust everyone with everything. Surely the world will embrace our example and instantly do likewise.

Re:Is this really censorship? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33547990)

It's my tax dollars in the same way that money I pay to buy a car is still my money.

Hey! Car Salesman! Stop using my money to buy your porn!

Re:Is this really censorship? (2, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#33547906)

They're buying the damned book themselves, paying cash for it. It's not really censorship if they, instead of banning it, go through entirely legal channels to simply purchase every copy of it, is it?

It is when they are requiring that any additional print runs be redacted, which is the case here.

it's part of the deal for ex-spooks (4, Informative)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548274)

The government cannot censor material before it is printed by regular people. But if you worked for the government and write about intelligence you learned while there, then the government can review it and "suggest" redactions before it is printed.

That's what happened here, it's just they printed 10,000 copies that were insufficiently redacted, so those will be destroyed, the company compensated and then more copies with the proper redactions printed. As to the jokers making comments about digital copies, those would be destroyed and no one compensated, because the "buying up books" here isn't to get them off the market, they won't be going to market anyway. It's just to compensate for expenses of printing books they cannot now put on shelves as-is.

This is censorship, because it is the government restricting speech. But is is a special case of info from a government employee, and that is allowed under the law, whether you agree with it or not. It has been this way for some time, I used to have a paperback from the early 70s that advertised the government went to court to stop its publication because the author worked for the CIA before. That book was eventually published with some redactions as this one will too.

Re:Is this really censorship? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33547984)

It's really censorship if they're taking actions to make sure that certain views aren't expressed. Censorship doesn't have to be illegal to be censorship.

YOUR tax dollars is paying for it (1)

Steeltoe (98226) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548114)

AND it's paying for your enormous deficit, which is likely to bankrupt US pretty soon..

Ok, you've got two unwinnable wars, then what?

Re:YOUR tax dollars is paying for it (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33548228)

Hey! We're down to one unwinnable war, and one unwinnable non-combat presence...

Re:Is this really censorship? (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548196)

It is most certainly censorship. It's also great publicity! I hadn't even heard of the book before. Now I'm somewhat interested to at least find out more. Surely there has to be something interesting within its pages to warrant this kind of discussion. ;)

Re:Is this really censorship? (1)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548198)

It is censorship because they're spending TAX money to buy books for the sole purpose of keeping them from citizens. That's the definition of censorship. It's just that rather than outright attempting to ban the book, which would create a hell of an uproar and not end well for the government, they've decided to do the exact same thing but in a way that looks more innocent.

Re:Is this really censorship? (2, Informative)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548254)

From wikipedia:

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body."

This clearly qualifies as censorship. It doesn't matter how the suppression of information is achieved, as long as information is being suppressed intentionally because of its content, it is censorship.

And, regardless of how you define this (censorship or otherwise), it certainly is still wrong.

Re:Is this really censorship? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548344)

They're buying the damned book themselves, paying cash for it. It's not really censorship if they, instead of banning it, go through entirely legal channels to simply purchase every copy of it, is it?

Grey area?

Grey, trending towards black. If a government takes steps to prevent me from reading certain material, that's censorship. Now, in certain cases that may be justified, but the way they're going about this says it probably isn't.

If the Pentagon purchased those books for training purposes, say, or to use as reference materials ... no big deal. The government buys plenty of books. In this case, they want to have a government-sanctioned book burning and that's just wrong (no, I don't care if they're actually just going to shred them or something, the principle is the same.) If there's classified materials in there, there are plenty of ways to legally have a book suppressed on national security grounds. That the military is doing it this way indicates that they probably don't have any legal grounds to have it classified or otherwise banned. Probably some high-ranking officials are going to get embarrassed over what he's written and just want to cover their collective ass. The problem is, using public funds in such an obvious attempt at a cover-up will likely make for even more red faces at the Pentagon that whatever is in the damn book.

This is probably a perfect candidate for taking a hands-off approach. All they're doing is legitimizing the book in the public's eye, and creating a huge demand for it. Come on, guys, people get all excited when Britney Spears shaves her head ... all you're going to do here is help the publisher sell a lot more copies. Worse yet, once a single copy gets out, it'll be all over the Internet anyways. Wikileaks should have taught them that much.

Re:Is this really censorship? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548378)

It's unfair competition for the regular joe who might be interested.

You can't really compete with a federal budget, especially one as large as that of the DoD.

Founding Fathers do facepalm (4, Insightful)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 3 years ago | (#33547874)

I think our government should just abolish the first amendment. They clearly don't believe in it. This just makes me so sick. Where is wikileaks when you need them?

Re:Founding Fathers do facepalm (2, Interesting)

Ziest (143204) | more than 3 years ago | (#33547976)

This government, I would not call it "ours", has not believed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights since at least the late 60's. The peak of this country was some time in the early 80's. The downward spiral has begun.

Re:Founding Fathers do facepalm (5, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548004)

The first amendment is irrelevant. From TFA, the military's attempting to keep hidden the real names of intelligence officers involved with some actions. Any criticism of the military actions is still likely in the second edition, which is already approved. The first amendment does not grant the right to endanger others by means of speech. It grants the right to hold and express any opinions you want, and Congress will not render such expression illegal.

I'm guessing "PR Stunt", actually (1)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548056)

Actually the idea of some entity trying to buy every single copy of a book to keep it secret, strikes me of more like a PR stunt than something feasible.

If you want to actually bury something, you buy the _rights_ to it. Then you get copyright extended until kingdom come like Disney. Copyright is just as misused for preventing something from being seen as it is used as originally intended.

Trying to just buy the copies off the market is purely pointless if someone else has the copyright, as basically nothing can prevent him from just printing more. I mean, it's not like buying something that costs millions and rare resources to produce. Printing another 10,000 copies or even a million is cheap and trivial. If anything, some entity trying to buy 10,000 copies just added demand worth 10,000 copies, and you'd be stupid not to cash in on it.

On the other hand, the delusion that something is going to be rare because someone else wants to buy all copies, is a pretty much guaranteed way to make idiots think this is a literally once in a lifetime opportunity to grab a copy before the government. It's making it sound like it's more rare than it is, and about to run out.

Re:Founding Fathers do facepalm (1)

offrdbandit (1331649) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548084)

Spoken like someone who doesn't understand the purpose of the Constitution...

You seem to think the Constitution exists IN SPITE of the government, but to the contrary it exists BECAUSE governments (of all types) push the boundaries and strive for more power.

Re:Founding Fathers do facepalm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33548148)

The US government is busy calling Assange and Manning Homosexuals, I suppose they have their calendars off by 60 years

Re:Founding Fathers do facepalm (4, Informative)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548266)

I think our government should just abolish the first amendment. They clearly don't believe in it. This just makes me so sick. Where is wikileaks when you need them?

The author is a vet and had the military review the book. After publishing someone thought something had erroneously been left in. The author and publisher are cooperating, a new version is already being printed without the part in question. Buying the first printing of books may be the simplest way to deal with them. The military reviewers goofed not the publisher so the publisher should not suffer any loss. Given that the author and publisher do not want to reveal anything sensitive and are cooperating with the government I don't see censorship. Censorship is when someone wants to publish and is prohibited, not when someones says is all this ok with you ... no ... ok lets edit.

Where have I heard this before? (1, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#33547882)

Didn't the Church of Scientology do something similar to this once?

Re:Where have I heard this before? (2, Informative)

muuh-gnu (894733) | more than 3 years ago | (#33547956)

They sent out their minions to buy up Hubbard books in order to artificially push them into the charts.

Maybe the Pentagon is trying something similar here? ;)

Re:Where have I heard this before? (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548220)

Sure, and a Florida pastor was recently trying to make a start in doing the same to the Koran.

Kindle Version (3, Insightful)

virtigex (323685) | more than 3 years ago | (#33547888)

Maybe he should also publish a Kindle version. The author could really clean up then.

Re:Kindle Version (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33547952)

definitive Streisand effect.

Re:Kindle Version (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33548258)

Obligatory xkcd [xkcd.com]

So.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33547890)

Isn't this like a license to print money? Just make another edition and pentagon is guaranteed to buy it all up?

Don't bother, it will be on Wikileaks eventually. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33547894)

that's what SHE said

Print More (-1, Troll)

Entropy98 (1340659) | more than 3 years ago | (#33547896)

Why dont they take the money and print another 10,000?
 
--
  windows media codec [cnet.com]

Re:Print More (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33547994)

I realize you're just posting to spam your link, however if you look at the article it answers your question.

It was initially cleared for printing by the military. A different military organization later took a look at the book and had some objections. The author appears to have edited newer editions of his book to comply with what the military wanted (changing names I think) however the first 10,000 books were already printed.

The military now wants to buy the first edition out so that people will only be able to buy the newer, revised editions.

Re:Print More (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548080)

I bet his spam link is full of virus-infected crap, too. "Hey, it's 50 CODECs into a single installation package, what can go wrong?"

Re:Print More (1)

jridley (9305) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548342)

This way, once both editions are OCR'd, a simple DIFF will tell us what the government considers to be critical data. The bad guys (if there are any who care about this and don't already know it) don't even have to read the whole thing now.

Re:Print More (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33548066)

Exactly what I was thinking, and what they appear to be doing. According to the article, the second print run has been edited enough that the DoD is okay with it being public. The DoD is buying the 10,000 copies that are already printed, and allegedly didn't go through the proper DoD security review prior to publication.

Here's what he should do (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33547914)

He should have a copy transcribed, and release it in a torrent.

Re:Here's what he should do (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548248)

"He should have a copy transcribed, and release it in a torrent."

Government employees, military and civilian, are subject to NDA regarding classified information. Naming names is desirable to those who want to expose everyone involved in classified ops, but not necessarily required for the public to be entertained.

They are going to run out of money... (1)

solidhen (642119) | more than 3 years ago | (#33547918)

or the world is going to run out of trees. The publisher can just keep doing new print runs forever. If I were the author I would love this. Besides you can't really get better PR then this.

If the Author really wants to get his story out... (1)

willyd357 (1293166) | more than 3 years ago | (#33547920)

...he'll release the book in digital form. Good luck buying up all the copies of that.

Re:If the Author really wants to get his story out (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548022)

Or, he'll change the names like the military wants, and release a second edition, like he already has.

Re:If the Author really wants to get his story out (1)

willyd357 (1293166) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548214)

Yeah, I just saw that. What a shame.

Re:If the Author really wants to get his story out (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548272)

Yes, how dare the author choose to defer to the military, and how dare the military attempt to use the long arm of the dollar in order to protect other resources.

Ignorance: America's biggest gift to itself. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33547926)

So we go from burning Korans to burning military memoirs.

America may be a bastion of free speech, but when we lack the ability to openly discuss things with every last bit of information at hand, we become blinded by ignorance. The government would not be helping itself in this instance - they would merely be strengthening the appearance of being censors and spreaders of ignorance, doubt, and fear.

Blurb totally misleading. (5, Informative)

Jartan (219704) | more than 3 years ago | (#33547938)

The blurb is intentionally misleading here. The govt gave the OK for the book but then upon a later review they were worried about some names released and a 2nd printing has already been agreed upon by both parties. They are just deciding what to do with 10k books that were already printed. Obviously the publisher spent money to already print them so they aren't going to just destroy them.

Re:Blurb totally misleading. (2, Insightful)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548146)

Since when does publishers have to get OK from the government on what to print? The freedom of the press guarantees that the government will not interfere in publishers work. Then, if, after the fact, they find that something libelous or damaging has been printed, they can take action. But not before that. That is censorship.

Re:Blurb totally misleading. (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548166)

Don't US officers have to agree to let the military vet any books about their experiences if they want the job?

Re:Blurb totally misleading. (1)

deapbluesea (1842210) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548306)

Again, RTFA. There is a DoD regulation requiring that members of the DoD get approval prior to publishing manuscripts based on their job. The author did so, but only through the Army Reserve, not the Pentagon. The Reserve should have forwarded this up, but didn't, so the first run printing happened based on a SNAFU at the Reserve HQ and now the Pentagon is going to have to pay for it since the Reserves belong to them.

Re:Blurb totally misleading. (0)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548276)

First, you're missing a little thing called "courtesy". It doesn't really matter to the publisher if the book has real names or not, but the military potentially has a lot of security to lose. Getting approval is the responsible thing to do.

Second, there's the whole issue of national security. Leaking classified information is a crime, so the military has processes in place for publishers to make sure they're clear of any problems. The book passed a quick review, but then the government got worried. There's no way to force the publisher to destroy them, so the Pentagon is resorting to the normal civilian system called "commerce".

It's not a big deal.

Re:Blurb totally misleading. (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548366)

I'm getting tired of doing things in the sake of 'national security.' Besides, this almost certainly won't work. At least one copy will leak, and at least 100,000 people will see the names.

Re:Blurb totally misleading. (2, Informative)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548282)

"agreed upon by both parties"

Maybe you missed that bit. It's not government forcing anything. The publisher agreed to it. The government made a reasonable request and was willing to compensate the publisher for their trouble, and everything is fine. The 2nd version will be printed and anyone can buy it.

Re:Blurb totally misleading. (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548290)

The publisher probably can't be prosecuted (which is one reason they're being paid off instead, probably), but ex-intelligence officials do need permission to publish about their work. When accepting employment, they sign a contract agreeing to run any future publications about their work by the Publication Review Board for prepublication clearance.

The Supreme Court upheld that arrangement in 1980 in Snepp v. US [google.com], in a short 6-3 per curiam opinion. It's a strange opinion, because this sort of thing usually isn't permitted, but the Court was probably swayed by the "CIA stuff is important / national security / etc.".

Note that it does only apply to actual CIA employees. A non-CIA-employee author who's acquired information through leaks and interviews doesn't need the CIA's permission to publish his book.

Re:Blurb totally misleading. (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548364)

Comes with being in the military. I believe as an officer you have to pretty much sign a statement saying you give the military approval of anything you write.

You say the guy is no longer on active duty? Fine, but if he was an officer he probably is still an officer, just not active duty. You have to go through a lot to actually resign your commission.

If the guy was just a grunt this wouldn't apply.

Good for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33547940)

It's nice to see them take up a nice inoffensive passtime like reading instead of all that nasty stuff with guns and bombs.

our government smokes crack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33547944)

if i was the publisher, i would print up 100,000 instead of 10,000.

kill the head the body will die (1)

jewishbaconzombies (1861376) | more than 3 years ago | (#33547966)

Why not just kill him. It's vastly cheaper. Hasn't stopped the govt in the past - why stop now?

Re:kill the head the body will die (1)

plumby (179557) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548048)

I thought the trick was to simply smear them with alegations about sexual crimes these days.

Re:kill the head the body will die (1)

Starteck81 (917280) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548052)

Why not just kill him. It's vastly cheaper. Hasn't stopped the govt in the past - why stop now?

Kill him now and you make him a martyr. Then everyone would be even more interested in what he wrote.

cost to the taxpayers? (1)

Jakeva (1429603) | more than 3 years ago | (#33547970)

This is going to make the author's sales look incredible. First printing sells out instantly... second printing? presumably the same. Until he's suddenly the best selling author of the year. I wish the military had this kind of interest in MY writing...

The instant bestselling sensation! (1)

bre_dnd (686663) | more than 3 years ago | (#33547972)

Sold 10000 copies in it's first hour of publication! Just keep those presses running, if every copy sells he's got a nice little money maker there.

Time to get publishing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33547986)

I need to create abook the Pentagon doesn't like. First day you are instantly on the best sellers list, and then the game of cat and mouse begins. How many books will they burn... and how many publishers are lined up for the illustrated edition...

It should now be obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33547992)

that we in America live in a fascist state. It doesn't matter which of the two party oligarchy is in power any longer.

Collectable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33548006)

Be worth grabbing a copy if this is true. A rare first edition.

Richard Thomlinson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33548016)

I think I got the name right... Anyway, this uber spy got on the wrong end of bureaucracy when his gf was diagnosed with cancer. The UK govt went apeshit when he was about to publish his memoirs to earn a crust. The guy was one of those over performers that seems to be able to do everything with ease (the bastard!), and got a real full blown slagging off in the press by politicians that knew nothing about him, but they were told by #10 to say X, Y and Z when asked. No one had heard of him, cared about it, or what he was doing in and out of HMS until the propaganda mechanism got going. Net result? Book band in the UK, world wide coverage because so, many many people learned exactly what the govt was trying to hide.

Streisand effect? Not really, only in name, Peter Wright had the same treatment a long time before with his Spy Catcher.

This would be funny if... (0, Redundant)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548026)

This would be funny if there was a Kindle version offered. Try to buy out all of those {grin}.

However, hop over to Amazon and they tell you that the first edition isn't available, no Kindle version is listed at all, and that a "revised edition" will be coming on Sept. 14.

Here it was almost old time thinking colliding with modern day realities.

misleading summary (1)

cavePrisoner (1184997) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548036)

If you just read the summary it sounds like its just a PR issue, when the issue is security. He put in a lot of sensitive information that needs to redacted in future versions. He has agreed to the changes. However, since the army mistakenly approved it originally, they are footing the bill for the first printing which still contains the sensitive information. Everything worked the way it should.

We finally have the missing step (4, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548046)

1. write a book about a subject
2. the subject must be something that someone or some organization wants to cover up
3. the said someone or organization buys all your copies in order to cover up the subject
4. profit!

Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33548082)

1) Take the money.
2) Print more.
3) Profit!
rinse & repeat ...
When you are done, release it electronically (creative commons anyone?). Information wants to be free.

Bestseller (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548104)

So the government is going to buy all prints straight from the press?
How about a second print?
Surely this will become the most popular book of all times, as measured in sales.

Won't the publisher just print more? (1)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548108)

I mean, they sold out the first printing, which means there is plenty of demand :D

Yea!!! (1)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548138)

Yea!!! Modern day book burning!!!!

We American's have finally come full circle now. Next week, burning a witch at the stake (Sponsored by Kingford)

sigh...

If there was an eBook... (2, Insightful)

pancakegeels (673199) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548252)

presumably you'd have to do a denial of service? This is an argument for eBooks that I hadn't considered before....

Book burning at taxpayer expense! (1)

mykos (1627575) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548292)

The publisher will just laugh and print more. I'm disgusted that the Pentagon would trade real taxpayer money for fake property.

i hope people rtfa (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33548346)

The Slashdot summary is a gross misrepresentation. The govt had problems with use of real names in a number of places. The publisher is already running a second printing that does not use the names. The ONLY issue here is what to do with the 10000 or so copies printed before the changes were made. To argue that this is about censorship is gross hyperbole.

Re:i hope people rtfa (1)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 3 years ago | (#33548374)

You have too much faith in the typical /. reader. I did rtfa and you're 100% correct. This is a non-issue.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...