January 2023 - cypherpunks@lists.ogf.org

Clandestine Cluster Fuck
by Gunnar Larson 29 Jan '23

29 Jan '23

DHS ------- Any person, subject to the UCMJ, who, at an alleged place and time, has made a statement on or about a particular subject, so as to encourage disaffection, disloyalty or both, or to interfere with or impair the loyalty and morale among the members of the armed forces, the civilian population or both, would be violating the Article 134 and shall be punished as deemed fit through a court martial. The statement thus made by the accused person is considered an offense, if it is in anyway disloyal to the United States. The elements of crime that should hold true, for the accused to be guilty, are as follows: The accused person should have actually made the alleged statement The statement should have been made in public The statement made was disloyal to the United States The statement promotes or encourages the troops or the civilian populace to be disloyal, hostile or both towards the United States The statement impairs and/or interferes with the morale, the discipline or loyalty towards the United States, of a member or multiple members of the US armed forces. The nature of the statement was such that it brings upon discredit to the US armed forces or it disrupts the discipline and the good order of the armed forces. EXPLANATION OF THE OFFENSE Under this punitive Article 134, a disloyal statement is a result of the accused person’s conduct, which is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the armed forces and which brings upon discredit to the armed forces. This means that the accused had acted or behaved in such a way as to distort the armed forces discipline and to harm the reputation of the service in general. A person is said to have “made” a statement only if it was spoken, written, published or printed, uttered, issued or put forth for circulation by him or her. The statement is said to be made “in public” only when it was made openly in the presence of many people, who have the knowledge that the alleged statement was actually made by the accused. The alleged statement made by the accused should incite disloyalty, where the term disloyalty implies being untrue or unfaithful to the United States as a whole. It is important to note that being disloyal to the US armed forces, a government department of the United States or any other organization need not necessarily be disloyalty towards the United States. Similarly, the accused must have, by making the statement, promoted disaffection, which means disgust, ill will, or a hostile attitude towards the United States. Again, any disaffection towards the US armed forces or any particular organization or group may not necessarily be disaffection against the United States. To be more precise, the accused person’s behavior, which constitutes willful disobedience or encouraging another member or members of the military or the civilian populace to disregard an order is not equal to disloyalty, disaffection or both towards the United States. It must also be noted that if a person is in disagreement with a policy or objects to it, it does not in any way indicate that he or she is promoting disloyalty or disaffection towards the United States. MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT Should the accused person be proven guilty under the Article 134, after the evidence obtained by the court proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused made statements that promote disloyalty or disaffection towards the United States, then he or she shall be subject to a maximum punishment of no more than three years in confinement.

1 0

Entrapment
by Gunnar Larson 29 Jan '23

29 Jan '23

Hello: Most of this evening, I have been under entrapment. The decorum of the agents seemingly has violated the Adult Suvivors Protection Act. Gunnar

1 0

Crypto lender Nexo wants to sue Bulgaria after office raids
by Gunnar Larson 28 Jan '23

28 Jan '23

https://cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-lender-nexo-wants-to-sue-bulgaria-aft… Is Nexo.io trying to start a war with Turkey?

1 0

Appreciation for Cypherpunks List
by Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many 28 Jan '23

28 Jan '23

I am feeling impressed with and appreciative of the list as idealoy an unmoderated, uncensored communiction channel. This is rare and needed in ways not everyone sees.

2 2

[crazy] I was involved in a core libusb change that broke many projects.
by Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many 27 Jan '23

27 Jan '23

It looks like in 2020 or 2021 I wanted to contribute to shared open source EEG infrastructure and was experiencing dissociative amnesia around the popular toolkit from out of France. Instead I found https://brainflow.org from Russia. I wanted to unify the USB-based drivers to work easily on mobile, and began patching libusb to no longer require root on android by spending the time to learn the android APIs. This was messy and hard for me, and I spent most of my EEG dev effort cleaning the mess up so as contribute my work to libusb, to collaborate. I tried hard to preserve my commits during my laborious transformation of crazy spaghetti to organized interface, but I may not have succeeded. I am not a fan of rebasing due to possible loss of history; I believe the issues rebasing addresses should be interface concerns. Github says an old tip before rebase may have been https://github.com/libusb/libusb/commit/928e2a7f24a161324a46e83b92680e4597a… . However, this branch contains further work that never made it in and may show similar activity: https://github.com/xloem/libusb/tree/android-dev Anyway, over the course of maybe 2021 and 2022 different people engaged my PR at https://github.com/libusb/libusb/pull/874 dated Feb 12, 2021. Libusb's maintainers were mostly MIA but android projects began using the code. On Nov 1, Google actually finally added a feature to their JNI that I linked to needing in the PR, although making use of this feature hasn’t been implemented, because by that time I could barely psychologically comprehend and engage the work anymore at all, from repeatedly using my coping strategies with it. During discussion of merging with the one maintainer available to reply, one of the things is that a few quirks came up mostly around option handling in libusb. To work around the missing JNI surface that google implemented in November, I had added a new option to libusb to pass a handle in. There were also a small handful of bugs that would be introduced by parallel trunk commits that were in rare conflict. When I engaged these things, even though devs were present, people wouldn’t reply for sometimes months, and there would be demonstration of confusion. Generally work would eventually come from a visitor new to the codebase invested in using things, and still there would be huge communication gaps. One dev began revamping the option handling in trunk in parallel with my work and the work of visitors, as if they did not see it and did not see our comments. A breaking change was left, and a fix eventually merged with my casual involvement, although by then it was very very hard for me to engage. Since I had burnt out, a new PR was opened by somebody else, to rebase and merge my work, at https://github.com/libusb/libusb/pull/1164 dated Jul 11, 2022. Presently still open, looking promising for merging though. Meanwhile, a new release was made that included the option handling code implemented in parallel in trunk. This release unfortunately broke many downstream projects by simply outputting a deprecation warning, and they had -werror. Ongoing at https://github.com/libusb/libusb/issues/1236 . I think what is relevant is my latest comment at https://github.com/libusb/libusb/issues/1236#issuecomment-1406146882 : > With all this attention, it seems important to mention that libusb is badly in need of > maintainers. There was almost nobody available to review the change that > preceded this issue. In this email. I possibly meant to include more information on the unique and weird path the watershed breaking change developed via, but I found this difficult and did not do so. In quick summary, it was basically the extent of all my interactions with the project during those two years, issue comments and pull request comments and tagging people, trying to facilitate development ease and engage capacity from those interested, in my strange way amid the strange situations.

1 1

Back To The Future: How A 30-Year-Old Statute From A Time When Video Rentals Were A Thing Is Driving A New Wave Of Class Action Lawsuits - Class Actions - United States
by Gunnar Larson 27 Jan '23

27 Jan '23

https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/class-actions/1274274/back-to-the-futur… Perhaps you are old enough to recall when consumers used to have to go to video stores like Blockbuster Video to rent a movie. And perhaps you recall the excitement of scoring a copy of the always limited "new release." It was during these "archaic" times that Congress passed the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) in response to a newspaper publishing Robert Bork's video rental history during his U.S. Supreme Court nomination. Fast forward to today, and you might be surprised to learn that some consumers are now using the VPPA, a 1988 law designed to prevent the "wrongful disclosure" of video tape sale and rental records, as fuel for a new wave of class action lawsuits against companies that offer video content on their websites. Plaintiffs in these new lawsuits seek to stretch the VPPA beyond just the VHS and Betamax tapes it was originally intended for, and apply the law to any videos on websites that are embedded with the code for Google Analytics and/or Meta Platforms Inc.'s Pixel tracking tool.1 In short, the lawsuits allege that companies using these tracking tools violate the VPPA because their websites track the videos that visitors watch and share this viewing data with third parties, namely, Google and Facebook. The Video Privacy Protection Act The VPPA prohibits a "video tape service provider" from "knowingly disclos[ing], to any person, personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider." 18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(1). Under the Act, "personally identifiable information" is "information which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape service provider." 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(3). A "video tape service provider" is "any person, engaged in business, or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, of rental, sale, or delivery of prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio-visual materials." 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(4). Courts construe "similar audio-visual materials" broadly, generally concluding that its definition encompasses streaming video delivered electronically. See, e.g., In re Hulu Priv. Litig., No. C 11-03764 LB, 2012 WL 3282960, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2012). A 2013 amendment to the VPPA permits the disclosure of personally identifiable information if the consumer provides "informed, written consent (including through an electronic means using the internet)." 18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(2)(B). This consent must be obtained "in a form distinct and separate from any form setting forth other legal or financial obligations of the consumer." Id. The consumer must also be given the opportunity to withdraw from the ongoing disclosures. Id. Recent Rulings on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Defendants targeted by this VPPA class action wave have been filing motions to dismiss. These motions typically assert the following four arguments in favor of dismissal: The plaintiff cannot show that defendant is a "video tape service provider" under the Act; The plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the defendant's disclosures included personally identifiable information; The plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the defendant "disclosed" personally identifiable information; and The plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the defendant "knowingly" disclosed personally identifiable information. In the past year, courts considering these arguments have reached split decisions. Courts denying motions to dismiss have held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that defendants-such as the Epoch Times, WebMD and Boston Globe Media Partners-qualified as video tape service providers under the Act and knowingly disclosed to third parties personally identifiable information about visitors consuming the videos on their websites.2 However, at least one court granting a motion to dismiss agreed that the plaintiff had failed to plausibly allege that the information the defendant company disclosed to third parties was personally identifiable information. In Wilson v. Triller, Inc., the district court concluded the plaintiff failed to allege that the transferred information constituted personally identifiable information because the complaint did not set forth any facts capable of establishing that Facebook could link the transferred information to an individual user. Two other courts granting motions to dismiss VPPA claims agreed that the plaintiff had failed to plausibly allege that the defendant company was a video tape service provider. In Stark v. Patreon, Inc., the District Court for the Northern District of California concluded that live broadcasts do not fall within the definition of "similar audio-visual materials" and dismissed the plaintiff's VPPA claim because the plaintiffs did not specify whether the video content they consumed on Patreon-a subscription-based platform that hosts a variety of content posted by individual content creators-was broadcast live or prerecorded. 2022 WL 7652166, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2022). In Louth v. NFL Enterprises LCC, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island reached the same conclusion, holding that "NFL Enterprises' Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff's VPPA claims is granted to the extent they rely upon the consumption of live content . . . ." 2022 WL 4130866, at *4 (D.R.I. Sept. 12, 2022). Significant Risks Posed by the Lawsuits The VPPA class action wave threatens to subject businesses to substantial damage awards. Any person injured by conduct violating the Act can bring suit and seek actual damages not less than liquidated damages in the amount of $2,500, punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs. 18 U.S.C. § 2710(c). Given that plaintiffs are alleging that companies are violating the VPPA every time a user watches a video on their website, the class of plaintiffs in a given action could conceivably consist of thousands of consumers. A company hit with a class action lawsuit alleging VPPA violations should seek legal counsel to consider what defenses are available to it. The case law in this area is still developing, and the facts specific to each defendant-that is, what kind of business they do, what content their website provides, and what identifying information the plaintiff alleges they convey to a third party-offer distinct opportunities for formulating defenses to an alleged VPPA violation. Legal counsel could also be useful to companies seeking to implement proactive measures to protect them from exposure to a VPPA class action lawsuit. For More Information If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact J. Colin Knisely, Michael S. Zullo, Courtney L. Baird, any of theattorneysin our Trial Practice Groupor the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact. Footnotes 1 Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly named Facebook, Inc., owns Facebook, Instagram, and other related products and services. 2 Czarnionka v. Epoch Times Ass'n, Inc., 2022 WL 17069810 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2022); Lebakken v. WebMD, LLC, 2022 WL 16716151 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 4, 2022); Ambrose v. Boston Globe Media Partners LLC, 2022 WL 4329373 (D. Mass. Sept. 19, 2022).

1 0

Dangers Of Recording Conversations - Trials & Appeals & Compensation - United States
by Gunnar Larson 27 Jan '23

27 Jan '23

https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/trials-amp-appeals-amp-compensation/127… Q: My business competitor (or business partner, neighbor, ex-spouse, boss, co-worker, etc.) is doing bad things. I just need to prove it. I can record our conversations secretly on my smart phone, which would be a sure-fire way to get evidence of them admitting to their misdeeds. Should I do it? A: In New Hampshire, the answer is a resounding no, unless you want to face potential criminal charges and a lawsuit from the person you record. In this day and age when most of us walk around with iPhones, Androids, and the like, that can be used as pocket-sized recording devices with the tap of an icon, it may be tempting-or even seem justified-to secretly record a conversation in order to show that someone is engaged in some kind of misconduct. This is particularly true if you stand to be harmed in some way by that misconduct. If you do so, however, you would very likely be engaging illegal conduct yourself under New Hampshire law and opening yourself up to legal trouble. New Hampshire is a "two party" state, meaning that it is against the law to intentionally record a conversation unless both (or if more than two, all) parties involved consent to the recording (with some narrow exceptions largely involving law enforcement activities). Someone who violates this law could be charged with a Class B felony or a misdemeanor under the Wiretapping and Eavesdropping statute, RSA 570-A. Moreover, the person you recorded without their consent could bring a civil lawsuit against you and be entitled to collect damages, punitive damages, and their reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs. At least you still have that great evidence of your counterpart admitting to dastardly deeds, right? Well, you may have the evidence but it is unlikely to see the light of day in court. New Hampshire law prohibits the admission into evidence of conversations recorded in violation of the New Hampshire statute. If you believe you have legal case or a claim to be made, talk to an attorney about how you can build your case. If you take matters into your own hands and try to get evidence using a hidden hot mic, you may well end up on the hot seat. Published in the Manchester Union Leader, January 21, 2023.

1 0

God Allmighty keeps quiet as Genesis goes down in flames
by professor rat 27 Jan '23

27 Jan '23

God Allmighty, sorry, Barry Silbert, keeps quiet as Genesis goes down in flames https://cointelegraph.com/news/opinion-barry-silbert-keeps-quiet-as-genesis… Reposts not sermons on mounting dogs from bitcoin Jesus

1 0

Avalanche doesn't need PoW hashcash or any central cybernetic
by professor rat 27 Jan '23

27 Jan '23

Anticipating AVAX in 2001 https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1099546566359244801/photo/1 Give the 15 year olds what they want!

1 0

What Juan wants...
by grarpamp 27 Jan '23

27 Jan '23

On usual, punk <punks(a)tfwno.gf> tried again with: > sell cars and ARPANET access Yes, those are products that are for sale, nobody has to buy them if they don't want. But clearly, Juan the hypocrite of those products, has bought and or is using of both of them. Unfortunately for Juan, and thankfully, the world is widely and naturally agreed on not selling what Juan really wants access to, guess what those are... "There is no fucking 'child sexual abuse'. -- PunkBatSoupStasi aka JuanG[snip] aka [snip]" The end.

4 15