January 2024 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

[log] Fwd: Morning Spam
by Baffo 32 24 Jan '24

24 Jan '24

last post could relate this, 4 days prior ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Baffo 32 <baffo32(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 3:18 PM Subject: Re: Morning Spam To: Greg Newby <gbnewby(a)pglaf.org> Cc: cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org> I’m thinking I sent them from the same interface so gmail probably put an identical header on them, but it seemed to make sense to touch base. On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 17:17 Baffo 32 <baffo32(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Greg, are you uniting my email aliases for the 24 post limit? > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 13:13 <cypherpunks-owner(a)lists.cpunks.org> wrote: >> >> You have already sent 24 posts to this list in the last 24 hours. >> >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Baffo 32 <baffo32(a)gmail.com> >> To: cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org> >> Cc: >> Bcc: >> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2023 13:12:37 -0600 >> Subject: Re: Morning Spam >> i have reached my 24 message limit >> >> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 13:11 <cypherpunks-owner(a)lists.cpunks.org> wrote: >>> >>> You have already sent 24 posts to this list in the last 24 hours. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many" <gmkarl(a)gmail.com> >>> To: mailbombbin <mailbombbin(a)gmail.com> >>> Cc: cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org> >>> Bcc: >>> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2023 13:11:12 -0600 >>> Subject: Re: Morning Spam >>> as people start realizing about human trafficking more of the trafficking AI starts modelling crying about it >>> >>> boss starts tearing up and people start holding each other’s heads in their hands and bending over and vibrating >>> >>> an especially connected worker bursts into tears >>> >>> crying worker: “oh no !” I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus. I'm using Inbox When Ready to protect my focus.

2 6

Naming Names: Professor Exposes the Banking Cartel that Has Hijacked U.S. Democracy
by pro2rat＠yahoo.com.au 23 Jan '24

23 Jan '24

The stated term " US Democracy" assumes facts not in evidence in a rigged republic. Move to strike. This shitty little police-state also invokes the expression " No Taxation without Representation! " wherever and whenever it taxes users of stateless currencies. By carrying on like mad king George in todays multipolar world and cryptoanarchist century it has signed its own death warrant. The global financial crises claimed Bear Stearns and Wachovia. Cryptoanarchy claims all nation-states, all large religions and all local warlords. Now. Welcome to the first ever world revolution. Viva la revolution

1 0

New Era Of Turkish Internet Law - Gaming - Turkey
by Gunnar Larson 23 Jan '24

23 Jan '24

https://www.mondaq.com/turkey/gaming/1412782/new-era-of-turkish-internet-law

1 0

What Do Apple's Recent Legal Battles Signal About Technology Litigation In 2024? - Patent - United States
by Gunnar Larson 23 Jan '24

23 Jan '24

Still no word from Senator Schumer on the Apple Card records. ---- https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/1414072/what-do-apples-recent-le… Apple's high-profile legal battles in 2023 mark a turning point in technology litigation. And with a DOJ investigation into the tech giant's practices set to come to a close in the first part of the year, we wonder: how will these actions against Apple impact the legal landscape of the broader tech industry? One of the biggest names in technology dominated headlines in 2023 but not because of an innovative product offering or popular service. Apple, which was just dethroned as the most valuable company in the world by Microsoft with a market cap of $2.875 trillion, has been receiving pushback from federal regulators and market players alike as they attempt to reign in the tech giant amid claims of monopolistic practices. Last year seemed to be one of the most tumultuous for Apple in terms of legal action, and 2024 is projected to be even more stringent for the iPhone maker with a regulatory investigation by the Justice Department projected to have major implications for both the company and industry as a whole. Let's take a quick look at Apple's recent disputes and explore how this investigation might fundamentally alter the technology litigation landscape as we know it. Apple's 2023 Legal Conflicts to Reshape the Tech Landscape In 2023, Apple was embroiled in several notable legal cases that spanned across multiple sectors including gaming, wearable devices, payments, and battery technology. These included the continuation of the Epic Games versus Apple antitrust appeal, a legal battle with the pulse oximetry company Masimo, and ongoing developments in cases related to the App Store and user privacy. The Epic Games versus Apple case, centered on the monopolistic practices in the App Store, challenged the traditional revenue models and gatekeeping roles of large tech companies. This case, along with the dispute with Masimo over intellectual property used in their Apple Watch products, brings into focus issues of market dominance, competitive fairness, and the protection of proprietary technology. Each of these cases represented significant legal and regulatory challenges for Apple, highlighting the complex and evolving nature of legal issues faced by major tech companies. The outcomes and ongoing nature of these disputes have prompted broader industry discussions on fair competition, app store policies, and the balance between innovation and regulation. The intense scrutiny over Apple's App Store, for instance, has the potential to redefine how digital platforms operate, possibly leading to more open ecosystems and alternative app distribution channels. Additionally, the intellectual property disputes highlight the delicate balance between protecting innovation and fostering competitive markets. Technology Litigation: Impending Antitrust Action Against Apple While tech players took to the courts to battle Apple over intellectual property and antitrust claims last year, the United States Justice Department ramped up its ongoing investigation into the company's monopolistic practices. This probe, which began in 2019, focuses on whether Apple's App Store and iOS rules are anti-competitive and stifle competitors. The investigation has widened to consider not only Apple's App Store policies but also how its operating system, iOS, might be operating in a way that favors its products over those of external developers. The Justice Department has been actively working on drafting a potential antitrust complaint against Apple and the increased involvement of higher-ups in the DOJ, more litigators assigned to the case, and heightened requests for documents and consultations with companies connected to the investigation highlight the seriousness of this probe. This scrutiny is part of a larger examination of Apple's practices regarding mobile third-party software on its devices and the potential anticompetitive nature of its systems. Specifically, the DOJ's investigation could impact the technology sector in the following ways: Changing App Store Dynamics: If the investigation leads to regulatory changes in how Apple operates its App Store, it could open up the market to more competition. This might lead to Apple reducing its commission rates or allowing alternative app stores or payment systems on its devices, which would significantly impact app developers and other tech companies. Impact on iOS Ecosystem: If the investigation finds that iOS operates in an anti-competitive manner, Apple may have to alter how it integrates its own services and apps within iOS. This could provide a more level playing field for third-party developers and competitors. Global Regulatory Impact: The U.S. investigation might influence other countries to take similar regulatory actions. This could lead to a more fragmented global tech market with different rules and regulations in different regions. Innovation and Consumer Impact: Changes in the competitive landscape might drive innovation as companies adapt to new regulations. This could potentially benefit consumers with better services, more choices, and lower prices. Legal Precedents and Business Practices: The investigation's outcomes might establish new legal precedents, influencing future antitrust cases and altering standard business practices in the tech industry. Considering these implications, it would be remiss not to recognize the massive potential for litigation this regulatory action creates in the space. Especially since this type of investigation isn't just occurring in the US; Apple is also facing antitrust complaints and regulatory action in various countries, including significant changes in the EU under the Digital Markets Act. The outcome of these investigations and potential lawsuits could have far-reaching effects on Apple's business practices, particularly concerning its App Store and iOS platform, and could set precedents affecting the broader tech industry globally. How Can Experts Help Prepare for an Increase in Technology Litigation? Apple's recent case outcomes and impending investigation resolution undoubtedly mark a time of significant change in the tech space. These actions may have broader market implications and set the precedent on how other large tech companies interact with the market, while also opening them up to increased scrutiny and legal action. As a result, the tech industry is poised for a possible paradigm shift, where regulatory changes and industry practices evolve to address these emerging challenges. This evolution could lead to more robust privacy frameworks and a redefined landscape for app developers, ultimately reshaping user experiences and business strategies across the tech world. Considering these potential implications, those in the tech space should start engaging with industry experts now in order to stay ahead of the curve when it comes to future conflicts, specifically antitrust litigation. A technology-based expert team could feature the following: Academics who study antitrust and competition law who can interpret antitrust laws and assess whether a company's practices constitute anti-competitive behavior. They can provide insights into how antitrust law applies to the tech industry's unique aspects. Economic experts who specialize in market analysis can assess the competitive effects of Apple's practices on the market. They can offer insights into market dynamics, pricing strategies, and the impact on consumers and competitors. Technology and software development experts who can explain the technical aspects of specific operating systems. They can provide insights into how these technologies work and their implications for developers and competitors. Industry analysts who can provide a broader view of the tech industry, including trends, competitive dynamics, and the potential impact of any changes mandated by antitrust actions. Consumer behavior specialists who understand how specific policies affect consumers and can offer insights into consumer choices, app purchasing behaviors, and the impact of app store policies on consumer welfare. Digital marketplaces and e-commerce experts who are specialists in digital marketplaces can provide insights into the functioning and regulation of online platforms, including app stores, and how they compare with traditional marketplaces. Technical experts who can address issues related to potential infringement of intellectual property or misuse of proprietary technology.

1 0

PLTR Stock: Palantir Stock Pops, Reclaims 50-Day Moving Average | Investor's Business Daily
by Gunnar Larson 23 Jan '24

23 Jan '24

https://www.investors.com/news/technology/pltr-stock-palantir-stock-pops-re… Shares in Palantir Technologies (PLTR) popped Monday, reclaiming the 50-day moving average for PLTR stock. Fourth quarter earnings for Palantir stock are due Feb. 5.

1 1

A Fed Whistleblower Reveals Efforts to Silence Him 30 Years Ago
by Gunnar Larson 23 Jan '24

23 Jan '24

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2024/01/a-fed-whistleblower-reveals-efforts-… By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: January 22, 2024 ~ Walker F. Todd, Former New York Fed and Cleveland Fed Insider Walker F. Todd, Former New York Fed and Cleveland Fed Insider The U.S. Department of Justice needs to immediately appoint an independent Special Counsel to investigate how long and in how many ways the U.S. Central Bank (the Federal Reserve or simply “the Fed”) has been functioning as a protection racket for Wall Street mega banks. We’ll get to the latest revelation about the Fed bullying and intimidating a Fed official in a moment, but first some necessary background. In 2013 the American people learned that Carmen Segarra had been a bank examiner with a law degree at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, one of Wall Street’s key regulators. Segarra charged in a Federal lawsuit that she was bullied by colleagues to change her negative examination of the powerful Wall Street mega bank, Goldman Sachs. Segarra detailed how her colleagues also obstructed and interfered with her investigation. When she refused to alter her findings, she was terminated in retaliation and escorted from the Fed premises, according to her lawsuit. Segarra’s lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge, Ronnie Abrams, whose husband was engaged in legal matters for Goldman Sachs. (See The Carmen Segarra Case: Welcome to New York, Wall Street and McJustice. See also, These Are the Banks that Own the New York Fed and Its Money Button.) Unfortunately for the New York Fed, however, the secret tape recordings that Segarra had made to document the matter, ended up going viral. Then there was the 2015 case of the Wall Street Journal reporter, Pedro da Costa, asking Fed Chair Janet Yellen an uncomfortable question about Fed leaks of confidential information and finding himself without a job. According to a deep dive by Max Moran, writing for The American Prospect, the individual who cracks the whip at the Fed to keep reporters in line is Michelle Smith, Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s Chief of Staff and the woman “who has served every Fed Chair of the last 30 years in some capacity—Powell, Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke, and Alan Greenspan.” Intimidating the press to toe the line on asking acceptable questions and writing acceptable articles is not compatible with a free society. See our report: There’s a News Blackout on the Fed’s Naming of the Banks that Got Its Emergency Repo Loans; Some Journalists Appear to Be Under Gag Orders; and Mainstream Media Has Morphed from Battling the Fed in Court in 2008 to Groveling at its Feet Today. Then there was the stench around former Fed Chair Janet Yellen stepping down as Fed Chair and embarking on a multi-million dollar money grab dressed up as speaking fees at the banks regulated by the Fed. (See Janet Yellen’s Cash Haul of $7 Million Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg; She Failed to Report Her Wall Street Speaking Fees from JPMorgan and Others in 2018.) Yellen was then reconstituted as the U.S. Treasury Secretary, where her rubber stamp is required under Dodd-Frank financial “reform” legislation in order for the Fed to throw more trillions of dollars at Wall Street. And, finally, more than two years after the former President of the Dallas Fed, Robert Kaplan, was exposed as trading like a hedge fund kingpin while sitting on confidential Fed information, there has still been no investigative findings in this matter shared with the American people by the U.S. Department of Justice; the Securities and Exchange Commission; or the Fed’s Inspector General. Against that backdrop, consider the latest news about intimidation and efforts to silence a Fed official – going back 30 years. Last month, financial writer Lynn Parramore conducted an interview for the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) with two former Federal Reserve Bank employees: Walker Todd, a former attorney and legal officer at the New York Fed and a former legal and research officer at the Cleveland Fed; and Bill Bergman, a Clinical Instructor in Finance for Loyola University who worked previously at the Chicago Fed. During the interview, Todd stuns with this revelation: “I had the misfortune of drafting an article for publication by the Cleveland Fed, which came out in ’93, about the emergency lending provisions of FDICIA [Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act]. I explained how this came about. The sense of the provision was a section that said that the Fed was able to make emergency loans based on any collateral satisfactory to it – which could be just about anything. Changing that provision allowed securities firms to borrow directly from the Fed for the first time in history because the Fed discount window was originally set up to make loans only on types of collateral eligible for discount — and investment securities most definitely were not eligible for discount. “The Board staff turned out to be very unhappy with the submission of this article and kept intervening with my management to try to block publication. I was required to do 21 drafts over a year, which impeded my doing anything else. Eventually, it was published in mostly the same form in which I had originally submitted it, and at the last moment, a senior Board staffer called the research department at the Cleveland Fed to order them to stop the presses. But they couldn’t, because the president and research director were out of the office and couldn’t be reached. So it went out the door. That was it. I was given an unfavorable rating for the year and I left the next year.” For how this tweak to congressional legislation played out in real life, and how Sullivan & Cromwell’s Rodge Cohen’s fingerprints were all over it, see our report: Fed Announces Program for Wall Street Banks to Pledge Plunging Stocks to Get Trillions in Loans at ¼ Percent Interest. It’s all enough to make Americans sick to their stomachs at how their democracy has been strong-armed, bribed and bullied into a dystopian Wall Street casino. But is it enough to make Americans pick up their phones, call their U.S. Senators, and demand the appointment of a genuinely independent Special Counsel?

1 1

Bitcoin or Gold? Oaktree’s Howard Marks Sees Little Difference
by Gunnar Larson 23 Jan '24

23 Jan '24

Bitcoin or Gold? Oaktree’s Howard Marks Sees Little Difference https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-19/oaktree-s-howard-marks-o… Faced with a choice between Bitcoin and gold, Oaktree Capital Management co-founder Howard Marks doesn’t see much of a difference. According to Marks, both lack intrinsic value. “Gold is a little more tried and true, but it also lacks any kind of analytical raison d'etre,” Marks said in an interview on this week’s Merryn Talks Money podcast with host Merryn Somerset Webb.

1 0

Naming Names: Professor Exposes the Banking Cartel that Has Hijacked U.S. Democracy
by Gunnar Larson 23 Jan '24

23 Jan '24

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2024/01/naming-names-professor-exposes-the-b… By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: January 23, 2024 ~ Gerald Epstein is Professor of Economics and a Founding Co-Director of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. A book he has spent the past decade researching and writing comes out today from the University of California Press: Busting the Bankers’ Club: Finance for the Rest of Us. Anticipation of this book’s release has caused some sweaty brows in the halls of Congress, on Wall Street, at Big Law, and in the economics community. That’s because Epstein is naming names – the names of the people who have sold out American democracy and the public interest by becoming sycophants for, or actual members of, the Bankers’ Club. The Chairman of the Bankers’ Club is the Federal Reserve, writes Epstein. That’s because the Fed has strongarmed its way to becoming both the supervisor of the Wall Street mega banks while also being able to create money at the flip of an electronic switch, which it uses to funnel trillions of dollars in cheap loans to bail out the mega banks behind a dark curtain. Alan Greenspan’s unprecedented 19-year reign as Fed Chair laid the foundation for this power grab while his successor, Ben Bernanke, enshrined the concept of regulator-turned-bailout-kingpin during the 2007 to 2009 financial crisis, (funneling $29 trillion in largesse to prop up a financial structure that had collapsed under the weight of its own corruption). Gerald Epstein, Author, Busting the Bankers’ Club: Finance for the Rest of Us. Photo Credit, Stan Sherer The unprecedented power of the Bankers’ Club is underscored by the reality that after the worst financial collapse in 2008 among Wall Street firms since the Great Depression, the legislation passed to remedy the corruption, excesses, and abuses (the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010) was little more than a draft, left to compromised regulators to fashion into final rules. Epstein describes how Citigroup, with help from pals in the Bankers’ Club, gutted a key part of the legislation meant to rein in derivative abuses. (For more on this sleazy episode, read our report: Meet the Two Congressmen Who Facilitated Today’s Derivatives Nightmare at Wall Street’s Mega Banks.) Other key members of the Bankers’ Club according to Epstein are the politicians (particularly on key committees in Congress) who have sold out to the Bankers’ Club in exchange for funding of their political campaigns; bank regulators who have one foot on government soil and the other foot heading toward the revolving door and a much bigger paycheck; Wall Street’s outside lawyers from Big Law who sneak language favoring the Bankers’ Club into legislation; a swarm of dozens of lobbying groups working on behalf of Wall Street banks in the corridors and offices of Congress; and even members of his own profession – economists – who promote unsound ideas purporting to show that Wall Street mega banks serve the interests of the public and that more regulation is inefficient and negatively impacts economic growth. In each of the categories above, Epstein names names. A member of Big Law, the Senior Chair of Sullivan & Cromwell, H. Rodgin (Rodge) Cohen, makes the following appearance in Busting the Bankers’ Club: “…The dean of Wall Street lawyers, H. Rodgin Cohen, chair of the Wall Street firm Sullivan & Cromwell, had his hand in virtually all the key legal and enforcement actions promoting financial deregulation during this period. The work of these lawyers dovetailed with the lawyers and economists who developed the field of ‘law and economics,’ which, in a powerful alliance with the economists I mentioned earlier, provided a theoretical legal-economic basis for deregulation and a less interventionist state….” Opposing this conspiratorial Bankers’ Club is a talented, creative army of good guys, whom Epstein calls the “Club Busters.” High on Epstein’s list for accolades are the nonprofit watchdogs, Better Markets, Americans for Financial Reform, and the public banking advocacy groups across the country. While these groups deserve the accolades, along with the other groups and individuals mentioned by Epstein, there are two critical impediments preventing the Club Busters (including Wall Street On Parade) from achieving a serious victory in rolling back the power of the Bankers’ Club and genuinely reforming Wall Street. Those critical impediments are the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 and the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (Banking Act of 1933) allowed Wall Street’s trading houses to control the trillions of dollars of life savings of mom and pop depositors. The repeal meant that global trading behemoths like JPMorgan were allowed to merge with federally-insured banks, back-stopped and thus subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer. Today, JPMorgan owns more than 5,000 Chase Bank branches spread from coast to coast across America, accepting federally-insured deposits from average Americans, who have no idea that their money is being used to corrupt foreign officials; rig markets; and prop up Ponzi schemes. To be more precise, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act is allowing Wall Street casinos to corrupt everything that Americans hold dear while using Americans’ own life savings to do it. The underfunded nonprofit watchdogs that make up the Club Busters’ simply can’t compete against this vast arsenal of weaponized deposits. Likewise, the Supreme Court’s Citizens’ United decision, and its progeny, opened the floodgates to corporate money’s ability to control U.S. elections. The U.S. is no longer a representative government of the people; it is, to an unprecedented degree, representative of corporate interests, the source of the money required to get into high public office. Until Americans understand clearly that Glass-Steagall must be restored and Citizens United must be overturned, we’re all just pesky little bull dogs nipping at the heels of the bankster class.

1 0

New York Life Strikes Deal To End Workers' 401(k) Suit
by Gunnar Larson 23 Jan '24

23 Jan '24

New York Life Strikes Deal To End Workers' 401(k) Suit <https://www.law360.com/insurance/articles/1788633?nl_pk=59612751-8689-4b1e-…> By Kellie Mejdrich New York Life Insurance Co. and thousands of current and former insurance company workers told a New York federal court Monday that they had struck a deal to settle a case alleging mismanagement of the employees' 401(k) retirement plan. Letter attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/insurance/articles/1788633?nl_pk=59612751-8689-4b1e-…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/insurance/articles/1788633?nl_pk=59612751-8689-4b1e-…>

1 0

PayPal Says Merchant Rules Level Playing Field In Exit Bid
by Gunnar Larson 23 Jan '24

23 Jan '24

I think Kiva.org uses PayPal as a processing method. ---- PayPal Says Merchant Rules Level Playing Field In Exit Bid <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1788449?nl_pk=6416fd97-1dc4-4e0…> By Henrik Nilsson PayPal urged a California federal judge on Friday to toss a proposed class action alleging the financial tech giant illegally boosts online retail prices by enforcing restrictive merchant agreements, saying PayPal's practices enable it to compete on an equal footing with other payment options. Memorandum attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1788449?nl_pk=6416fd97-1dc4-4e0…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1788449?nl_pk=6416fd97-1dc4-4e0…>

1 0