January 2023 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

[pt][crazy][crazy] smidgy thoughts on automated workplaces culture building, predictive people analytics, employee retention and reward,
by Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many 20 Jan '23

20 Jan '23

some of the things in the ai/ml hr subtle mind control stand out for me one of them is the use of sutomated nudges or reminders another is the ability to retain employees another is chatbots, this is like a little ai priest and another is behavioral data collection for predictive analytics i don’t know how to access this software, although we could ma6be build it or hire people to build it. the goal of course is some deprogramming from mind control and petsonal empowerment, or making a community business to help people

1 1

[ot][spam][crazy] in place sort of binary strings ie lines in a file
by Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many 20 Jan '23

20 Jan '23

make simple enough, then do. i have a strong inhibition in the middle of it, and it’s not complicated, so it’s interesting, since inhibitions are so frustrating and it seems far enough from possible reasons to be theoretically separable

1 10

Calls for informal alliance with ’ Big Igloo " or similar in order to KILL as MANY COPS AS POSSIBLE.
by professor rat 20 Jan '23

20 Jan '23

Calls for informal alliance with ’ Big Igloo " or similar in order to KILL as MANY COPS AS POSSIBLE. https://anarchistnews.org/content/justice-tort The only good PIG-COP is a DEAD ONE.

1 0

SARTRE always a franc short and a journee late
by professor rat 20 Jan '23

20 Jan '23

Sartre’s path from Marxist to anarchist At the beginning of the 1970s, no Sartre connoisseur would have expected that Sartre could confess to being an anarchist, since he had stated in an interview with Perry Anderson, Ronald Fraser and Quintin Hoare, published in 1969 under the title Itinerary of a thought, “It is as true today as it was yesterday that anarchism leads nowhere.” https://anarchistnews.org/content/marxist-anarchist-sartre-1972-1980 Reposts not obscurantist attempts to insult c-punks intelligence like professional braying jackass Semich keeps doing.

1 0

Anarchy for the Sudan
by professor rat 20 Jan '23

20 Jan '23

The following interview with the group „Sudanese Anarchist Gathering“ was done by e-mail. https://anarchistnews.org/content/organizing-under-military-dictatorship Reposts not attempted DENIAL of SERVICE attack by demented lunatic, Semich

1 0

Cryptoanarchy for the Ukraine
by professor rat 19 Jan '23

19 Jan '23

Every anarchist will be following this epic closely US, Ukraine, and the UK are the top 3 countries in the world for cryptocurrency use. https://in.investing.com/news/fedorov-desires-ukraine-to-be-world-leading-j… I don't fear CBDC's so long as most countries know what happens if they try and CHEKA up on everybody. Reposts not yadaa yadaa

1 0

Compass Mining and Blockstream’s Mining Note (the BMN)
by professor rat 19 Jan '23

19 Jan '23

Compass Mining vs. Blockstream Mining Note (BMN) https://medium.com/@jesse_hodl/compass-mining-vs-blockstream-mining-note-bm… Reposts often remarked yet seldom observed

1 0

[ot] OpenAI was surprised nobody else built ChatGpT
by Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many 19 Jan '23

19 Jan '23

I’m forwarding this because it shows needless and strong AI suppression feeding back through media. https://twitter.com/nearcyan/status/1615779948962414592 from @nearcyan 2022-01-18: > Sam Altman was also surprised that no one built ChatGPT before OpenAI: > > “we had the model for ChatGPT in the API for ~10 months before we made ChatGPT .. > > I sort of thought someone (else) was gonna just build it" > > (reminder: there are *many* similarly unbuilt products right now) > > [video] > from @nearcyan 2022-12-02: > > ChatGPT capabilities have (mostly) been out for a year, in some cases >2 years …

1 0

Fwd: FOIL Request No. 2022-089773 - Larson
by Gunnar Larson 19 Jan '23

19 Jan '23

SENT VIA EMAIL (G(a)xny.io) January 19, 2023 Gunnar D. Larson xNY.io – Bank.org 406 West 25th Street New York, NY 10001 Re: Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) Tracking No. 2022-089773 Dear Gunnar D. Larson: I write in response to the FOIL request that you submitted to the New York State Department of Financial Services (“Department”) on January 26, 2022, which states as follows: “Please submit any and all records related to the LendingClub.com September 11 Board of Directors resignation below. The date of the resignation is in question. You may understand the sensitive nature of the date of the resignation. Gunnar Larson Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 5:06 PM to Anuj, Investor, Press Hello there: Thank you very much for the reply. Gunnar On Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 11:36 AM Anuj Nayar wrote: Hi Gunnar On September 11, 2021, in connection with her nomination to serve as superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, Adrienne Harris notified us of her resignation, effective September 12, 2021, from the Company’s Board. Details can be found in the 8k filed on 9/15/21 (below) https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001409970/bbc437e4-2920- 4d5d-8e0d-86bca622f0ca.pdf From: Gunnar Larson Date: Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 9:37 AM To: Investor Relations , Press Cc: Gunnar Larson Subject: [EXT] LendingClub: Current Board of Directors CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Madam or Sir: Good day to you. Surveying market research, I was wondering if you can kindly confirm, from LendingClub's July 15, 2021 press release: Is Ms. Adrienne Harris currently a member of LendingClub's board of directors? https://www.prnewswire.com/newsreleases/lendingclub-appoints-adrienne-harri… 301335198.html#financial-modal [prnewswire.com] Reviewing your website, Ms. Harris is not referenced:https://www.lendingclub.com/company/leadership Bloomberg and other sources do not reference Ms. Harris as a LendingClub board member: https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/LC:US [bloomberg.com] Sending you the very best regards. Thank you, Gunnar -- Gunnar Larson - xNY.io [xny.io] | Bank.org [bank.org] MSc [unic.ac.cy] - Digital Currency MBA [unic.ac.cy] - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1- 646-454-9107 New York, New York 10001.” Public Officers Law (“POL”) § 89(3) requires a FOIL request to reasonably describe the records sought. This means that the description of the documents sought must be sufficient to allow the agency to locate and identify the documents requested. See Matter of Farbman & Sons v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 62 NY2d 75 (1984); Matter of Wright v Hippolyte, 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1247, 2014 NY Slip Op 30705(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County March 20, 2014). The Committee on Open Government, which is responsible for, inter alia, issuing advisory opinions regarding FOIL, has opined that “[w]hether a request reasonably describes the records sought . . . may be dependent upon the terms of a request, as well as the nature of an agency’s filing or record-keeping system.” Committee on Open Government (“Committee”) Opinion No. FOIL-AO-16073 (July 17, 2006). In the Committee’s Opinion No. FOIL-AO-11960 (February 17, 2000), it opined that a FOIL request that sought records “‘tending to support’ a particular statement, or ‘utilized’, ‘used’ or ‘relating to’ various activities of the Department of Environmental Conservation” was not a reasonably described request for records under Public Officers Law Article 6. The Committee stated that a response to such a request “would involve making a series of judgments based on opinions, some of which would be subjective, mental impressions”, and require “ascertaining which records might ‘tend to support’ a statement [that] would involve an attempt to render a judgment regarding the use, utility, accuracy or value of records.” The Committee held that “for purposes of [FOIL], a request for such materials would not meet the standard of ‘reasonably describing’ the records sought, for such a request would not enable the [agency] to locate and identify the records in the manner envisioned by that statute.” Your FOIL request fails to meet the “reasonably describe” requirement in POL § 89(3) because it includes vague and imprecise phrases such as “any and “all,” and “related to” and it does not clearly describe the records that you are seeking to enable the Department to conduct a reasonable search for those records. Such vague phrases are imprecise terms that require Department staff to make subjective judgments as to whether a document is responsive to your FOIL request. When such subjective judgments are required of staff, the FOIL request may be denied for failure to meet the reasonably describe requirement in POL § 89(3). Additionally, the Department does not have an indexing system that allows it to search all of its paper and electronic records by terms that may appear in such records. Accordingly, the Department is denying your FOIL request on the basis that the request is not reasonably described. Notwithstanding the foregoing issues with your FOIL request, please be advised that, in August of 2021, the Superintendent resigned from the Board of Directors of the Lending Club, effective September 12, 2021. In accordance with POL § 89(4), you may appeal this determination within 30 days by sending an email to FOIL.Appeals(a)dfs.ny.gov. Very truly yours, Pascale Jean-Baptiste FOIL Officer ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: JeanBaptiste, Pascale (DFS) <Pascale.JeanBaptiste(a)dfs.ny.gov> Date: Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 9:51 AM Subject: FOIL Request No. 2022-089773 - Larson To: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Cc: Garrett, Carmen (DFS) <Carmen.Garrett(a)dfs.ny.gov> Good Morning: Please see the attached determination in response to your FOIL request. Thank you.

1 1

Fwd: FOIL Request No. 2022-092267 - Larson
by Gunnar Larson 19 Jan '23

19 Jan '23

SENT VIA EMAIL (G(a)xny.io) January 19, 2023 Gunnar D. Larson xNY.io – Bank.org 406 West 25th Street New York, NY 10001 Re: Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) Tracking No. 2022-092267 Dear Gunnar D. Larson: I write in response to the FOIL request that you submitted to the New York State Department of Financial Services (“Department”) on September 12, 2022, which states as follows: “Dear Madam or Sir: On May 18, 2022 xNY.io - Bank.org received a copy of a financial disclosure form for Mr. Richard Weber (General Counsel, NY-DFS) noting an advisory council role at the Las Vegas Museum of Organized Crime and Law Enforcement. No address was provided: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CCIh9CQiwxVILSv86B54kEcipVRnx1YQ/view ?usp=drivesdk We would like to receive any and all records NY-DFS and Human Rights hold for this appointment approval for a state associated represenative. Warm regards, Gunnar Gunnar Larson xNY.io - Bank.org 646-454-9107.” Public Officers Law (“POL”) § 89(3) requires a FOIL request to reasonably describe the records sought. This means that the description of the documents sought must be sufficient to allow the agency to locate and identify the documents requested. See Matter of Farbman & Sons v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 62 NY2d 75 (1984); Matter of Wright v Hippolyte, 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1247, 2014 NY Slip Op 30705(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County March 20, 2014). The Committee on Open Government, which is responsible for, inter alia, issuing advisory opinions regarding FOIL, has opined that “[w]hether a request reasonably describes the records sought . . . may be dependent upon the terms of a request, as well as the nature of an agency’s filing or record-keeping system.” Committee on Open Government (“Committee”) Opinion No. FOIL-AO-16073 (July 17, 2006). In the Committee’s Opinion No. FOIL-AO-11960(February 17, 2000), it opined that a FOIL request that sought records “‘tending to support’ a particular statement, or ‘utilized’, ‘used’ or ‘relating to’ various activities of the Department of Environmental Conservation” was not a reasonably described request for records under Public Officers Law Article 6. The Committee stated that a response to such a request “would involve making a series of judgments based on opinions, some of which would be subjective, mental impressions”, and require “ascertaining which records might ‘tend to support’ a statement [that] would involve an attempt to render a judgment regarding the use, utility, accuracy or value of records.” The Committee held that “for purposes of [FOIL], a request for such materials would not meet the standard of ‘reasonably describing’ the records sought, for such a request would not enable the [agency] to locate and identify the records in the manner envisioned by that statute.” Your FOIL request fails to meet the “reasonably describe” requirement in POL § 89(3) because it includes vague and imprecise phrases such as “any and all records,” and does not clearly describe the records that you are seeking. Such vague phrases are imprecise terms that require Department staff to make subjective judgments as to whether a document is responsive to your FOIL request. When such subjective judgments are required of staff, the FOIL request may be denied for failure to meet the reasonably describe requirement in POL § 89(3). Additionally, the Department does not have an indexing system that allows it to search all of its records by terms that may appear in such records. Accordingly, the Department is denying your FOIL request on the basis that the request is not reasonably described. Even if your FOIL request was reasonably described, to the extent that your request can be interpreted as seeking internal Department records, your request would be denied pursuant to POL § 87(2)(g) (the “inter/intra-agency exemption”), which exempts from disclosure records that are “inter-agency or intra-agency materials which are not: i. statistical or factual tabulations or data; ii. instructions to staff that affect the public; iii. final agency policy or determinations; [or] iv. external audits, including but not limited to audits performed by the comptroller and the federal government[.]” Such internal records contain opinions, recommendations, evaluations, and other subjective commentary by government employees, and do not contain information that fall within any of the four exceptions to non-disclosure under POL § 87(2)(g). Additionally, those records are simultaneously exempt from disclosure pursuant to POL § 87(2)(b) (the “personal privacy exemption”), which exempts records, or portions thereof, that “if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the provisions of subdivision two of section eighty-nine of the [Public Officers Law].” Determining whether disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy requires balancing the competing interests of public access and individual privacy. See Dobranski v. Houper, 154 A.D.2d 736 (3d Dep’t 1989). Here, the Department is withholding the personal information mentioned above because the interest of keeping that information private outweighs the competing interest of providing public access to that information. Such information about private citizens is of a personal nature and disclosure of the information would not serve any governmental purpose consistent with the intent of FOIL. See Goyer v. New York State Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation, 12 Misc.3d 261 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 2005). Consequently, the Department is not disclosing that information pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b). In accordance with POL § 89(4), you may appeal this determination within 30 days by sending an email to FOIL.Appeals(a)dfs.ny.gov. Very truly yours, Pascale Jean-Baptiste FOIL Officer ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: JeanBaptiste, Pascale (DFS) <Pascale.JeanBaptiste(a)dfs.ny.gov> Date: Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 9:50 AM Subject: FOIL Request No. 2022-092267 - Larson To: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Cc: Garrett, Carmen (DFS) <Carmen.Garrett(a)dfs.ny.gov> Good Morning: Please see the attached determination in response to your FOIL request. Thank you.

1 0