January 2010 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Equo compenso
by Guido Scorza Jan. 25, 2010

Jan. 25, 2010

Equo compenso: proviamo a farlo saltare o, almeno, a ridimensionarlo? Io la vedo così: http://punto-informatico.it/2794487/PI/Commenti/tassa-sull-equo-compenso.as… Buon pomeriggio G. __ www.guidoscorza.it

1 0

NYTimes: "IBM CEO on Lessons & Opportunities in Internet of Things"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 24, 2010

Jan. 24, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2010/01/22/22readwriteweb-ibm-… jc

1 0

Il Manifesto del Pubblico Dominio e' online
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 24, 2010

Jan. 24, 2010

Comunicato Stampa Torino, 25 gennaio 2010 IL MANIFESTO DEL PUBBLICO DOMINIO E' ONLINE http://www.publicdomainmanifesto.org/ Storicamente il pubblico dominio, ovvero quelle opere dell'ingegno che si possono usare liberamente, come gli scritti di Alessandro Manzoni o le musiche di Giuseppe Verdi, ha rappresentato un bene comune di cruciale importanza per lo sviluppo della cultura. Il pubblico dominio, infatti, e' costituito da opere che si possono liberamente tradurre, adattare e offrire nei formati piu' svariati (per ipovedenti, illustrati o riassunti per bambini, eccetera), facilitando e ampliando l'accesso alla cultura, soddisfando, almeno in linea di principio, tutti i bisogni degli utenti e fornendo materiale inesauribile per produrre nuove opere. Nel corso degli ultimi decenni, tuttavia, le progressive estensioni del diritto d'autore hanno ridotto drasticamente tale patrimonio di conoscenza condiviso. Cio', infatti, che agli albori del copyright era protetto per quattordici anni dalla data di pubblicazione e' ora protetto fino a settant'anni dopo la morte dell'autore (se non di piu', a seconda dei casi). Una durata pressoche' infinita gia' in passato, ma a maggior ragione oggi, nell'era di Internet. Per riaffermare l'importanza del pubblico dominio nelle nostre società così spesso definite “della conoscenza”, oggi il progetto europeo COMMUNIA, coordinato dal Centro NEXA su Internet & Società del Politecnico di Torino, lancia il Manifesto del Pubblico Dominio (http://www.publicdomainmanifesto.org) un documento che ricorda a tutti i principi alla base del pubblico dominio - inteso anche come "commons" e come prerogative degli utenti - e che propone alcuni principi guida e alcune raccomandazioni per assicurarne la vitalità sia oggi sia per le generazioni future. Intellettuali di fama mondiale come Lawrence Lessig (Harvard University) e James Boyle (Duke University), nonché organizzazioni come Creative Commons (USA), Open Knowledge Foundation (UK) e Knowledgeland (Olanda), compaiono tra i primi firmatari del Manifesto, al quale, da oggi, sia individui sia enti possono aderire online all'indirizzo www.publicdomainmanifesto.org. Il Manifesto si affianca alla recente giornata del Pubblico Dominio (1° gennaio 2010, http://publicdomainday.org) celebrata per segnare il giorno in cui ogni anno le opere di svariati autori e artisti cessano di essere coperte dal diritto d'autore (generalmente ciò avviene dopo 70 anni dopo la morte) per entrare a far parte del Pubblico Dominio. Quest'anno in diversi paesi si è celebrato il passaggio nel pubblico dominio delle opere di celebri autori morti nel 1939,come Sigmund Freud, William Butler Yeats e Alphonse Mucha. Il Manifesto del Pubblico Dominio è già disponibile in diverse lingue, con altre traduzioni in arrivo, e può essere firmato da chiunque lo desideri. Il Manifesto e' anche presente su Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/The-Public-Domain-Manifesto/448371…) Cos'è il Pubblico Dominio In base alla corrente normativa sul diritto d'autore (o copyright), fanno parte del pubblico dominio quelle opere mai coperte dal copyright (perché non originali o perché meri fatti, leggi scientifiche, ecc.) o che non lo sono più per la scadenza del limite temporale di protezione previsto dalla legge (in molti paesi 70 anni dopo la morte dell'autore). Nella definizione adottata dal progetto COMMUNIA, il termine assume tuttavia un carattere più ampio, estendendosi alle varie forme di “accesso aperto” alla conoscenza, come le opere rilasciate con una licenza Creative Commons. Incluse in questa accezione di “pubblico dominio” sono anche le eccezioni e limitazioni al diritto d'autore previste dalla legge (diritto di cronaca, ecc.), eccezioni che nei paesi anglosassoni si articolano secondo la dottrina del “fair use”. Cos'è COMMUNIA COMMUNIA è il Network Europeo dedicato al Pubblico Dominio Digitale formato da 50 partner (università, NGO, aziende, biblioteche, ecc.), coordinato dal Centro NEXA per Internet & Società. Grazie a un'ampia serie di attività, COMMUNIA opera come punto di riferimento europeo per l'analisi teorica e soprattutto per l'elaborazione di policy relative al pubblico dominio inteso in senso lato. Ampliando senso e portata del pubblico dominio in senso stretto (ovvero le opere al di fuori della tutela del diritto d'autore per carenza di requisiti o per decorrenza dei termini), COMMUNIA si occupa di questioni relative a forme alternative di licenze per i contenuti creativi, al libero accesso alle pubblicazioni scientifiche e ai risultati della ricerca, alla gestione di opere i cui autori sono sconosciuti, ovvero le cosiddette “opere orfane”. Progetto triennale co-finanziato dall'Unione Europea, il progetto COMMUNIA sta producendo anche specifiche linee-guida relative al pubblico dominio in Europa. Maggiori dettagli: http://communia-project.eu/ Che cosa è il Centro NEXA su Internet e Società Il Centro NEXA su Internet e Società del Politecnico di Torino (Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica) è un centro di ricerca indipendente, fondato nel 2006, che studia in maniera multidisciplinare Internet, la “più grande invenzione del secolo” secondo il Premio Nobel Rita Levi Montalcini. Il Centro NEXA, che lavora in stretto collegamento col Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche dell'Università di Torino e col Berkman Center for Internet & Society della Harvard University, attraverso il lavoro di ingegneri, giuristi ed economisti si sforza di gettare nuova luce sui complessi e a volte dirompenti cambiamenti prodotti da Internet. Autorevoli personalità costituiscono il Comitato dei Garanti del Centro NEXA, tra cui il fondatore e direttore del Berkman Center, prof. Charles Nesson, il prof. Yochai Benkler, sempre di Harvard, e altri eminenti studiosi italiani e stranieri, tra cui il prof. Stefano Rodotà, l'artista Michelangelo Pistoletto e il prof. Angelo Raffaele Meo. Per maggiori informazioni: http://nexa.polito.it Contatti: NEXA Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino (Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica) Corso Trento, 21 – 10129 Torino Ufficio Stampa: Anna Piccitto (+39) 011-564-7245 anna.piccitto(a)polito.it

1 0

Re: [nexa] Google, China, and the future of freedom on the global Internet
by a.dicorinto＠uniroma1.it Jan. 22, 2010

Jan. 22, 2010

Grazie per le tue preziose segnalazioni Berny-- Ho apprezzato molto il punto di vista di Rebecca, qui: "I'm concerned that in the name of protecting children, fighting terror and preserving the intellectual property and pre-Internet business models of companies with deep pockets and powerful lobbies, Western democracies are going too far in enabling censorship and surveillance, in a way that in turn empowers and justifies what the Chinese and other authoritarian governments are doing." Devo dire che alla luce di molti eventi di questi giorni non avevamo sbagliato a pubblicare su Il Sole il nostro punto di vista (sintetico e di certo non esaustivo) sui pericoli "per" Internet. Niente di nuovo per carità, molti dei temi sono stati oggetto di una pubblicazione presentata ad Atene nel 2006 dalla Diplo Foundation e trattati nelle molte interviste di David Dana Clark. Da (te)gli un'occhiata sul mio sito http://www.dicorinto.it

1 0

: The Guardian Launches World Government Data Site
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 22, 2010

Jan. 22, 2010

http://blog.programmableweb.com/2010/01/22/the-guardian-launches-world-gove…

1 0

Hillary Clinton on Internet Freedom
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 21, 2010

Jan. 21, 2010

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/21/internet_freedom Internet Freedom The prepared text of U.S. of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's speech, delivered at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. JANUARY 21, 2010 Thank you, Alberto for that kind introduction. It's a pleasure to be here at the Newseum. This institution is a monument to some of our most precious freedoms, and I'm grateful for this opportunity to discuss how those freedoms apply to the challenges of the 21st century. I'm also delighted to see so many friends and former colleagues. <http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20> This is an important speech on an important subject. But before I begin, I want to speak briefly about Haiti. During the last nine days, the people of Haiti and the people of the world have joined together to deal with a tragedy of staggering proportions. Our hemisphere has seen its share of hardship, but there are few precedents for the situation we're facing in Port-au-Prince. Communication networks have played a critical role in our response. In the hours after the quake, we worked with partners in the private sector to set up the text "HAITI" campaign so that mobile phone users in the United States could donate to relief efforts via text message. That initiative has been a showcase for the generosity of the American people and it's raised over $25 million for recovery efforts. Information networks have also played a critical role on the ground. The technology community has set up interactive maps to help identify needs and target resources. And on Monday, a seven-year-old girl and two women were pulled from the rubble of a collapsed supermarket by an American search and rescue team after they sent a text message calling for help. These examples are manifestations of a much broader phenomenon. The spread of information networks is forming a new nervous system for our planet. When something happens in Haiti or Hunan the rest of us learn about it in real time - from real people. And we can respond in real time as well. Americans eager to help in the aftermath of a disaster and the girl trapped in that supermarket are connected in ways that we weren't a generation ago. That same principle applies to almost all of humanity. As we sit here today, any of you - or any of our children - can take out tools we carry with us every day and transmit this discussion to billions across the world. In many respects, information has never been so free. There are more ways to spread more ideas to more people than at any moment in history. Even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable. During his visit to China in November, President Obama held a town hall meeting with an online component to highlight the importance of the internet. In response to a question that was sent in over the internet, he defended the right of people to freely access information, and said that the more freely information flows, the stronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information helps citizens to hold their governments accountable, generates new ideas, and encourages creativity. The United States' belief in that truth is what brings me here today. But amid this unprecedented surge in connectivity, we must also recognize that these technologies are not an unmitigated blessing. These tools are also being exploited to undermine human progress and political rights. Just as steel can be used to build hospitals or machine guns and nuclear energy can power a city or destroy it, modern information networks and the technologies they support can be harnessed for good or ill. The same networks that help organize movements for freedom also enable al Qaeda to spew hatred and incite violence against the innocent. And technologies with the potential to open up access to government and promote transparency can also be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights. In the last year, we've seen a spike in threats to the free flow of information. China, Tunisia, and Uzbekistan have stepped up their censorship of the internet. In Vietnam, access to popular social networking sites has suddenly disappeared. And last Friday in Egypt, 30 bloggers and activists were detained. One member of this group, Bassem Samir - who is thankfully no longer in prison - is with us today. So while it is clear that the spread of these technologies is transforming our world, it is still unclear how that transformation will affect the human rights and welfare of much of the world's population. SYNCING PROGRESS WITH PRINCIPLES On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress. But the United States does. We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas. And we recognize that the world's information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it. This challenge may be new, but our responsibility to help ensure the free exchange of ideas goes back to the birth of our republic. The words of the First Amendment to the Constitution are carved in 50 tons of Tennessee marble on the front of this building. And every generation of Americans has worked to protect the values etched in that stone. Franklin Roosevelt built on these ideas when he delivered his Four Freedoms speech in 1941. At the time, Americans faced a cavalcade of crises and a crisis of confidence. But the vision of a world in which all people enjoyed freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear transcended the trouble of his day. Years later, one of my heroes, Eleanor Roosevelt, worked to have these principles adopted as a cornerstone of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They have provided a lodestar to every succeeding generation - guiding us, galvanizing us, and enabling us to move forward in the face of uncertainty. As technology hurtles forward, we must think back to that legacy. We need to synchronize our technological progress with our principles. In accepting the Nobel Prize, President Obama spoke about the need to build a world in which peace rests on the "inherent rights and dignity of every individual." And in my speech on human rights at Georgetown I talked about how we must find ways to make human rights a reality. Today, we find an urgent need to protect these freedoms on the digital frontiers of the 21st century. There are many other networks in the world - some aid in the movement of people or resources; and some facilitate exchanges between individuals with the same work or interests. But the internet is a network that magnifies the power and potential of all others. And that's why we believe it's critical that its users are assured certain basic freedoms. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION First among them is the freedom of expression. This freedom is no longer defined solely by whether citizens can go into the town square and criticize their government without fear of retribution. Blogs, email, social networks, and text messages have opened up new forums for exchanging ideas - and created new targets for censorship. As I speak to you today, government censors are working furiously to erase my words from the records of history. But history itself has already condemned these tactics. Two months ago, I was in Germany to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The leaders gathered at that ceremony paid tribute to the courageous men and women on the far side of that barrier who made the case against oppression by circulating small pamphlets called samizdat. These leaflets questioned the claims and intentions of dictatorships in the Eastern Bloc, and many people paid dearly for distributing them. But their words helped pierce the concrete and concertina wire of the Iron Curtain. The Berlin Wall symbolized a world divided, and it defined an entire era. Today, remnants of that wall sit inside this museum - where they belong. And the new iconic infrastructure of our age is the internet. Instead of division, it stands for connection. But even as networks spread to nations around the globe, virtual walls are cropping up in place of visible walls. Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world's networks. They have expunged words, names and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world. Beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day. As in the dictatorships of the past, governments are targeting independent thinkers who use these tools. In the demonstrations that followed Iran's presidential elections, grainy cell phone footage of a young woman's bloody murder provided a digital indictment of the government's brutality. We've seen reports that when Iranians living overseas posted online criticism of their nation's leaders, their family members in Iran were singled out for retribution. And despite an intense campaign of government intimidation, brave citizen journalists in Iran continue using technology to show the world and their fellow citizens what is happening in their country. In speaking out on behalf of their own human rights the Iranian people have inspired the world. And their courage is redefining how technology is used to spread truth and expose injustice. All societies recognize that free expression has its limits. We do not tolerate those who incite others to violence, such as the agents of al Qaeda who are - at this moment - using the internet to promote the mass murder of innocent people. And hate speech that targets individuals on the basis of their ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation is reprehensible. It is an unfortunate fact that these issues are both growing challenges that the international community must confront together. We must also grapple with the issue of anonymous speech. Those who use the internet to recruit terrorists or distribute stolen intellectual property cannot divorce their online actions from their real world identities. But these challenges must not become an excuse for governments to systematically violate the rights and privacy of those who use the internet for peaceful political purposes. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP The freedom of expression may be the most obvious freedom to face challenges with the spread of new technologies, but it is not alone. The freedom of worship usually involves the rights of individuals to commune - or not commune - with their Creator. And that's one channel of communication that does not rely on technology. But the freedom of worship also speaks to the universal right to come together with those who share your values and vision for humanity. In our history, those gatherings often took place in churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques. Today, they may also take place on line. The internet can help bridge divides between people of different faiths. As the president said in Cairo, "freedom of religion is central to the ability of people to live together." And as we look for ways to expand dialogue, the internet holds out tremendous promise. We have already begun connecting students in the United States with young people in Muslim communities around the world to discuss global challenges. And we will continue using this tool to foster discussion between individuals in different religious communities. Some nations, however, have co-opted the internet as a tool to target and silence people of faith. Last year in Saudi Arabia, a man spent months in prison for blogging about Christianity. And a Harvard study found that the Saudi government blocked many web pages about Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam. Countries including Vietnam and China employed similar tactics to restrict access to religious information. Just as these technologies must not be used to punish peaceful political speech, they must not be used to persecute or silence religious minorities. Prayers will always travel on higher networks. But connection technologies like the internet and social networking sites should enhance individuals' ability to worship as they see fit, come together with people of their own faith, and learn more about the beliefs of others. We must work to advance the freedom of worship online just as we do in other areas of life. FREEDOM FROM WANT There are, of course, hundreds of millions of people living without the benefits of these technologies. In our world, talent is distributed universally, but opportunity is not. And we know from long experience that promoting social and economic development in countries where people lack access to knowledge, markets, capital, and opportunity can be frustrating, and sometimes futile work. In this context, the internet can serve as a great equalizer. By providing people with access to knowledge and potential markets, networks can create opportunity where none exists. Over the last year, I've seen this first hand. In Kenya, where farmers have seen their income grow by as much as 30% since they started using mobile banking technology. In Bangladesh, where more than 300,000 people have signed up to learn English on their mobile phones. And in sub-Saharan Africa, where women entrepreneurs use the internet to get access to microcredit loans and connect to global markets. These examples of progress can be replicated in the lives of the billion people at the bottom of the world's economic ladder. In many cases, the internet, mobile phones, and other connection technologies can do for economic growth what the green revolution did for agriculture. You can now generate significant yields from very modest inputs. One World Bank study found that in a typical developing country, a 10% increase in the penetration rate for mobile phones led to an almost one percent annual increase in per capita GDP. To put that in perspective, for India, that would translate into almost $10 billion a year. A connection to global information networks is like an on a ramp to modernity. In the early years of these technologies, many believed they would divide the world between haves and have-nots. That hasn't happened. There are 4 billion cell phones in use today - many are in the hands of market vendors, rickshaw drivers, and others who've historically lacked access to education and opportunity. Information networks have become a great leveler, and we should use them to help lift people out of poverty. FREEDOM FROM FEAR We have every reason to be hopeful about what people can accomplish when they leverage communication networks and connection technologies to achieve progress. But some will use global information networks for darker purposes. Violent extremists, criminal cartels, sexual predators, and authoritarian governments all seek to exploit global networks. Just as terrorists have taken advantage of the openness of our society to carry out their plots, violent extremists use the internet to radicalize and intimidate. As we work to advance these freedoms, we must also work against those who use communication networks as tools of disruption and fear. Governments and citizens must have confidence that the networks at the core of their national security and economic prosperity are safe and resilient. This is about more than petty hackers who deface websites. Our ability to bank online, use electronic commerce, and safeguard billions of dollars in intellectual property are all at stake if we cannot rely on the security of information networks. Disruptions in these systems demand a coordinated response by governments, the private sector, and the international community. We need more tools to help law enforcement agencies cooperate across jurisdictions when criminal hackers and organized crime syndicates attack networks for financial gain. The same is true when social ills such as child pornography and the exploitation of trafficked women and girls migrate online. We applaud efforts such as the Council on Europe's Convention on Cybercrime that facilitate international cooperation in prosecuting such offenses. We have taken steps as a government, and as a Department, to find diplomatic solutions to strengthen global cyber security. Over a half-dozen different Bureaus have joined together to work on this issue, and two years ago we created an office to coordinate foreign policy in cyberspace. We have worked to address this challenge at the UN and other multilateral forums and put cyber-security on the world's agenda. And President Obama has appointed a new national cyberspace policy coordinator who will help us work even more closely to ensure that our networks stay free, secure, and reliable. States, terrorists, and those who would act as their proxies must know that the United States will protect our networks. Those who disrupt the free flow of information in our society, or any other, pose a threat to our economy, our government and our civil society. Countries or individuals that engage in cyber attacks should face consequences and international condemnation. In an interconnected world, an attack on one nation's networks can be an attack on all. By reinforcing that message, we can create norms of behavior among states and encourage respect for the global networked commons. THE FREEDOM TO CONNECT The final freedom I want to address today flows from the four I've already mentioned: the freedom to connect - the idea that governments should not prevent people from connecting to the internet, to websites, or to each other. The freedom to connect is like the freedom of assembly in cyber space. It allows individuals to get online, come together, and hopefully cooperate in the name of progress. Once you're on the internet, you don't need to be a tycoon or a rock star to have a huge impact on society. The largest public response to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai was launched by a 13-year-old boy. He used social networks to organize blood drives and a massive interfaith book of condolence. In Colombia, an unemployed engineer brought together more than 12 million people in 190 cities around the world to demonstrate against the FARC terrorist movement. The protests were the largest anti-terrorist demonstrations in history. In the weeks that followed, the FARC saw more demobilizations and desertions than it had during a decade of military action. And in Mexico, a single email from a private citizen who was fed up with drug-related violence snowballed into huge demonstrations in all of the country's 32 states. In Mexico City alone, 150,000 people took to the streets in protest. The internet can help humanity push back against those who promote violence and extremism. In Iran, Moldova, and many other countries, online organizing has been a critical tool for advancing democracy, and enabling citizens to protest suspicious election results. Even in established democracies like the United States, we've seen the power of these tools to change history. Some of you may still remember the 2008 presidential election... The freedom to connect to these technologies can help transform societies, but it is also critically important to individuals. I recently heard the story of a doctor who had been trying desperately to diagnose his daughter's rare medical condition. After consulting with two dozen specialists, he still didn't have an answer. He finally identified the condition - and a cure - by using an internet search engine. That's one of the reasons why unfettered access to search engine technology is so important. APPLYING PRINCIPLES TO POLICY The principles I've outlined today will guide our approach to the issue of internet freedom and the use of these technologies. And I want to speak about how we apply them in practice. The United States is committed to devoting the diplomatic, economic and technological resources necessary to advance these freedoms. We are a nation made up of immigrants from every country and interests that span the globe. Our foreign policy is premised on the idea that no country stands to benefit more when cooperation among peoples and states increases. And no country shoulders a heavier burden when conflict drives nations apart. We are well placed to seize the opportunities that come with interconnectivity. And as the birthplace for so many of these technologies, we have a responsibility to see them used for good. To do that, we need to develop our capacity for 21st century statecraft. Realigning our policies and our priorities won't be easy. But adjusting to new technology rarely is. When the telegraph was introduced, it was a source of great anxiety for many in the diplomatic community, where the prospect of receiving daily instructions from Washington was not entirely welcome. But just as our diplomats eventually mastered the telegraph, I have supreme confidence that the world can harness the potential of these new tools as well. I'm proud that the State Department is already working in more than 40 countries to help individuals silenced by oppressive governments. We are making this issue a priority in at the United Nations as well, and included internet freedom as a component in the first resolution we introduced after returning to the UN Human Rights Council. We are also supporting the development of new tools that enable citizens to exercise their right of free expression by circumventing politically motivated censorship. We are working globally to make sure that those tools get to the people who need them, in local languages, and with the training they need to access the internet safely. The United States has been assisting in these efforts for some time. Both the American people and nations that censor the internet should understand that our government is proud to help promote internet freedom. We need to put these tools in the hands of people around the world who will use them to advance democracy and human rights, fight climate change and epidemics, build global support for President Obama's goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and encourage sustainable economic development. That's why today I'm announcing that over the next year, we will work with partners in industry, academia, and non-governmental organizations to establish a standing effort that will harness the power of connection technologies and apply them to our diplomatic goals. By relying on mobile phones, mapping applications, and other new tools, we can empower citizens and leverage our traditional diplomacy. We can also address deficiencies in the current market for innovation. Let me give you one example: let's say I want to create a mobile phone application that would allow people to rate government ministries on their responsiveness, efficiency, and level of corruption. The hardware required to make this idea work is already in the hands of billions of potential users. And the software involved would be relatively inexpensive to develop and deploy. If people took advantage of this tool, it would help us target foreign assistance spending, improve lives, and encourage foreign investment in countries with responsible governments - all good things. However, right now, mobile application developers have no financial incentive to pursue that project on their own and the State Department lacks a mechanism to make it happen. This initiative should help resolve that problem, and provide long-term dividends from modest investments in innovation. We're going to work with experts to find the best structure for this venture, and we'll need the talent and resources of technology companies and non-profit organizations in order to get the best results. So for those of you in this room, consider yourselves invited. In the meantime, there are companies, individuals, and institutions working on ideas and applications that could advance our diplomatic and development objectives. And the State Department will be launching an innovation competition to give this work an immediate boost. We'll be asking Americans to send us their best ideas for applications and technologies that help to break down language barriers, overcome illiteracy, and connect people to the services and information they need. Microsoft, for example, has already developed a prototype for a digital doctor that could help provide medical care in isolated rural communities. We want to see more ideas like that. And we'll work with the winners of the competition and provide grant to help build their ideas to scale. PRIVATE SECTOR AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY As we work together with the private sector and foreign governments to deploy the tools of 21st century statecraft, we need to remember our shared responsibility to safeguard the freedoms I've talked about today. We feel strongly that principles like information freedom aren't just good policy, they're good business for all involved. To use market terminology, a publicly-listed company in Tunisia or Vietnam that operates in an environment of censorship will always trade at a discount relative to an identical firm in a free society. If corporate decision makers don't have access to global sources of news and information, investors will have less confidence in their decisions. Countries that censor news and information must recognize that, from an economic standpoint, there is no distinction between censoring political speech and commercial speech. If businesses in your nation are denied access to either type of information, it will inevitably reduce growth. Increasingly, U.S. companies are making the issue of information freedom a greater consideration in their business decisions. I hope that their competitors and foreign governments will pay close attention to this trend. The most recent example of Google's review of its business operations in China has attracted a great deal of interest. We look to Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough investigation of the cyber intrusions that led Google to make this announcement. We also look for that investigation and its results to be transparent. The internet has already been a source of tremendous progress in China, and it's great that so many people there are now online. But countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century. The United States and China have different views on this issue. And we intend to address those differences candidly and consistently. Ultimately, this issue isn't just about information freedom; it's about what kind of world we're going to inhabit. It's about whether we live on a planet with one internet, one global community, and a common body of knowledge that unites and benefits us all. Or a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors. Information freedom supports the peace and security that provide a foundation for global progress. Historically, asymmetrical access to information is one of the leading causes of interstate conflict. When we face serious disputes or dangerous incidents, it's critical that people on both sides of the problem have access to the same set of facts and opinions. As it stands, Americans can consider information presented by foreign governments - we do not block their attempts to communicate with people in the United States. But citizens in societies that practice censorship lack exposure to outside views. In North Korea, for example, the government has tried to completely isolate its citizens from outside opinions. This lop-sided access to information increases both the likelihood of conflict and the probability that small disagreements will escalate. I hope responsible governments with an interest in global stability will work to address such imbalances. For companies, this issue is about more than claiming the moral high ground; it comes down to the trust between firms and their customers. Consumers everywhere want to have confidence that the internet companies they rely on will provide comprehensive search results and act as responsible stewards of their information. Firms that earn that confidence will prosper in a global marketplace. Those who lose it will also lose customers. I hope that refusal to support politically-motivated censorship will become a trademark characteristic of American technology companies. It should be part of our national brand. I'm confident that consumers worldwide will reward firms that respect these principles. We are reinvigorating the Global Internet Freedom Task Force as a forum for addressing threats to internet freedom around the world, and urging U.S. media companies to take a proactive role in challenging foreign governments' demands for censorship and surveillance. The private sector has a shared responsibility to help safeguard free expression. And when their business dealings threaten to undermine this freedom, they need to consider what's right, not simply the prospect of quick profits. We're also encouraged by the work that's being done through the Global Network Initiative - a voluntary effort by technology companies who are working with non-governmental organization, academic experts, and social investment funds to respond to government requests for censorship. The Initiative goes beyond mere statements of principle and establishes mechanisms to promote real accountability and transparency. As part of our commitment to support responsible private sector engagement on information freedom, the State Department will be convening a high-level meeting next month co-chaired by Under Secretaries Robert Hormats and Maria Otero to bring together firms that provide network services for talks on internet freedom. We hope to work together to address this challenge. CONCLUSION Pursuing the freedoms I've talked about today is the right thing to do. But it's also the smart thing to do. By advancing this agenda, we align our principles, our economic goals, and our strategic priorities. We need to create a world in which access to networks and information brings people closer together, and expands our definition of community. Given the magnitude of the challenges we're facing, we need people around the world to pool their knowledge and creativity to help rebuild the global economy, protect our environment, defeat violent extremism, and build a future in which every human being can realize their God-given potential. Let me close by asking you to remember the little girl who was pulled from the rubble on Monday in Port-au-Prince. She is alive, was reunited with her family, and will have the opportunity to help rebuild her nation because these networks took a voice that was buried and spread it to the world. No nation, group, or individual should stay buried in the rubble of oppression. We cannot stand by while people are separated from our human family by walls of censorship. And we cannot be silent about these issues simply because we cannot hear their cries. Let us recommit ourselves to this cause. Let us make these technologies a force for real progress the world over. And let us go forward together to champion these freedoms.

1 0

White House Mulls Plan to Broaden Access to Published Papers
by Chiara Franzoni Jan. 21, 2010

Jan. 21, 2010

Mandatory release of social science papers ³could well result in the demise of the very journals that ... advocates seek to make more freely available.² Read all th Science article in attach. Chiara

1 0

Data.gov.uk e' online
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 21, 2010

Jan. 21, 2010

http://blog.okfn.org/2010/01/21/datagovuk-goes-public-and-its-using-ckan/ jc

1 0

Audizione del Commissario-Designato Neelie Kroes
by Andrea Glorioso Jan. 20, 2010

Jan. 20, 2010

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-europarl-internet/frd/vod/player?eventCod… Audizione del Commissario-Designato Neelie Kroes (Digital Agenda - quello che era prima Information Society & Media). Ciao, Andrea

3 2

Microsoft said that it would comply with regulators.
by Carmelo Fontana Jan. 20, 2010

Jan. 20, 2010

Oggi sul NYT ho trovato la notizia che Bing (MS) ha dichiarato che rispettera' la normativa sulla protezione della privacy. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/technology/companies/20search.html?ref=bu… A prescindere da ogni considerazione sul merito, mi pare un dato interessante quanto l'opinione pubblica sia "intellettualmente assuefatta" alla non-compliance con la disciplina sulla privacy (e non solo). Tanto che la dichiarazione che MS rispettera' la legge e' una notizia... Ma ancora NYT riporta: “Google and other engines are starting to realize that consumers around the world are placing an increasing value on privacy and that can have business consequences” La regolamentazione sulla privacy sembra essere considerata un inconveniente di cui e' tuttavia necessario prendersi cura per migliorare la propria immagine... Che ne e' stato dell'importanza di rispettare la legge in quanto tale? Allora, vale la pena di chiedersi se questa situazione sia dovuta a: i) una normativa troppo severa/complicata/inapplicabile e quindi incompatibile con l'ordinario svolgimento delle attivita', oppure ii) un sistema di enforcement inefficace o comunque insufficiente. O forse a entrambe le cose. C. Microsoft Puts a Time Limit on Bing Data By KEVIN J. O’BRIEN Published: January 19, 2010 Bowing to pressure in Europe, Microsoft said Tuesday that it would comply with regulators and discard all data collected on users of its Bing search engine after six months. John Vassallo, a Microsoft vice president and associate general counsel, said the company would introduce the change over the next 18 months. The company aims to satisfy a European advisory group that had been critical of how search engines collect and retain data on individuals for advertising purposes. The concession, relatively painless for Microsoft given its tiny share of the global search market — just 3 percent — is yet another example of an American technology giant’s changing its way of doing business to suit stricter European concepts of antitrust and privacy laws. The European Commission in December dropped an antitrust case against Microsoft after the software maker took the unprecedented step of agreeing to distribute the browsers of its competitors through its Windows operating system. Unlike the agreement on browsers, which will be confined to consumers in Europe, Microsoft’s decision to discard data will affect users around the world, including in the United States. Hendrik Speck, a professor of computer science at the University of Applied Sciences in Kaiserslautern, Germany, said competitors would probably follow Microsoft’s decision because consumers were increasingly concerned about online privacy amid widespread data theft and rising use of social networks. “Google and other engines are starting to realize that consumers around the world are placing an increasing value on privacy and that can have business consequences,” Professor Speck said. Europe is the world’s largest market for Internet searches, accounting for 32 percent of online queries, according to comScore, a market research company. The Asia-Pacific region had 31 percent of searches and North America 22 percent, according a comScore report in July. Google has a 67 percent share of the global search market, according to comScore, but a more than 80 percent share in Europe, where Microsoft has just 2 percent of the market. In 2008, a panel of national privacy regulators from each European Union country asked Microsoft, Google and Yahoo to eliminate all online query data, like a computer’s unique identification number, location and the text typed into search fields, after six months. The panel, known as the Article 29 Working Group, held a hearing with representatives of the search engine companies last February, and has given each until the end of January to respond. Like other search engines, Bing had been keeping user data for more than 18 months. Last year, Microsoft said it would change its policy to make an individual’s Internet protocol, or I.P., address anonymous after six months if its major competitors did also. In its announcement Tuesday, Microsoft said it would delete I.P. addresses after six months but would retain cookies and other session identifiers — software that recognizes a returning computer — for 18 months. Once it deletes an I.P. address, Microsoft said the link between data and a specific computer became effectively untraceable. In a statement, Google gave no indication it would accept the European Union’s demands. The company’s global privacy counsel, Peter Fleischer, reaffirmed Google’s policy of making user data anonymous after nine months, saying it struck the proper balance between ensuring user privacy and refining the functioning of its leading search engine. “Data from our search queries represents a crucial arm in our battle to protect the security of our services against hacks and fraud,” Mr. Fleischer said. “It also represents a critical element allowing us to help users by innovating and improving the quality of our searches.” Yahoo, which had been deleting only a portion of individual I.P. addresses, said it would now delete the entire address after 90 days and make anonymous the log of a user’s activities. The policy would not apply to requests from law enforcement agencies that data be retained, said Amber Allman, a Yahoo spokeswoman. Mr. Vassallo, the Microsoft executive, said his company’s decision to conform to European requests on data retention was meant to avert the possibility of new regulation. “It is possible that the European Union will take a position to regulate this one way or the other,” Mr. Vassallo said. “That would need a high level of responsibility from industry.” Carmelo Fontana carmelo_fontana(a)yahoo.it

4 4