January 2024 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Avenatti Jury Pushed To 'Rat Out' Holdout Juror, Atty Says
by Gunnar Larson 08 Jan '24

08 Jan '24

Avenatti Jury Pushed To 'Rat Out' Holdout Juror, Atty Says <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1782739?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> By Pete Brush The trial judge who presided over disbarred lawyer Michael Avenatti's conviction for pilfering money from his then-client, porn star Stormy Daniels, improperly prodded jurors to "rat out" a holdout who didn't want to convict, Avenatti's lawyer told the Second Circuit Friday. Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1782739?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1782739?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…>

1 0

NRA Chief Announces Resignation On Eve Of NY Fraud Trial
by Gunnar Larson 08 Jan '24

08 Jan '24

NRA Chief Announces Resignation On Eve Of NY Fraud Trial <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1782947?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> By Lauren Berg Wayne LaPierre on Friday announced his intention to step down as CEO of the National Rifle Association at the end of January, just ahead of a trial set to begin Monday in the New York attorney general's lawsuit alleging he spent millions of the pro-gun group's nonprofit dollars on himself. Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1782947?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1782947?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…>

1 0

NY AG Seeks $370M From Trump After Valuation Fraud Trial
by Gunnar Larson 08 Jan '24

08 Jan '24

Mr. Trump, if you are listening, you should sue for access to the Robinhood records. ----- NY AG Seeks $370M From Trump After Valuation Fraud Trial <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1782698?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> By Frank G. Runyeon New York Attorney General Letitia James asked a state judge Friday to claw back $370 million, plus interest, from former President Donald Trump for what she called an "outrageous" conspiracy to defraud banks and insurers by inflating his wealth on financial statements. 5 documents attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1782698?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/1782698?nl_pk=ac5a3855-e47c-4403-be…>

1 0

Veteran Skadden White Collar Pro Calls It Quits
by Gunnar Larson 08 Jan '24

08 Jan '24

Veteran Skadden White Collar Pro Calls It Quits <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/1782605?nl_pk=a94fc…> By Christopher Crosby A veteran Skadden white collar lawyer with an extensive career working on corporate crime investigations has called it quits after more than two decades working for City law firms. Read full article » <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/1782605?nl_pk=a94fc…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/1782605?nl_pk=a94fc…>

1 0

Russian-Owned Bank Nationalized By Ukraine Seeks $1B
by Gunnar Larson 08 Jan '24

08 Jan '24

Russian-Owned Bank Nationalized By Ukraine Seeks $1B <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/1782751?nl_pk=a94fc…> By Anna Bongardino A Luxembourg-based banking group, which is partially owned by a Russian oligarch, has filed a more than $1 billion claim against Ukraine in the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes in an attempt to recoup the loss it allegedly incurred when Ukraine took control of a bank it owned. Read full article » <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/1782751?nl_pk=a94fc…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/1782751?nl_pk=a94fc…>

1 0

Cryptocurrency: US Lawfare, KYC/AML, Intentional Creeping Criminalization via Inflation Theft, WarOnCash, WarOnCrypto, Maxi Lies
by grarpamp 08 Jan '24

08 Jan '24

https://x.com/CryptoLawUS https://x.com/JohnEDeaton1 https://x.com/JerryBrito https://x.com/BTCPolicyOrg https://x.com/CoinCenter https://x.com/CryptoTaxGuyETH https://x.com/Valkenburgh https://x.com/NeerajKA https://x.com/DigitalChamber https://x.com/PerianneDC @matthew_pines Jan 4 In 1945, Treasury Secretary Morgenthau set a cash reporting threshold of $10,000 to combat black marketeering during WW2. This threshold was codified & broadened in the Bank Secrecy Act in 1972 & never changed. W/ inflation, that $10K would equate to a ~$175K threshold today. https://www.btcpolicy.org/articles/bpi-submits-comment-to-fincen-on-cvc-mix… @BetterMarkets Kelleher files FUD and nonsense about Crypto. India revokes largest denomination banknotes. USA refuses to print larger than their worthless $100 banknote. USA Executive Order 6102 being rewritten as draft for BTC confiscation. Lebanon steals 90% of wealth. UN, BIS, WEF, IMF plan Global CBDC rollout. Banks and Police execute Civil Forfeiture against cash and property without cause. Govt Bank Corp cancel fianancial accounts of Major Politicians and Dissent Voices. FinCEN et al to ban coin mixing. Those celebrating ETF issuers paying Core Devs will start to regret it once they start pushing for an ESG/AML bitcoin fork. Good people disobey bad laws. Maxi's foolishly discard Game Theorists as Conspiracy Theorists, even though they know that every Conspiracy Theory contains elements of both Truth and Possibility. Be skeptical of the Maxi position, especially when the future data on the wall is not leaning in their favor. Bruce Fenton @brucefenton 25 Jul 2023 It’s time to scrap AML / KYC entirely. The idea that politicians should know how citizens spend their money is a new and deeply flawed idea. An entire generation has been fooled into thinking this is a necessary part of finance and the world continues to double down on an unworkable system. Only 30 years ago when I started my career as a stockbroker/ financial advisor I could call you on the phone and sell you MSFT or IBM stock and I did not need your DOB or your social security number. You didn’t even need to have money in the account. The 1990s to the post 9-11 Patriot Act (which was a horrible law) saw a radical increase in AML /KYC requirements. These seem to get worse every year. In my office when we were first required to take a drivers license, the older brokers were incredulous: “What do you mean we need an ID for someone buying stocks?!? What’s next, you need an ID to buy gas or groceries?” Now, just 25 years later an entire generation thinks this is normal or how it should be. Worse yet, some think the system won’t work without it. The opposite is true — the compliance gums up the works and adds friction where it should not exist. While the regulator class arrogantly acts as if AML KYC is their birthright and ending it is some sort of untouchable rail, the justifications are weak. Why do we have these regimes? To stop “money laundering”? What is that? Who is the victim? Is it to stop “human trafficking” or “terrorism”? If so, how? Is it to “stop” the 12,000 entities on the OFAC list by messing with the 2,000,000,000 people not on the list? Are major criminals somehow stopped by this? Has it stopped crime? Even if it did, is it worth burdening millions of firms and billions of people with paperwork and procedures that slow down commerce? Shouldn’t efforts be made to go after the actual criminals rather than encumbering the entire world with an inefficient compliance regime? Money must be able to flow and move. People must be able to take risks and make investments as they choose. This is the lifeblood of a solid economy and the jobs, growth, prosperity and peace that comes with it. The US (and by extension much of the world due to our influence) is sacrificing jobs, innovation and opportunities by chasing an extremely ineffective and indirect compliance regime. The entire idea belongs back in the dumpster of history. Let the investigators chase terrorists & human traffickers for those actual crimes and let the other billions of us use and move our money as we wish. Despite her call for stricter #crypto laws, Senator Warren remains silent on the world's biggest crypto criminal. It's puzzling why she isn't urging the government to vigorously enforce existing laws against SBF. Perianne @PerianneDC 31 Dec 2023 .@SenWarren’s SILENCE on the gov not pursuing a second trial against the biggest #crypto fraud in history is all you need to know about Warren and her corrupt crusade against the industry. to support the Keep Innovation in America Act. Chamber of Digital Commerce @DigitalChamber Jan 5 You just sent $10,000 USD worth of #crypto. And 15 days later, you're charged with a felony? Congress needs to fix this ASAP. We wrote a letter proposing the critical need to consider H.R. 1414, the Keep Innovation in America Act, which stops the law and studies the implications.

1 0

Re: location proof of
by Karl Semich 07 Jan '24

07 Jan '24

peter sent me this On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 9:27 AM Peter Fairbrother <peter(a)tsto.co.uk> wrote: > > On 07/01/2024 13:49, Karl Semich wrote: > > hi Peter ! > > > > Sorry for sending to the list when I am confused. The link was sent > > under such conditions, as is this email. > > > > I installed a device recently that hopes to perform proof of location > > (haven't checked if it's implemented, but it sends a lot of metadata). > > > > I'm curious if you have opinions or values around proof-of-location; > > why do you say "Barf"? > > 'cos the paper is so bad it made me want to vomit I glanced at the paper a little more and it doesn't seem bad in the writing to me, but it is barfy in that it is a medium article that looks like a paper, and it is from 2018. here are the links and papers from the image in it. helium's paper only fetched for me via cleartext HTTP. i had to find platin's paper on scribd as their domain expired years ago. https://www.foam.space/publicAssets/FOAM_Whitepaper.pdf http://whitepaper.helium.com/ https://platin.io/ -> https://scribd.com/document/404637122/Platin-Whitepaper-v2-1-pdf https://docs.xyo.network/XYO-White-Paper.pdf

1 0

Cypherpunk 2027 - the future keeps happening
by pro2rat＠yahoo.com.au 07 Jan '24

07 Jan '24

Feel the power - live the dream, and. . . welcome to the revolution! Cypherpunk 2027 latest! ( From Ethan Hunt, sorry, Mollick ) AI development seems to be happening much, much faster than even experts expected. We can be confident about that because a new paper just came out surveying almost three thousand published AI researchers, following up on a similar paper published a year earlier. The average estimated date for when AI could beat humans at every possible task shifted dramatically, moving from 2060 to 2047—a decrease of 13 years—in just the past year alone! (And the collective estimate was that there was a 10% chance that it would happen by 2027) Viva la revolution!

2 1

Nancy, do you want to say anything about this RICO?
by Gunnar Larson 07 Jan '24

07 Jan '24

Nancy, do you want to say anything about this RICO? https://www.instagram.com/reel/C1nxisegAn_/?igsh=MWtzemFyZmVvN2tndg==

1 0

EFF Asks Court to Uphold Federal Law That Protects Online Video Viewers’ Privacy and Free Expression
by Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many 07 Jan '24

07 Jan '24

In the spirit of less spam! There's so much stuff out there like this. I have not read the below article but it's from the EFF so it's gotta be good. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/01/eff-asks-court-uphold-federal-law-pro… JANUARY 4, 2024 As millions of internet users watch videos online for news and entertainment, it is essential to uphold a federal privacy law that protects against the disclosure of everyone’s viewing history, EFF argued in court last month. For decades, the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) has safeguarded people’s viewing habits by generally requiring services that offer videos to the public to get their customers’ written consent before disclosing that information to the government or a private party. Although Congress enacted the law in an era of physical media, the VPPA applies to internet users’ viewing habits[1], too. The VPPA, however, is under attack by Patreon. That service for content creators and viewers is facing a lawsuit in a federal court in Northern California, brought by users who allege that the company improperly shared information about the videos they watched on Patreon with Facebook. Patreon argues that even if it did violate the VPPA, federal courts cannot enforce it because the privacy law violates the First Amendment on its face under a legal doctrine known as overbreadth[2]. This doctrine asks whether a substantial number of the challenged law’s applications[3] violate the First Amendment, judged in relation to the law’s plainly legitimate sweep. Courts have rightly struck down overbroad laws because they prohibit vast amounts of lawful speech. For example, the Supreme Court in Reno v. ACLU invalidated much of the Communications Decency Act’s (CDA) online speech restrictions because it placed an “unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech.” EFF is second to none in fighting for everyone’s First Amendment rights in court, including internet users (in Reno mentioned above[4]) and the companies that host our speech[5] online. But Patreon’s First Amendment argument is wrong and misguided. The company seeks to elevate its speech interests over those of internet users who benefit from the VPPA’s protections. As EFF, the Center for Democracy & Technology, the ACLU, and the ACLU of Northern California argued in their friend-of-the-court brief, Patreon’s argument is wrong because the VPPA directly advances the First Amendment and privacy interests of internet users by ensuring they can watch videos without being chilled by government or private surveillance. “The VPPA provides Americans with critical, private space to view expressive material, develop their own views, and to do so free from unwarranted corporate and government intrusion,” we wrote. “That breathing room is often a catalyst for people’s free expression.” As the brief recounts, courts have protected against government efforts to learn people’s book buying[6] and library history[7], and to punish people for viewing controversial material[8] within the privacy of their home. These cases recognize that protecting people’s ability to privately consume media advances the First Amendment’s purpose by ensuring exposure to a variety of ideas, a prerequisite for robust debate. Moreover, people’s video viewing habits are intensely private, because the data can reveal intimate details about our personalities, politics, religious beliefs, and values. Patreon’s First Amendment challenge is also wrong because the VPPA is not an overbroad law. As our brief explains, “[t]he VPPA’s purpose, application, and enforcement is overwhelmingly focused on regulating the disclosure of a person’s video viewing history in the course of a commercial transaction between the provider and user.” In other words, the legitimate sweep of the VPPA does not violate the First Amendment because generally there is no public interest in disclosing any one person’s video viewing habits that a company learns purely because it is in the business of selling video access to the public. There is a better path to addressing any potential unconstitutional applications of the video privacy law short of invalidating the statute in its entirety. As EFF’s brief explains, should a video provider face liability under the VPPA for disclosing a customer’s video viewing history, they can always mount a First Amendment defense based on a claim that the disclosure was on a matter of public concern. Indeed, courts have recognized that certain applications of privacy laws, such as the Wiretap Act and civil claims prohibiting the disclosure of private facts, can violate the First Amendment. But generally courts address the First Amendment by invalidating the case-specific application of those laws, rather than invalidating them entirely. “In those cases, courts seek to protect the First Amendment interests at stake while continuing to allow application of those privacy laws in the ordinary course,” EFF wrote. “This approach accommodates the broad and legitimate sweep of those privacy protections while vindicating speakers’ First Amendment rights.” Patreon's argument would see the VPPA gutted—an enormous loss for privacy and free expression for the public. The court should protect against the disclosure of everyone’s viewing history and protect the VPPA. You can read our brief here[9]. 1: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/08/california-district-court-holds-video… 2: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/overbreadth/ 3: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/559/460/ 4: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/06/ten-years-after-aclu-v-reno-free-spee… 5: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/landmark-battle-over-free-speech-eff-urg… 6: https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2002/01sa205-0.html 7: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/libraries-and-intellectual-freedom/ 8: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/293 9: https://www.eff.org/document/stark-v-patreon-eff-cdt-aclu-aclu-northern-cal…

1 0