"A U.K. high court told Bitcoin.org it can no longer share the 2008 white paper that outlines what bitcoin is on its website," reports Business Insider, "delivering a victory to Craig Wright, a computer scientist who claimed he wrote the original document." Wright won the copyright-infringement case he brought by default, after the website's anonymous founder, known as Cobra, decided not to speak in his defense in the proceedings in London. The ruling on Monday means Bitcoin.org must take the document down from its website. It must also pay Wright £35,000 ($48,600) toward legal costs, as well as put a notice of the court's order on its website for six months, said Ontier, the law firm representing Wright...

"This is an important development in Dr Wright's quest to obtain judicial vindication of his copyright in his white paper," said Simon Cohen, a senior associate at London-based Ontier... The Australian computer scientist claimed to be the original author of the white paper that was published in 2008 and describes what bitcoin is and how it works. Ontier said Wright took Cobra to court in order to prevent supporters of assets such as Bitcoin Core from using the white paper to mis-represent those assets as bitcoin...

"I didn't turn up because I didn't want to expose my identity," Cobra told Insider in a tweet.
Cobra shared more philosophical thoughts on Twitter: All your fiat based assets are ultimately secured by the same legal system that today made it illegal for me to host the Bitcoin whitepaper because a notorious liar swore before a judge that he's Satoshi. A system where 'justice' depends on who's got the bigger wallet. I don't think you could get a better advertisement of *why* Bitcoin is necessary than what happened today. Rules enforced through cryptography are far more superior than rules based on whoever can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in court.
In later tweets he added: Sucks when you have billionaires determined to bury you in endless frivolous litigation... Normally it's the person who owes money who runs and hides, but I've repeatedly reached out to CSW to pay him his court ordered costs, and he doesn't seem to want to receive it. Perhaps he is running away from his money so he can make me in "contempt of court"?

"Thousands of disabled and elderly people in more than a dozen states have had to fight against decisions made by an algorithm to get the support services they need to remain in their homes instead of being institutionalized," reports the U.S. edition of the Guardian: The cuts have hit low-income seniors and people with disabilities in Pennsylvania, Iowa, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Arkansas and other states, after algorithms became the arbiters of how their home health care was allocated — replacing judgments that used to be primarily made by nurses and social workers.

In Washington D.C., "on the worst end, we've had clients who actually died, because their services were cut and they were not receiving the care that they needed" Tina Smith Nelson, supervising attorney with AARP Legal Counsel for the Elderly, said about the effects of a new algorithmic system introduced in 2018. Over 300 seniors have had to file administrative appeals after their home care was cut by a new algorithmic system. "I think as a society we move into unsettling territory when we rely solely upon algorithms and data to make determinations about health care needs," Nelson said. "We reduce a person's humanity to a number...."

The situation is reflective of a reality increasingly affecting all users of American healthcare: algorithms — ranging from crude if-then charts to sophisticated artificial intelligence systems — are being deployed to make all sorts of decisions about who gets care. Government officials have touted algorithmic decision-making systems as a way to make sure that benefits are allocated even-handedly, eliminate human bias and root out fraud. But advocates say having computer programs decide how much help vulnerable people can get is often arbitrary — and in some cases downright cruel. The underlying problem, experts say, is that neither states nor the federal government provide enough funding to allow people needing health assistance to remain safely in their homes — even though these programs usually end up being much less costly than putting people in institutions. The algorithms resort to divvying up what crumbs are available...

Kevin De Liban, an attorney with Legal Aid of Arkansas, began fighting the cuts after severely disabled patients started calling "en masse" in 2016.... De Liban's legal team revealed flaws with the algorithm in court. It turned out, De Liban said, that the calculations had failed to factor in things like whether a patient had cerebral palsy or diabetes. A single point in the scoring system — for instance a point added because the patient had had a fever in the last three days or had open pressure sores — could make a huge difference in how many hours they received for the entire year... "As the algorithm worked, it was, to our eyes, pretty wildly irrational," said De Liban...

After years of court battles, Arkansas' use of the algorithmic system was finally thrown out in 2018... But across the nation, the battle continues. In Washington D.C., Pennsylvania and Iowa, legal services attorneys are plagued with calls from seniors complaining they have lost their care because of the algorithms recently adopted in those states.
The Guardian ultimately tracked down the designer of the algorithm, University of Michigan Professor Emeritus Brant Fries, who acknowledged that the system isn't even designed to calculate how many hours of care people actually need, but to try to allocate whatever scarce resources are available in the most equitable way.

"We're not saying that the size of the pie is correct... But whatever the money is there, I'm dividing it more equally!"

U.S. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden said last week "he is revisiting proposed legislation that would crack down on the giant tax-free retirement accounts amassed by the ultrawealthy," reports ProPublica, "after a ProPublica story exposed that billionaires were shielding fortunes inside them."

Earlier ProPublica had reported that PayPal founder Peter Thiel turned his retirement account "into a $5 billion tax-free piggy bank." Wyden said ProPublica's stories have shifted the debate about taxes at the grassroots level, underscoring a "double standard" that would have a nurse in Medford, Oregon, dutifully paying taxes "with every single paycheck" while the wealthiest Americans "just defer, defer, defer paying their taxes almost until perpetuity..."

Wyden's proposal also targeted the stuffing of undervalued assets into Roths, which congressional investigators had flagged as the foundation of many large accounts. Under the Wyden draft bill, purchasing an asset for less than fair market value would strip the tax benefits from the entire IRA. ProPublica's investigation showed that Thiel purchased founder's shares of the company that would become PayPal at $0.001 per share in 1999. At that price, he was able to buy 1.7 million shares and still fall below the $2,000 maximum contribution limit Congress had set at the time for Roth IRAs. PayPal later disclosed in an SEC filing that those shares, and others issued that year, were sold at "below fair value...." Daniel Hemel, a tax law professor at the University of Chicago who has been researching large Roths, said that Congress should simply prohibit IRAs from purchasing assets that are not bought and sold on the public market...

He added that lawmakers should go beyond reforms targeting the accounts directly and address a potential estate tax dodge related to Roths. If the holder of a large Roth dies, the retirement account is considered part of the taxable estate, and a significant tax is due. But, Hemel said, there's nothing to stop an American who has amassed a giant Roth from renouncing their citizenship and moving abroad to a country with no estate taxes. It's rare, but not unheard of, for the ultrawealthy to renounce their U.S. citizenship to avoid taxes. Under federal law, U.S. citizens who renounce their citizenship are taxed that day on assets that have risen in value but are not yet sold. But there's an exception for certain kinds of assets, Hemel said, including Roth retirement accounts.

Thiel acquired citizenship in New Zealand in 2011. Unlike the United States, New Zealand has no estate tax. It's not clear whether estate taxes figured into Thiel's decision... Patching the hole in the expatriation law, Hemel said, "should be a top policy priority because we're talking about, with Thiel alone, billions of dollars of taxes."
Wyden's proposed legislation to regulate Roth IRA accounts was excoriated in at least one 2016 editorial that complained everything in it was "opposed to capitalism and economic freedom."

"A federal judge on Wednesday blocked for the time being a new Florida law that sought to punish large social media businesses like Facebook and Twitter if they remove content or ban politicians," reports the Associated Press: U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle granted a preliminary injunction stopping the new law from being enforced. The law — which was supposed to take effect on Thursday — enabled the state to fine large social media companies $250,000 a day if they remove an account of a statewide political candidate, and $25,000 a day if they remove an account of someone running for a local office. The legislation was challenged in federal court in Tallahassee by NetChoice, a lobbying firm that represents Twitter, Facebook and other online companies, and the Computer and Communications Industry Association. Both said the new law was unconstitutional and violated federal law.

The plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claim that the new law violated the First Amendment if the case went to trial, the judge said.

Hinkle said the new law was aimed at only large social media businesses, not smaller ones that provide the same services, and made exceptions for Disney and their apps by including that theme park owners wouldn't be subject to the law.
The judge also argued that the law "compels providers to host speech that violates their standards."