December 2022 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

John Young's race-war letter he published at CRYPTOME
by professor rat 23 Dec '22

23 Dec '22

At least part of it. https://www.mail-archive.com/cypherpunks@minder.net/msg34383.html John Young is a Marxist and so a ' scientific ' racist and hateful antisemitic bigot. Capital, vol. 3, chapter 47: “ The possibility is here presented for definite economic development taking place, depending, of course, upon favourable circumstances, inborn racial characteristics, etc...” Engels: (Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 3, p. 502.): “We regard economic conditions as the factor which ultimately determines historical development. But race is itself an economic factor . . . " Karl Marx, Capital, Volume One, Part II: The Transformation of Money and Capital CHAPTER FOUR: THE GENERAL FORMULA FOR CAPITAL: "The capitalist knows that all commodities, however scurvy they may look, or however badly they may smell, are in faith and in truth money, inwardly circumcised Jews . . . " Maybe we should call him ' Juan Young " - at least till he dies - which should be very soon. Exit Cryptome.

1 0

Cryptosporidium killed Tim May
by professor rat 23 Dec '22

23 Dec '22

I anticipate my Remailer/Mint/APster application,Cryptosporidium will be IPO ready soon as GUI detail tidy up the interface.My upcoming trial next week will not delay this as I've delegated the task of bringing the project up to speed on Mongo.Thats why you haven't heard from him for a while https://www.mail-archive.com/cypherpunks@minder.net/msg24457.html Parsimonious reposts not palatial link-farming for gluttonous bores like Gramps

1 0

An alternative network to the Internet used to create a giant virtual supercomputer
by professor rat 23 Dec '22

23 Dec '22

The 20 million users of KaZaA Media Desktop, the world's most popular file-swapping software, have little more than a month to decide if they want their computers hijacked. That's the time-frame laid down last Wednesday by Sharman Networks chief executive Nikki Hemming for the activation of Altnet, an alternative network to the Internet used to create a giant virtual supercomputer. More... https://www.mail-archive.com/cypherpunks@minder.net/msg20208.html Well it was 20 years ago Tony say, Potts taught the company how to pay

1 0

PROTESTER GIVEN BAIL-BUT OTHER POLICE INTERESTED
by professor rat 23 Dec '22

23 Dec '22

Spoiler alert - I got my laptop back https://www.mail-archive.com/cypherpunks@minder.net/msg12508.html A Kyneton man involved in the recent M1 protest in melb.has been accused of promoting what is reffered to as 'assasination politics',and is said to have come to the notice of the United States Secret Service and the Australian Federal Police. . . . " Fuck with any bull-goose-loony cypherpunk and you get the horn

1 0

Remailers as spawn-points for your gaming convenience
by professor rat 23 Dec '22

23 Dec '22

If its true Amazon just turned a profit then the strong possibility exists that the 1st strong and trusted remailer will eventually do the same.The need for remailing should tend to exponential to anyone with a little imagination. A lot of people right now are looking for a new Hawala,others for spam and AP,other horsemen type uses and counters to the threats they pose. The AP threat to capitalism as we know it should not be underestimated as also the threat to infrastructure from hungry mobs,collapse of govts not prepared for, etc. <<< https://www.mail-archive.com/cypherpunks@minder.net/msg13329.html Reposts not fake clouds on the virtual horizon

1 0

Triumvirate background - ' huge remailing networks '
by professor rat 23 Dec '22

23 Dec '22

RE: Wired on e-gold, mattd Tue, 18 Dec 2001 21:00:12 -0800 Ive seen a good story somewhere on the e-dinar,if it was protected with world wide AP/PGP served by huge remailing networks it could be the one. . . ." https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=cypherpunks%40minder.net&q=mattd&star… Reposts not remailers enough to encrypt and back-up the whole web twice

1 0

JJ Abrams needs killing
by professor rat 23 Dec '22

23 Dec '22

JJ Abrams needs killing https://marc.info/?l=cypherpunks&m=102129341601550&w=2 Screenwriter of such films as "Armageddon," "Forever Young," and "Regarding Henry," J.J. Abrams made his first foray into television with Imagine Television and Touchstone Television's acclaimed series "Felicity," entering its fourth season. Thats reason enough right there but what really pisses me off is his show Alias keeps perpetuating the old "crypto is too 'techy','geeky'or just too hard for joe(sephine) sixpack to understand."This was old 6 years ago.We can stand a few more details of the built in backdoor on the encryption program,plot point.Would it kill you to try? APster will kill you if you dont.(my 2$) "All people of all nations must be free. I always suspected the Internet could make this a reality; now I truly believe it. We're talking about a micro-intermediated market with *lots* of intermediaries,not just a single intermediary in every transaction. We're talking about Moore's Law and strong cryptography driving profit and loss down to the device level, Transaction cost is everything. You control the lowest transaction cost, and you dictate what happens. If anonymous payments are cheaper, for the seller of a given good or service, and there's reason to believe this, we'll have anonymous payments, sooner rather than later."

1 0

Of all the tyrannies
by professor rat 23 Dec '22

23 Dec '22

A Pastor Craig Theocracy or the ' Total System ' of the Julian Calendar? Calvinism or the Assangista? Brain tumor or Lung cancer! Of all the cypherpunk tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons like Calvin Ayre, than under omnipotent moral busybodies, like Adam Back. The robber baron’s SV cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own WL conscience.

1 0

False Claims Act: Prediction On Supreme Court Ruling On Government Dismissal Authority
by Gunnar Larson 23 Dec '22

23 Dec '22

https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/healthcare/1262644/false-claims-act-pre… United States: False Claims Act: Prediction On Supreme Court Ruling On Government Dismissal Authority 20 December 2022 by Lori Rubin , Pauline R. Wizig and Kara (Schoonover) Sweet Foley & Lardner Your LinkedIn Connections with the authors On December 6, 2022, the Supreme Court heard argument in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., a case with potential implications on the cost and longevity of certain False Claims Act (FCA) cases. The case asks whether the government has authority to dismiss an FCA suit after initially declining to proceed with the action, and if so, what standard would apply. FCA litigation is of great interest to the health care industry. Of the FCA settlements and judgments reported by the Department of Justice last fiscal year, almost 90% related to matters that involved the health care industry, including drug and medical device manufacturers, managed care providers, hospitals, pharmacies, hospice organizations, laboratories and physicians. Empowering the government to exercise dismissal authority provides the government with greater discretion over which FCA cases are pursued in court and gives the government the authority to insert itself between a relator looking for a bounty and a defendant who, in the government's estimation, should not be pursued for FCA violations. In our assessment, the Court seems poised to hand a victory to the government and allow it to continue to dismiss cases, even if it declined to intervene initially, but it is unclear what standard the Court will deem applies to such dismissals. Pertinent questions the Justices may be considering are whether the government needs a good reason to dismiss the case, how to evaluate what constitutes a good reason for dismissal, and the extent to which—if at all—a relator can obtain discovery on the government's asserted reason for dismissal. Once an FCA case is dismissed, even if it is dismissed without prejudice, a defendant is unlikely to face a new FCA case by a new relator based on the same alleged facts given the government already has moved to dismiss once and also due to the FCA's public disclosure bar, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A). The Case Backdrop Petitioner-Relator Polansky is a doctor and former consultant for Executive Health Resources (EHR), a company that submits claims to Medicare on behalf of health care providers. The Petitioner-Relator filed an FCA case against EHR on July 26, 2012 which the government investigated for about two years before declining to intervene on June 27, 2014. However, the government moved to dismiss the case later, in August 2019. The government's reasons for desiring dismissal included a "tremendous, ongoing burden on the government" if the case were to continue—including the hiring of government attorneys to represent the United States and hiring other professionals to assemble and produce documents sought from the government in discovery; the need to guard privileged information; the government's doubts about Petitioner-Relator's ability to prove an FCA violation; and the government's concerns about Petitioner-Relator's credibility. The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss, and the Third Circuit affirmed, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), which sets forth different standards for dismissal based on the posture of the case. Under Rule 41(a), if the plaintiff files the motion to dismiss before the defendant files its answer or a motion for summary judgment, then the plaintiff can dismiss immediately, without a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Conversely, if the motion is filed after the defendant responds, then the plaintiff can only dismiss the suit with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The Third Circuit reasoned that these rules should apply in the FCA context in basically the same way as they do in ordinary civil suits, as Congress intended for lawsuits brought under the FCA to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third Circuit reasoned the district court properly examined the interests of all parties and acted within its discretion in dismissing the action. The district court examined the prejudice to non-governmental parties and concluded that, while the litigation had advanced considerably, the defendant would not be prejudiced by the dismissal. It also considered the relator's concerns and concluded that the potential benefits of the suit did not outweigh its significant cost for all parties involved. The relator sought Supreme Court review, and the Supreme Court granted the request. The Supreme Court Hearing In oral argument last week, the Petitioner-Relator argued the text, history, and intent of the FCA gives the relator the authority to choose whether or not to proceed with the action after the government declines to intervene. Petitioner-Relator argued if the government initially declines to intervene and then chooses to intervene at a later date, under the FCA, the government must show good cause and cannot limit "the status and rights of the person initiating the action" including, under Petitioner-Relator's reading, the government cannot limit the relator's "right to conduct the action." 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(4)(B), (c)(3). Under this argument, the government should not have dismissal authority after declining to intervene at the outset. In contrast, the Respondent-Defendant contended that the government retains the right to dismiss a qui tam action at any time because Article II gives the Executive Branch oversight over the execution of laws. According to the Respondent-Defendant, if a relator can pursue an FCA claim despite the Executive Branch's objections, that would deprive the Executive Branch of its oversight authority. The government did not press an Article II argument, but agreed that it retained the right to dismiss an FCA case even after declining intervention. The government pointed out that the text of the FCA does not constrain the government in moving to dismiss, so long as the relator is notified of the motion to dismiss and has an opportunity for hearing pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A). Specifically, the FCA provides: "The Government may dismiss the action notwithstanding the objections of the person initiating the action if the person has been notified by the Government of the filing of the motion and the court has provided the person with an opportunity for a hearing on the motion." Id.Under the government's reading, if the government has notified the relator of the motion to dismiss, and the relator has an opportunity to be heard, the government's motion to dismiss should be granted unless the government's dismissal is unconstitutional. That is all, says the government, that is required. Justices Jackson, Kagan, Sotomayor, Barrett, and Chief Justice Roberts all questioned the Petitioner-Relator's reliance on the history of the FCA and whether that history really supports the government's lack of ability to dismiss past the initial review stage. All seemed concerned a ruling in the Petitioner-Relator's favor would not give the government enough flexibility to dismiss in the presence of new facts or other circumstances that warrant dismissal. Justice Kavanaugh pointed to the statute's text and said it is clear that 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(4) preserves the government's ability to come in later with good cause. Justice Jackson asserted the text is "totally inconsistent" with the Petitioner-Relator's argument that the government cannot move to dismiss or direct other action that may be incompatible with the relator's intentions. In short, based on their questions, the Justices all seemed to come to the consensus that this part of the Petitioner-Relator's argument fails– and appeared to side with the government's ability to move to dismiss an FCA case at any time. The parties also addressed what standard they believe a court must use to evaluate dismissal, particularly in the event that the Court disagrees with the Petitioner-Relator's argument that the relator has full control over the action after the government declines intervention. The Petitioner-Relator argued dismissals must satisfy at least a rational basis review standard, as the relator possesses a property interest in the action and the government cannot deprive a relator of that right without scrutiny. Justice Gorsuch challenged the Petitioner-Relator on his definition of rational basis review and stated Petitioner's version is "pretty aggressive." Justice Barrett commented Petitioner-Relator's standard sounds more like intermediate scrutiny. Justice Gorsuch questioned the government on the standard the government has to meet to overcome the relator's property interest. The government explained the dismissal is not subject to any standard of judicial review other than that it must meet the constitutional baseline. The government agreed with the assertion that the relator does have a property interest in the claim (assigned by statute), which is why compliance with the constitutional baseline is necessary, but that no other standard applies as the FCA does not provide one. The Prediction While nothing is certain, we predict the Supreme Court will hold the government can intervene after declination, and the government will have to meet either a constitutional or rational basis baseline to support its motion to dismiss. Given the Court's questions, it seems unlikely that the Court will impose a demanding standard for the government, although the actual standard the Court will settle on is unclear. If the government is successful with its argument that it retains the right to dismiss after declining to do so initially, and the standard for dismissal is not rigorous and does not provide much or any opportunity for discovery by the relator, the government will be rightfully empowered to move to dismiss cases brought on its behalf. Placing this power with the government also helps protect defendants, who should not be forced to defend actions—at great financial and reputational cost—brought on behalf of the government that the government itself does not think should proceed. We will continue to monitor this case, and will provide an update once the Supreme Court has published its decision.

1 0

A net triumvirate 2 - this time its personal
by professor rat 23 Dec '22

23 Dec '22

IT sounds like my idea for a net triumvirate is manifesting though the AI explosion. With several competing agencies scraping the net and duplicating large parts of it that could create what I have talked up for years. Two internets constantly backing each other up and a third slightly ’ air-gapped ’ as a third emergency restore point. All completely encrypted of course. Increasingly quantum everything. CRYPTOANARCHY! Merry Syphilis and a happy Gonorrhea

1 0