May 2013 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] "So This Is How It Begins: Guy Refuses to Stop Drone-Spying on Seattle Woman"

by Giovanni Battista Gallus

Monica mi ha preceduto, e concordo appieno con lei. Ribadirei un punto: le riprese sono lecite soltanto se la visibilità a terzi sia possibile senza l'utilizzo di espedienti particolari, che invece possono superare gli "schermi" posti a tutela della riservatezza (muri di cinta, altezza dell'immobile etc). Ora, un "guarDrone" (meravigliosa definizione di Francesco Paolo Micozzi, twittata poco fa) rientra evidentemente in tale categoria. GB Gallus 2013/5/14 avv. Monica A. Senor <senor(a)penalistiassociati.it> > Mi permetto di inserirmi, anche se non espressamente chiamata in causa. > La proprietà nel diritto civile italiano si estende teoricamente > all'infinito (usque ad sidera, usque ad inferos), salvo ciò che prevede > l'art.840 c.c. il quale stabilisce che: "Il proprietario del suolo non può > opporsi ad attività di terzi che si svolgano a tale profondità nel > sottosuolo o tale altezza nello spazio sovrastante che egli non abbia > interesse ad escluderle". > > Negli U.S.A. (da quel che leggo nel post) l'aria sembra invece essere una > "public highway". > > Ciò detto, le differenze non sono, come spesso accade, mai così nette. > In Italia, infatti, come ho scritto nella precedente mail, al concetto > stretto di proprietà si è sostituito il principio giurisprudenziale del > "visibile a terzi", ed immagino che negli U.S.A. si possa agevolmente far > ricorso al principio della "ragionevole aspettativa di privacy", introdotto > dalla sentenza Kats vs. United States del 1967 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States. > > Un caro saluto, > Monica > > Il giorno 14/mag/2013, alle ore 09:28, Fabio Chiusi <fabiochiusi(a)yahoo.it> > ha scritto: > > GB per chiarire: qual è la differenza nel criterio negli Usa e in Italia? > Mi piacerebbe spiegarlo in un piccolo post, grazie. > > F. > > Inviato da iPhone > > Il giorno 14/mag/2013, alle ore 09:13, Giovanni Battista Gallus < > g.gallus(a)tiscali.it> ha scritto: > > > > > 2013/5/14 Giovanni Battista Gallus <g.gallus(a)gmail.com> > >> Il 14/05/2013 07:04, J.C. DE MARTIN ha scritto: >> > >> > So This Is How It Begins: Guy Refuses to Stop Drone-Spying on Seattle >> > Woman >> > >> > Is this legal? >> > >> > REBECCA J. ROSEN <http://www.theatlantic.com/rebecca-rosen/>MAY 13 >> 2013, >> > 11:59 AM ET >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Back in October,Alexis wrote a piece asking what rights do we have with >> > regard to the air above our property >> > < >> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/if-i-fly-a-uav-over-m… >> >. >> > Walk onto someone's lawn and you're trespassing; fly over it in a >> > helicopter and you're in the clear -- "the air is a public highway," the >> > Supreme Court declared in 1946. But what about the in-between space? >> > Does the availability of unmanned aerial vehicles (aka drones, aka UAVs) >> > throw a wrench in the old legal understandings? >> > >> > Well, here's where the rubber meets the road for this abstract line of >> > questioning. The/Capitol Hill Seattle Blog/is reporting a complaint it >> > received from a resident in the Miller Park neighborhood >> > < >> http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2013/05/chs-x-files-capitol-hill-drone-pi… >> >. >> > She writes: >> > >> > This afternoon, a stranger set an aerial drone into flight over my >> > yard and beside my house near Miller Playfield. I initially mistook >> > its noisy buzzing for a weed-whacker on this warm spring day. After >> > several minutes, I looked out my third-story window to see a drone >> > hovering a few feet away. My husband went to talk to the man on the >> > sidewalk outside our home who was operating the drone with a remote >> > control, to ask him to not fly his drone near our home. The man >> > insisted that it is legal for him to fly an aerial drone over our >> > yard and adjacent to our windows. He noted that the drone has a >> > camera, which transmits images he viewed through a set of glasses. >> > He purported to be doing "research". We are extremely concerned, as >> > he could very easily be a criminal who plans to break into our house >> > or a peeping-tom. >> > >> > The site adds, "The woman tells us she called police but they decided >> > not to show up when the man left." >> > >> > >> >> In Italia, l'illiceità mi pare scontata nella maggior parte delle >> situazioni. >> Con tutta probabilità, integra il delitto di interferenze illecite nella >> vita privata ex art. 615 bis c.p., perché si tratta di una ripresa priva >> di qualsiasi ragione giustificativa della condotta dell'agente, ed è di >> per sé un espediente (il drone al terzo piano, appunto...) per superare >> le protezioni a schermo della riservatezza degli "spiati". >> Senza contare, ovviamente, i profili di trattamento illecito di dati >> personali... >> >> Io e Francesco Micozzi ne parleremo, se ci approvano il talk, a >> E-privacy a Firenze il 7 e l'8 di giugno. >> >> GB Gallus >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > >

May 14, 2013

Re: [nexa] WORKSHOP videosorveglianza MILANO - 24 MAGGIO 2013

by Giuseppe Futia

Gentilissimi, vi ricordiamo che al workshop parteciperanno i fellow del Centro Nexa *Mauro Alovisio*, *Alessandro Mantelero* e *Giuseppe Vaciago*. Il workshop è stato organizzato a seguito della relazione tenuta dalla dott.ssa *Chiara Fonio*, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano, durante la sessione "Sicurezza e controllo" che si è svolta in occasione del convegno intitolato: "E-government & e-democracy: prospettive ed <http://nexa.polito.it/2012-egovernment-edemocracy> implicazioni sulla privacy<http://nexa.polito.it/2012-egovernment-edemocracy>" (edizione Winter 2012 di e-privacy). Maggiori informazioni sono disponibili sul sito dell'Università Cattolica<http://milano.unicatt.it/eventi/videosorveglianza-profili-sociologici-crimi…> . E' disponibile online la locandina<http://milano.unicatt.it/events_240513-videosorveglianza-smart-city.pdf> . -- ------------------------------------------------- Giuseppe Futia Communication Manager Nexa Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino - DAUIN Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 - 10129 Torino web: http://nexa.polito.it mail: giuseppe.futia(a)polito.it tel. +39 011 090 7219 Il giorno 13 maggio 2013 20:06, Marco Baldassari <marco.baldassari(a)gmail.com > ha scritto: > WORKSHOP > MILANO - 24 MAGGIO 2013 > AULA: G.016 SALA MARIA IMMACOLATA ORA: 09.15 - 18.00 > Videosorveglianza, profili sociologici, criminologici, culturali e > giuridici nell'ottica smart city > Il workshop si propone di analizzare l’utilizzo delle telecamere nel > contesto nazionale dal punto di vista etico-sociale, criminologico, > culturale e giuridico. La giornata, in corso di accreditamento presso > l’Ordine degli Avvocati di Milano, vuole essere un momento di alto profilo > accademico incentrato su un mezzo socio-tecnico ampiamente utilizzato in > contesti urbani ma ancora empiricamente poco rilevante rispetto agli studi > internazionali. > L’obiettivo è di fornire spunti di riflessione e ricerca ad enti pubblici > e cittadini in prospettiva di grandi eventi (EXPO 2015) e nell’ottica smart > city. > > Promosso da: ITSTIME - Italian Team for Security, Terroristic Issues & > Managing Emergencies > Recapito telefonico: 02.7234.2258 > E-Mail: marco.lombardi(a)unicatt.it > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >

May 14, 2013

Berkman Center Webcast live oggi ore 18.30 - Cyber War Is Not the Answer, But What Is? Addressing Cyber Conflict While Protecting Privacy and Internet Freedom

by Giuseppe Futia

Cyber War Is Not the Answer, But What Is? Addressing Cyber Conflict While Protecting Privacy and Internet Freedom http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2013/05/edgar * Timothy H. Edgar, Visiting Fellow at the Watson Institute and Adjunct Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center.* Today, 6.30 pm Webcast live: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/webcast http://nexa.polito.it/berkman-webcast-live What does talk of cyber war mean for our liberties? The United States has a new military command for cyberspace, with the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) as its commander. At the same time, the Secretary of State has announced that the "freedom to connect" is an aspect of fundamental human rights and has criticized countries that attempt to filter the Internet. Computer networks remain insecure, as sensitive data is leaked or stolen at increasing rates. This talk will examine the legal powers available to addressing network and computer insecurity and their impact on privacy, civil liberties and other fundamental values. About Tim Timothy H. Edgar is a visiting fellow at the Watson Institute and is an Adjunct Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center. His work focuses on the unique policy challenges posed by growing global cyber conflict, particularly in reconciling security interests with fundamental values, including privacy and Internet freedom. Mr. Edgar served under President Obama as the first ever Director of Privacy and Civil Liberties for the White House National Security Staff, focusing on cybersecurity, open government and data privacy initiatives. From 2006 to 2009, he was the first Deputy for Civil Liberties for the Director of National Intelligence, reviewing new surveillance authorities, the terrorist watchlist, and other sensitive programs. He has also been counsel for the information sharing environment, which facilitates the secure sharing of terrorism-related information. Prior to his government service, Mr. Edgar was the national security and immigration counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, where he spearheaded the organization's innovative left- right coalition advocating for safeguards for a number of post-9/11 counterterrorism initiatives, including the USA Patriot Act. He frequently testified before Congress and appeared in major television, radio and print media. Publications include contributions to Patriot Debates (American Bar Association 2005), America's Battle Against Terrorism (with Nadine Strossen) (Greenhaven Press 2005) and Women Immigrants in the United States (Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars 2002), and Constitutional Governance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 25 Texas International Law Journal 207-237 (with Michael D. Nicoleau) (Spring 2000). Mr. Edgar was a law clerk to Judge Sandra Lynch, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. He has a J.D. from Harvard Law School, where he served on the Harvard Law Review, and an A.B. from Dartmouth College. Links The Obama Administration's approach: * Cybersecurity Coordinator Michael Daniel's speech <http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-02-28_final_rsa_spe…> at RSA in 2013. * Executive Order 13636, "Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity <http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-19/pdf/2013-03915.pdf>", 78 Fed. Reg. 11739 (Feb. 12, 2013). * Barack Obama,"Taking the Cyberattack Threat Seriously <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444330904577535492693044650.h…>", Wall Street Journal, July 19, 2012. A few recent "must read" press articles: * David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker, "Broad Powers Seen For Obama in Cyberstrikes <http://www.economist.com/news/business/21574478-market-software-helps-hacke…>", N.Y. Times, Feb. 3, 2013. * William Wan and Ellen Nakashima, "Report Ties Cyberattacks on U.S. Computers to Chinese Military <http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/report-ties-100-plus-cyber-attacks-on-u…>", Washington Post, Feb. 19, 2013. * "The Digital Arms Trade <http://www.economist.com/news/business/21574478-market-software-helps-hacke…>", The Economist, March 30, 2013. A useful pair of articles on the debate over "cyber war": * John Arquilla, "Cyberwar Is Already Upon Us <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/27/cyberwar_is_already_upon_us>", Foreign Policy, March/April 2012 * Thomas Rid, "Think Again: Cyberwar <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/27/cyberwar>", Foreign Policy, March/April 2012

May 14, 2013

Re: [nexa] "So This Is How It Begins: Guy Refuses to Stop Drone-Spying on Seattle Woman"

by avv. Monica A. Senor

Mi permetto di inserirmi, anche se non espressamente chiamata in causa. La proprietà nel diritto civile italiano si estende teoricamente all'infinito (usque ad sidera, usque ad inferos), salvo ciò che prevede l'art.840 c.c. il quale stabilisce che: "Il proprietario del suolo non può opporsi ad attività di terzi che si svolgano a tale profondità nel sottosuolo o tale altezza nello spazio sovrastante che egli non abbia interesse ad escluderle". Negli U.S.A. (da quel che leggo nel post) l'aria sembra invece essere una "public highway". Ciò detto, le differenze non sono, come spesso accade, mai così nette. In Italia, infatti, come ho scritto nella precedente mail, al concetto stretto di proprietà si è sostituito il principio giurisprudenziale del "visibile a terzi", ed immagino che negli U.S.A. si possa agevolmente far ricorso al principio della "ragionevole aspettativa di privacy", introdotto dalla sentenza Kats vs. United States del 1967 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States. Un caro saluto, Monica Il giorno 14/mag/2013, alle ore 09:28, Fabio Chiusi <fabiochiusi(a)yahoo.it> ha scritto: > GB per chiarire: qual è la differenza nel criterio negli Usa e in Italia? Mi piacerebbe spiegarlo in un piccolo post, grazie. > > F. > > Inviato da iPhone > > Il giorno 14/mag/2013, alle ore 09:13, Giovanni Battista Gallus <g.gallus(a)tiscali.it> ha scritto: > >> >> >> >> 2013/5/14 Giovanni Battista Gallus <g.gallus(a)gmail.com> >>> Il 14/05/2013 07:04, J.C. DE MARTIN ha scritto: >>> > >>> > So This Is How It Begins: Guy Refuses to Stop Drone-Spying on Seattle >>> > Woman >>> > >>> > Is this legal? >>> > >>> > REBECCA J. ROSEN <http://www.theatlantic.com/rebecca-rosen/>MAY 13 2013, >>> > 11:59 AM ET >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Back in October,Alexis wrote a piece asking what rights do we have with >>> > regard to the air above our property >>> > <http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/if-i-fly-a-uav-over-m…>. >>> > Walk onto someone's lawn and you're trespassing; fly over it in a >>> > helicopter and you're in the clear -- "the air is a public highway," the >>> > Supreme Court declared in 1946. But what about the in-between space? >>> > Does the availability of unmanned aerial vehicles (aka drones, aka UAVs) >>> > throw a wrench in the old legal understandings? >>> > >>> > Well, here's where the rubber meets the road for this abstract line of >>> > questioning. The/Capitol Hill Seattle Blog/is reporting a complaint it >>> > received from a resident in the Miller Park neighborhood >>> > <http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2013/05/chs-x-files-capitol-hill-drone-pi…>. >>> > She writes: >>> > >>> > This afternoon, a stranger set an aerial drone into flight over my >>> > yard and beside my house near Miller Playfield. I initially mistook >>> > its noisy buzzing for a weed-whacker on this warm spring day. After >>> > several minutes, I looked out my third-story window to see a drone >>> > hovering a few feet away. My husband went to talk to the man on the >>> > sidewalk outside our home who was operating the drone with a remote >>> > control, to ask him to not fly his drone near our home. The man >>> > insisted that it is legal for him to fly an aerial drone over our >>> > yard and adjacent to our windows. He noted that the drone has a >>> > camera, which transmits images he viewed through a set of glasses. >>> > He purported to be doing "research". We are extremely concerned, as >>> > he could very easily be a criminal who plans to break into our house >>> > or a peeping-tom. >>> > >>> > The site adds, "The woman tells us she called police but they decided >>> > not to show up when the man left." >>> > >>> > >>> >>> In Italia, l'illiceità mi pare scontata nella maggior parte delle >>> situazioni. >>> Con tutta probabilità, integra il delitto di interferenze illecite nella >>> vita privata ex art. 615 bis c.p., perché si tratta di una ripresa priva >>> di qualsiasi ragione giustificativa della condotta dell'agente, ed è di >>> per sé un espediente (il drone al terzo piano, appunto...) per superare >>> le protezioni a schermo della riservatezza degli "spiati". >>> Senza contare, ovviamente, i profili di trattamento illecito di dati >>> personali... >>> >>> Io e Francesco Micozzi ne parleremo, se ci approvano il talk, a >>> E-privacy a Firenze il 7 e l'8 di giugno. >>> >>> GB Gallus >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

May 14, 2013

Segnalazione libro: Transforming Governance Through Technology

by Diego Giorio

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139246/john-o-mcginnis/accelerating-… Saluti Diego

May 14, 2013

Re: [nexa] "So This Is How It Begins: Guy Refuses to Stop Drone-Spying on Seattle Woman"

by avv. Monica A. Senor

Concordo con GB, ma la giurisprudenza italiana più recente si è andata assestando sul concetto di "visibile ai terzi", abbandonando il più garantista contrassegno di punibilità di "proprietà e sue appartenenze". Tanto per intenderci, un balcone o un cortile o un giardino non vengono più considerati luogo di privata dimora e gli atti di vita privata che vi si svolgono non sono più protetti ai sensi del combinato disposto degli artt.612 bis e 614 c.p. se le azioni sono visibili ai terzi (ad es. dalla pubblica via). Manco a dirlo, questa interpretazione giurisprudenziale è stata sviluppata per legittimare le videoriprese delle forze di polizia (sic!). Buona giornata, Monica Il giorno 14/mag/2013, alle ore 09:13, Giovanni Battista Gallus <g.gallus(a)tiscali.it> ha scritto: > > > > 2013/5/14 Giovanni Battista Gallus <g.gallus(a)gmail.com> >> Il 14/05/2013 07:04, J.C. DE MARTIN ha scritto: >> > >> > So This Is How It Begins: Guy Refuses to Stop Drone-Spying on Seattle >> > Woman >> > >> > Is this legal? >> > >> > REBECCA J. ROSEN <http://www.theatlantic.com/rebecca-rosen/>MAY 13 2013, >> > 11:59 AM ET >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Back in October,Alexis wrote a piece asking what rights do we have with >> > regard to the air above our property >> > <http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/if-i-fly-a-uav-over-m…>. >> > Walk onto someone's lawn and you're trespassing; fly over it in a >> > helicopter and you're in the clear -- "the air is a public highway," the >> > Supreme Court declared in 1946. But what about the in-between space? >> > Does the availability of unmanned aerial vehicles (aka drones, aka UAVs) >> > throw a wrench in the old legal understandings? >> > >> > Well, here's where the rubber meets the road for this abstract line of >> > questioning. The/Capitol Hill Seattle Blog/is reporting a complaint it >> > received from a resident in the Miller Park neighborhood >> > <http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2013/05/chs-x-files-capitol-hill-drone-pi…>. >> > She writes: >> > >> > This afternoon, a stranger set an aerial drone into flight over my >> > yard and beside my house near Miller Playfield. I initially mistook >> > its noisy buzzing for a weed-whacker on this warm spring day. After >> > several minutes, I looked out my third-story window to see a drone >> > hovering a few feet away. My husband went to talk to the man on the >> > sidewalk outside our home who was operating the drone with a remote >> > control, to ask him to not fly his drone near our home. The man >> > insisted that it is legal for him to fly an aerial drone over our >> > yard and adjacent to our windows. He noted that the drone has a >> > camera, which transmits images he viewed through a set of glasses. >> > He purported to be doing "research". We are extremely concerned, as >> > he could very easily be a criminal who plans to break into our house >> > or a peeping-tom. >> > >> > The site adds, "The woman tells us she called police but they decided >> > not to show up when the man left." >> > >> > >> >> In Italia, l'illiceità mi pare scontata nella maggior parte delle >> situazioni. >> Con tutta probabilità, integra il delitto di interferenze illecite nella >> vita privata ex art. 615 bis c.p., perché si tratta di una ripresa priva >> di qualsiasi ragione giustificativa della condotta dell'agente, ed è di >> per sé un espediente (il drone al terzo piano, appunto...) per superare >> le protezioni a schermo della riservatezza degli "spiati". >> Senza contare, ovviamente, i profili di trattamento illecito di dati >> personali... >> >> Io e Francesco Micozzi ne parleremo, se ci approvano il talk, a >> E-privacy a Firenze il 7 e l'8 di giugno. >> >> GB Gallus > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

May 14, 2013

Re: [nexa] "So This Is How It Begins: Guy Refuses to Stop Drone-Spying on Seattle Woman"

by Fabio Chiusi

GB per chiarire: qual è la differenza nel criterio negli Usa e in Italia? Mi piacerebbe spiegarlo in un piccolo post, grazie. F. Inviato da iPhone Il giorno 14/mag/2013, alle ore 09:13, Giovanni Battista Gallus <g.gallus(a)tiscali.it> ha scritto: > > > > 2013/5/14 Giovanni Battista Gallus <g.gallus(a)gmail.com> >> Il 14/05/2013 07:04, J.C. DE MARTIN ha scritto: >> > >> > So This Is How It Begins: Guy Refuses to Stop Drone-Spying on Seattle >> > Woman >> > >> > Is this legal? >> > >> > REBECCA J. ROSEN <http://www.theatlantic.com/rebecca-rosen/>MAY 13 2013, >> > 11:59 AM ET >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Back in October,Alexis wrote a piece asking what rights do we have with >> > regard to the air above our property >> > <http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/if-i-fly-a-uav-over-m…>. >> > Walk onto someone's lawn and you're trespassing; fly over it in a >> > helicopter and you're in the clear -- "the air is a public highway," the >> > Supreme Court declared in 1946. But what about the in-between space? >> > Does the availability of unmanned aerial vehicles (aka drones, aka UAVs) >> > throw a wrench in the old legal understandings? >> > >> > Well, here's where the rubber meets the road for this abstract line of >> > questioning. The/Capitol Hill Seattle Blog/is reporting a complaint it >> > received from a resident in the Miller Park neighborhood >> > <http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2013/05/chs-x-files-capitol-hill-drone-pi…>. >> > She writes: >> > >> > This afternoon, a stranger set an aerial drone into flight over my >> > yard and beside my house near Miller Playfield. I initially mistook >> > its noisy buzzing for a weed-whacker on this warm spring day. After >> > several minutes, I looked out my third-story window to see a drone >> > hovering a few feet away. My husband went to talk to the man on the >> > sidewalk outside our home who was operating the drone with a remote >> > control, to ask him to not fly his drone near our home. The man >> > insisted that it is legal for him to fly an aerial drone over our >> > yard and adjacent to our windows. He noted that the drone has a >> > camera, which transmits images he viewed through a set of glasses. >> > He purported to be doing "research". We are extremely concerned, as >> > he could very easily be a criminal who plans to break into our house >> > or a peeping-tom. >> > >> > The site adds, "The woman tells us she called police but they decided >> > not to show up when the man left." >> > >> > >> >> In Italia, l'illiceità mi pare scontata nella maggior parte delle >> situazioni. >> Con tutta probabilità, integra il delitto di interferenze illecite nella >> vita privata ex art. 615 bis c.p., perché si tratta di una ripresa priva >> di qualsiasi ragione giustificativa della condotta dell'agente, ed è di >> per sé un espediente (il drone al terzo piano, appunto...) per superare >> le protezioni a schermo della riservatezza degli "spiati". >> Senza contare, ovviamente, i profili di trattamento illecito di dati >> personali... >> >> Io e Francesco Micozzi ne parleremo, se ci approvano il talk, a >> E-privacy a Firenze il 7 e l'8 di giugno. >> >> GB Gallus > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

May 14, 2013

Re: [nexa] "So This Is How It Begins: Guy Refuses to Stop Drone-Spying on Seattle Woman"

by Giovanni Battista Gallus

2013/5/14 Giovanni Battista Gallus <g.gallus(a)gmail.com> > Il 14/05/2013 07:04, J.C. DE MARTIN ha scritto: > > > > So This Is How It Begins: Guy Refuses to Stop Drone-Spying on Seattle > > Woman > > > > Is this legal? > > > > REBECCA J. ROSEN <http://www.theatlantic.com/rebecca-rosen/>MAY 13 2013, > > 11:59 AM ET > > > > > > > > > > > > Back in October,Alexis wrote a piece asking what rights do we have with > > regard to the air above our property > > < > http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/if-i-fly-a-uav-over-m… > >. > > Walk onto someone's lawn and you're trespassing; fly over it in a > > helicopter and you're in the clear -- "the air is a public highway," the > > Supreme Court declared in 1946. But what about the in-between space? > > Does the availability of unmanned aerial vehicles (aka drones, aka UAVs) > > throw a wrench in the old legal understandings? > > > > Well, here's where the rubber meets the road for this abstract line of > > questioning. The/Capitol Hill Seattle Blog/is reporting a complaint it > > received from a resident in the Miller Park neighborhood > > < > http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2013/05/chs-x-files-capitol-hill-drone-pi… > >. > > She writes: > > > > This afternoon, a stranger set an aerial drone into flight over my > > yard and beside my house near Miller Playfield. I initially mistook > > its noisy buzzing for a weed-whacker on this warm spring day. After > > several minutes, I looked out my third-story window to see a drone > > hovering a few feet away. My husband went to talk to the man on the > > sidewalk outside our home who was operating the drone with a remote > > control, to ask him to not fly his drone near our home. The man > > insisted that it is legal for him to fly an aerial drone over our > > yard and adjacent to our windows. He noted that the drone has a > > camera, which transmits images he viewed through a set of glasses. > > He purported to be doing "research". We are extremely concerned, as > > he could very easily be a criminal who plans to break into our house > > or a peeping-tom. > > > > The site adds, "The woman tells us she called police but they decided > > not to show up when the man left." > > > > > > In Italia, l'illiceità mi pare scontata nella maggior parte delle > situazioni. > Con tutta probabilità, integra il delitto di interferenze illecite nella > vita privata ex art. 615 bis c.p., perché si tratta di una ripresa priva > di qualsiasi ragione giustificativa della condotta dell'agente, ed è di > per sé un espediente (il drone al terzo piano, appunto...) per superare > le protezioni a schermo della riservatezza degli "spiati". > Senza contare, ovviamente, i profili di trattamento illecito di dati > personali... > > Io e Francesco Micozzi ne parleremo, se ci approvano il talk, a > E-privacy a Firenze il 7 e l'8 di giugno. > > GB Gallus > > > >

May 14, 2013

"So This Is How It Begins: Guy Refuses to Stop Drone-Spying on Seattle Woman"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

So This Is How It Begins: Guy Refuses to Stop Drone-Spying on Seattle Woman Is this legal? REBECCA J. ROSEN <http://www.theatlantic.com/rebecca-rosen/>MAY 13 2013, 11:59 AM ET Back in October,Alexis wrote a piece asking what rights do we have with regard to the air above our property <http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/if-i-fly-a-uav-over-m…>. Walk onto someone's lawn and you're trespassing; fly over it in a helicopter and you're in the clear -- "the air is a public highway," the Supreme Court declared in 1946. But what about the in-between space? Does the availability of unmanned aerial vehicles (aka drones, aka UAVs) throw a wrench in the old legal understandings? Well, here's where the rubber meets the road for this abstract line of questioning. The/Capitol Hill Seattle Blog/is reporting a complaint it received from a resident in the Miller Park neighborhood <http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2013/05/chs-x-files-capitol-hill-drone-pi…>. She writes: This afternoon, a stranger set an aerial drone into flight over my yard and beside my house near Miller Playfield. I initially mistook its noisy buzzing for a weed-whacker on this warm spring day. After several minutes, I looked out my third-story window to see a drone hovering a few feet away. My husband went to talk to the man on the sidewalk outside our home who was operating the drone with a remote control, to ask him to not fly his drone near our home. The man insisted that it is legal for him to fly an aerial drone over our yard and adjacent to our windows. He noted that the drone has a camera, which transmits images he viewed through a set of glasses. He purported to be doing "research". We are extremely concerned, as he could very easily be a criminal who plans to break into our house or a peeping-tom. The site adds, "The woman tells us she called police but they decided not to show up when the man left." [...] Continua qui: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/so-this-is-how-it-beg…

May 14, 2013

Pisa_tavola rotonda su Open Data

by Alessandro Mantelero

Segnalo per chi fosse interessato la seguente iniziativa: OPEN DATA Apertura del patrimonio informativo pubblico e opportunità di business 15 maggio 2013 ore 14,30-17,30 Aula Magna Dipartimento di Economia e Management Università di Pisa Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza Dipartimento di Economia e Management - Prof. Monica Palmirani (Università di Bologna) Open Data: inquadramento normativo - Avv. Chiara Pasquinelli (IIT CNR-Università di Pisa) Open Data e tutela della proprietà intellettuale - Dott. Federico Morando (Centro Nexa Internet & Society - lead Creative Commons Italia) Le licenze per i dati aperti: stato dell’arte e prospettive - Avv. Alessandro Mantelero (Politecnico di Torino - Centro Nexa Internet & Society) Open Data, Data Protection e cittadinanza - Dott. Lorenzo Benussi (consulente per la politica digitale del Ministro dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca - Centro Nexa Internet & Society) Scenari a livello governativo in materia di Open Data - Coordina e conclude: Prof. Dianora Poletti (Università di Pisa) La locandina è disponibile al seguente indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/nexacenterfiles/open-data-universita-pisa.pdf -- Avv. Alessandro Mantelero, PhD Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet and Society Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero http://it.linkedin.com/pub/alessandro-mantelero/29/723/a48 https://twitter.com/mantelero Department of Management and Production Engineering Politecnico di Torino Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 10129 Torino - Italy in libertate fortitudo

May 13, 2013