May 2014 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

'Agenda nazionale per la valorizzazione del patrimonio informativo pubblico (PDF)
by Mauro Alovisio May 13, 2014

May 13, 2014

gent.me/mi segnalo interessante news dal sito dell'agenzia per l'Italia Digitale http://www.agid.gov.it/notizie/patrimonio-informativo-pubblico-line-lagenda… E' disponibile l'Agenda nazionale per la valorizzazione del patrimonio informativo pubblico (PDF)<http://www.agid.gov.it/sites/default/files/documenti_indirizzo/agendanazion…> per l'anno 2014 predisposta dall'Agenzia per l'Italia Digitale. L'Agenda 2014 affronta in maniera complessiva la tematica di valorizzazione dei dati della pubblica amministrazione, contemplando azioni riferibili alle basi di dati di interesse nazionale, alla fruibilità dei dati nell'ambito della PA attraverso il sistema delle convenzioni e ampliando l'area di interesse sul tema degli open data. Viene inoltre introdotta una prima attenzione alla domanda di dati aperti, in linea con i principi contemplati dalla norma di riferimento, volti appunto ad orientare le scelte della pubblica amministrazione verso la produzione e il rilascio di dati di tipo aperto. In ottemperanza a quanto previsto dall'articolo 52 del Codice dell'Amministrazione Digitale l'Agenzia ha condiviso con la Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri i contenuti dell'Agenda che va così a delineare la strategia nazionale per il 2014 ai fini della valorizzazione del patrimonio informativo pubblico, attraverso la concreta attuazione degli obiettivi fissati dall'Agenda stessa. Entro maggio 2014 saranno pubblicate le Linee guida 2014 con le quali sono fornite le opportune indicazioni operative per l'attuazione dell'Agenda. Le linee guida saranno rese disponibili in consultazione pubblica prima della loro adozione definitiva da parte dell'Agenzia. A fine 2014 sarà dato avvio alle attività finalizzate alla predisposizione del Rapporto annuale con il quale viene monitorato, come previsto dalla norma, lo stato di attuazione del processo di valorizzazione definito attraverso l'Agenda. A tal fine, nei mesi immediatamente precedenti, anche attraverso consultazione pubblica e interazione diretta con gli stakeholders, saranno definiti i necessari indicatori e i relativi criteri di rilevamento. - See more at: http://www.agid.gov.it/notizie/patrimonio-informativo-pubblico-line-lagenda… cordiali saluti Mauro Alovisio

1 0

Comcast is destroying the principle that makes a competitive internet possible - Vox
by Luca Cicchelli May 12, 2014

May 12, 2014

Segnalo l’articolo su quanto sta avvenendo in US con l’abuso di posizione dominante di Comcast…..ognuno targa le proprie considerazioni su quanto sta avvenendo in Italia. -- Luca http://www.vox.com/2014/5/6/5678080/voxsplaining-telecom Comcast is destroying the principle that makes a competitive internet possible Conservatives love the internet. They don't just love using it, they also love to point to it as an example of the power of free markets. And they're right. The internet has had a remarkable 20-year run of rapid innovation with minimal government regulation. That was possible because the internet has a different structure than other communications networks. Most networks, like the 20th century telephone market, are natural monopolies requiring close government supervision. But the internet is organized in a way that allows markets, rather than monopolists or government regulators, to set prices. That structure has been remarkably durable, but it's not indestructible. And unfortunately, it's now in danger. In recent years, Comcast has waged a campaign to change the internet's structure to make it more like the monopolistic telephone network that came before it, making Comcast more money in the process. Conservatives are naturally and properly skeptical of government regulation. But this is a case where the question isn't whether to regulate, but what kind of regulation is preferable. If federal regulators don't step in now to preserve the structures that make internet competition possible, they will be forced to step in later to prevent the largest ISPs from abusing their growing monopoly power. The old, busted way to run a network For most of the 20th Century, the telephone market looked like this: The telephone industry was dominated by a single monopoly called AT&T. Everyone paid AT&T a flat subscription for a telephone. Long-distance calls came with an extra per-minute fee. If you want to build a network that reaches everyone in America and provides a consistent quality of service, this isn't a bad way to do it. But it has some obvious problems that practically require government oversight. The simple danger is that monopolies tend to charge high prices. Another problem is that monopolies are often bad for innovation. If you had an idea for a new telecommunications product in 1950, you needed AT&T's permission to try it. And AT&T generally refused to allow third-party devices to be attached to its network. Regulators had to step in frequently to force AT&T to be more accommodating toward third-party innovators. In 1974, the Ford Administration began a lawsuit that led to AT&T's breakup a decade later. The result looked like this: AT&T was forced to spin off its local telephone business into seven independent companies that were dubbed the "Baby Bells." The economics of long-distance calling became a lot more complicated. Before, making a long-distance call just involved one company, AT&T. Now it involved three companies: a Baby Bell at each end and a long-distance company in the middle. AT&T was one option for long-distance service, but it competed against rivals such as Sprint or MCI. (Baby Bells are outside the grey circle, long-distance companies are inside of it.) The long distance market is based on a sender-pays principle, which I have illustrated with green arrows. The customer who dials the phone pays for the call. The payment goes to the long-distance company of the customer's choice. The long-distance company, in turn, makes a payment to the local phone company that operates the other end of the connection. The terminating monopoly problem This restructuring of the telephone market helped to create a competitive market for long-distance service. But there's still a serious problem, known in telecom jargon as a "terminating access monopoly." Suppose an Ameritech customer in Detroit wants to call her sister, a BellSouth customer in Atlanta. She has several options for long-distance service. AT&T, MCI, and Sprint are all competing for her business. But no matter which long-distance company she chooses, that long-distance provider is ultimately going to need to connect to BellSouth to complete the call. That means BellSouth always gets to collect a fee for the call. Thanks to competition among transit providers, prices have fallen by a factor of 1000 In a revealing post on its public policy blog, the modern AT&T (which has reunited with four of its seven former subsidiaries) described what happened as a result: "In the late ‘90s, CLECs began to tariff ever-increasing rates for terminating access services." In plain English, certain phone companies began demanding higher and higher fees to complete incoming calls, a problem that ultimately forced the FCC to regulate the market more strictly. Unfortunately, while all-knowing perfectly benevolent regulators could make this work, in practice regulators tend to be neither all-knowing nor benevolent. Special interest can "capture" regulatory agencies and bend rules to their own ends, and even when acting in perfect good faith regulators simply may make the wrong call. Even worse, a regulated system tends to discourage innovation since any company who'd be disadvantaged by change can use the regulatory process to block it. At the same time, regulation is the worst solution to the terminating monopoly problem except for all the alternatives. The sender-pays rule creates terminating monopolies. Absent price regulation, that will necessarily lead to exorbitant prices. How the internet solved the terminating monopoly problem The solution was simple: get rid of the sender-pays rule. Internet billing is based on a different principle, known as "bill and keep." It works like this: Note: Links are shown for illustration purposes only. I don't know if companies really have the specific transit agreements depicted here. In the bill-and-keep internet, companies at each "end" of a connection bill their own customers — whether that customer is a big web company like Google, or a an average household. Neither end pays the other for interconnection. Instead, the Internet Service Provider (ISP) at each end is responsible for ensuring that its traffic can reach the ISP at the other end. This is part of the service that the ISP sells to its customers, a guarantee that traffic will get where you want it to go. ISP's typically do this by hiring a third party to provide "transit," the service of carrying data from one network to another. Transit providers often swap traffic with one another without money changing hands. The transit providers are the ones inside the grey circle in the middle of the figure. "Every day I have someone come up to me and say 'Comcast came up to us asking for money'" The terminating monopoly problem occurs when a company at the end of a network not only charges its own customers for their connection, but charges companies in the middle of the network an extra premium to be able to reach its customers. In a bill-and-keep regime, the money always flows in the other direction — from customers to ISPs to transit companies. And because the market for transit is highly competitive, there's no need for government regulation of transit fees. It's an ordinary market where if a transit company tries to charge too much, ISPs will switch to another company. Bill and keep has worked well. Thanks to competition among transit providers, average transit prices have fallen by a factor of 1000 since 1998: Typical market transit rates, based on data collected by DrPeering.com. People who love the internet's lack of regulation have bill-and-keep to thank. By solving the terminating monopoly problem, bill-and-keep makes possible a robust and competitive market for internet connectivity that requires minimal government oversight. Comcast is trying to break bill-and-keep Over the last four years, Comcast has engaged in a campaign to undermine the bill-and-keep system. The effort first came to public attention in 2010. Level 3 had just signed a contract to host Netflix content, and Level 3 asked Comcast to upgrade a connection between them to accommodate the higher traffic. Level 3 expected this to be an easy sell since Comcast had previously paid Level 3 for transit service. But instead, Comcast demanded that Level 3 pay it for the costs of the upgrade. Comcast has engaged in a campaign to undermine the bill-and-keep system Since then, Comcast has evidently begun demanding that other transit and content providers pay it for faster connections too. "Every day I have someone come up to me and say 'Comcast came up to us asking for money,'" says Tim Wu, the Columbia law professor who coined the term "network neutrality." Comcast itself has been silent on the details of these agreements, but the company's defenders take it for granted that transit providers should be paying Comcast, not the other way around. For example, Dan Rayburn has argued that "the reason for the poor [Netflix] quality streaming is that Cogent refuses to pay Comcast to add more capacity." This, of course, is begging the question. Why should Cogent pay Comcast to deliver content that Comcast customers requested in the first place? In a letter to the FCC defending its handling of the dispute with Level 3, Comcast provides an answer. Comcast argued that the two companies' "traffic ratio" — the ratio between the traffic Comcast was sending Level 3 and the traffic Level 3 was sending Comcast — had been thrown out of balance by the growth of Netflix streaming. Comcast portrayed it as a standard industry practice for the network that sends a disproportionate amount of traffic to pay the receiving network for the costs of carrying the traffic. But that's not how the internet works. Consumer-facing ISPs have always received more traffic than they send out. Comcast itself sells "unbalanced" internet service to its customers, with download speeds much faster than upload speeds. That makes it inevitable that ISPs like Comcast will receive more data than they send. But in the bill-and-keep model, ISPs generally pay transit providers for connectivity, regardless of traffic ratios. The traffic ratio rule Comcast advocated in 2010 was a variation on the sender-pays rule. It will create the same kind of terminating monopoly problem that plagued the long distance telephone market. But that might not seem like a bad thing if you own the monopoly. The importance of market share Two factors tend to make the bill-and-keep model stable. One is competition in the consumer ISP market. If customers can easily switch between broadband providers, then it would be foolish for a broadband provider to allow network quality to degrade as a way to force content companies to the bargaining table. A merged cable giant would have even more leverage to demand monopoly rents The second factor is ISP size. When ISPs are relatively small, payments naturally flow from the edges of the network to the middle because small edge networks need large transit networks to reach the rest of the internet. Imagine, for example, if the Vermont Telephone Company, a tiny telecom company that recently started offering ultra-fast internet services, tried to emulate Comcast. Suppose it began complaining that Netflix was sending it too much traffic and demanding that its transit providers start paying it for the costs of delivering Netflix content to its subscribers. Netflix and the big transit companies that provide it with connectivity would laugh at this kind of demand. It would be obvious to everyone that VTel needs transit service more than transit providers need VTel. But when an ISP's market share gets large enough, the calculus changes. Comcast has 80 times as many subscribers as Vermont has households. So when Comcast demands payment to deliver content to its own customers, Netflix and its transit suppliers can't afford to laugh it off. The potential costs to Netflix's bottom line are too large. This provides a clear argument against allowing the Comcast/Time Warner merger. Defenders of the merger have argued that it won't reduce competition because Comcast and Time Warner don't serve the same customers. That's true, but it ignores how the merger would affect the interconnection market. A merged cable giant would have even more leverage to demand monopoly rents from companies across the internet. A century ago, the Wilson administration decided not to press its antitrust case against AT&T, allowing the firm to continue the acquisition spree that made it a monopoly. In retrospect, that decision looks like a mistake. Wilson's decision not to intervene in the market led to a telephone monopoly, which in turn led to 70 years of regulation and a messy, 10-year antitrust case. Obviously, the combination of Comcast and Time Warner would not dominate the internet the way AT&T dominated the telephone industry. But recent events suggest that Comcast is already large enough to threaten competition on the internet. Preventing the company from getting even larger might avoid the need for a lot more regulation in the years ahead. Comcast declined to comment for this story. Read more: Five ISPs are slowing internet access to demand more money. Congress votes to keep itself clueless on tech. The new battle for the future of the internet. FCC chair denies he's killing net neutrality.

1 0

la regolamentazione delle professioni del web
by Simone Aliprandi May 12, 2014

May 12, 2014

Nessuno standard per i professionisti web? Quello della regolamentazione delle professioni del web è un tema molto dibattutto in queste settimane. Ne ho parlato con Roberto Scano di IWA Italy su MySolution Post: http://www.mysolutionpost.it/blogs/it-law/piana/2014/05/professionisti-web-… Un cordiale saluto. -- Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org | http://www.array.eu

1 0

Fwd: TOP-IX Technical Meeting - 27 Maggio 2014
by Luca Cicchelli May 12, 2014

May 12, 2014

Scusandomi per eventuali invii multipli, inoltro in lista. Tra gli altri, anche un intervento a cura dello studio Valli (AIIP) sul quadro giuridico per gli ISP. -- Luca > > > TOP-IX Torino Piemonte Internet Exchange > > > > > > NEWS > Italian version > 5 MAGGIO 2014 > > TOP-IX TECHNICAL MEETING > Martedì 27 maggio 2014 si terrà il prossimo TOP-IX Technical Meeting, il consueto appuntamento organizzato da TOP-IX di ritrovo con tutti i Consorziati e gli amici di TOP-IX per confrontarsi e discutere di reti e tecnologia. > > L’evento si terrà presso il Temporary Museum, in Corso Verona 15 a Torino, a partire dalle ore 10:00am. > Programma (provvisorio) della giornata: > 10:30 Registrazione e welcome coffee > 11:00 Stato delle interconnesioni in Italia > 11:30 Quadro giuridico per gli ISPs > 12:30 IPV6 vs IPV4 > 13:00 Intervento a cura dello sponsor > > Vi ricordiamo che la partecipazione è gratuita, previa registrazione su Eventbrite. > > Aggiornamenti sul programma della giornata e i dettagli degli interventi su www.top-ix.org e sulla pagina di Eventbrite. > > English version > MAY 5th, 2014 > > > TOP-IX TECHNICAL MEETING > > Next May 27th TOP-IX Technical Meeting will be held. It’s the first of two usual meetings organized by TOP-IX to share experiences about networking and technology. > Venue will be Temporary Museum, Corso Verona 15 in Torino, starting at 10:00 am. > > Draft agenda: > 10:30 Registration & welcome coffee > 11:00 State of the art in IP interconnections in Italy > 11:30 Legal Framework for ISPs > 12:30 IPV6 vs IPV4 > 13:00 Sponsored talk > > The program updates and more details on www.top-ix and on Eventbrite page. > To attend please register on Eventbrite. > > - - - - - - - > > Evento sponsorizzato da / Sponsored by > > > Ci scusiamo per eventuali duplicati / Our apologies for duplicate mails > Seguici anche su Twitter @top_ix | Facebook topixconsortium | Sito web Top-Ix > > Vi ricordiamo che, ai sensi del Codice della Privacy, D.Lgs 196/03, potete opporVi in qualsiasi momento, anche oralmente, al trattamento in oggetto, mediante l'invio di un'email al seguente indirizzo: staff(a)top-ix.org, ovvero tramite un diniego del consenso telefonando al numero: 011/8390191. Potrete inoltre esercitare tutti i diritti di cui l'art.7 del D.Lgs 196/03 (tra cui i diritti di accesso, rettifica, aggiornamneto e di cancellazione). Vogliamo inoltre informarVi, per una maggiore trasparenza, che sul nostro sito internet: www.top-ix.org potrete trovare l'informativa sulla privacy comprensiva dei diritti di cui all'art.7 D.Lgs 196/03, completa in tutte le sue parti. > > Indirizzo postale di riferimento: staff(a)top-ix.org > Copyright © 2013 TOP-IX, All rights reserved. > unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences > > > > > > > > This email was sent to luca.cicchelli(a)top-ix.org > why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences > TOP-IX · Via Bogino 9 · Torino, Piemonte 10123 · Italy > > >

1 0

AGCOM rimuove contenuti dal sito ufficiale dei Beni Culturali della Regione Marche. Presente anche il link al Ministero dei Beni Culturali.
by Fulvio Sarzana May 9, 2014

May 9, 2014

Questo video è privato. La scritta appare in bella mostra sulla prima pagina del <http://www.beniculturali.marche.it/> sito ufficiale dei beni culturali della Regione Marche. Cosa è successo? Agcom ha imposto alla Regione Marche la cancellazione di un video contenente le immagini delle bellezze architettoniche e culturali della Regione, che ha dato i natali, fra gli altri, a Giacomo Leopardi. Nella pagina che, ovviamente, non aveva nessuno scopo di lucro, appare appunto la ferita della mutilazione del sito, accanto al link del ministero dei Beni Culturali e della Fondazione Cinema. Che siano questi i link pirati a cui fa riferimento Agcom nella sua immaginifica e personale lotta alla pirateria? E chissà cosa ne pensa il ministro dei beni culturali Dario Franceschini, tra i più entusiasti fan del Regolamento appena varato, che è reduce da un audizione il 7 maggio alla Commissione cultura della Camera <http://webtv.camera.it/archivio?id=6342&position=0%20..> sul diritto dautore Il ministro ha trattato in quella sede il tema del diritto dautore come se ci trovassimo nell Italia dell800, con annesse palandrane svolazzanti di Verdi e Manzoni, i quali furono, come è noto, tra i fondatori della sempiterna ed onnipresente Siae. La lotta alla pirateria dellAgcom insomma prosegue, dopo aver registrato il successo della cancellazione di un file dal sito di Repubblica. La testata sarebbe stata poi raggiunta da una richiesta consistente di risarcimento basata proprio sullo spontaneo adempimento conseguente <http://computerlaw.wordpress.com/2014/05/03/siamotuttipirati-anche-repubbli ca-it-segnalata-ad-agcom-per-contenuti-pirata/> allimposizione di Agcom La prima cosa che naturalmente verrebbe da consigliare ai malcapitati raggiunti dal consiglio-ordine di adempimento dellAgcom sarebbe di non cancellare i video e le foto, dal momento che: Continua su http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2014/05/09/agcom-cancella-un-video-da-un-sit o-della-regione-marche/978680/ _____ <http://www.avast.com/> http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png Questa e-mail è priva di virus e malware perché è attiva la protezione avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com/> . --- Questa e-mail è priva di virus e malware perché è attiva la protezione avast! Antivirus. http://www.avast.com

1 0

IP and Competition Seminar (Università Bocconi): Dulong de Rosnay
by Aura Bertoni May 7, 2014

May 7, 2014

Ho il piacere segnalare alla lista Nexa il prossimo appuntamento della IP and Competition Seminar Series organizzata dal Dipartimento di Studi Giuridici "Angelo Sraffa" insieme al Centro ASK (Art, Science and Knowledge). The Cultural Commons 12 Maggio 2014, ore 18.00 - 20.00 Stanza 1.C3-01, I piano, Via Roentgen 1 Milano Saluti introduttivi Maria Lillà Montagnani, Università Bocconi - Centro ASK Guest Speaker Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay, CNRS Institute for Communication Sciences - London School of Economics Per informazioni: Dipartimento di Studi Giuridici tel. +39 02 5836.5221/5231 segr.ius(a)unibocconi.it ASK - Art, Science and Knowledge tel. +39 02 5836.3710 ask(a)unibocconi.it Aura Bertoni Bocconi University Department of Legal Studies Via Roentgen 1 20136 Milan Italy +39 02 5836 5581 --- Dai il tuo 5x1000 alla Bocconi: aiuta a studiare chi merita, anche quando non puo'. CF 80024610158. www.unibocconi.it/5x1000 Please note that the above message is addressed only to individuals filing Italian income tax returns. ---

1 0

"Exclusive: Emails reveal close Google relationship with NSA"
by J.C. DE MARTIN May 6, 2014

May 6, 2014

*Exclusive: Emails reveal close Google relationship with NSA** * /National Security Agency head and Internet giant's executives have coordinated through high-level policy discussions/ May 6, 2014 5:00AM ET by Jason Leopold @JasonLeopold Email exchanges between National Security Agency Director Gen. Keith Alexander and Google executives Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt suggest a far cozier working relationship between some tech firms and the U.S. government than was implied by Silicon Valley brass after last year's revelations about NSA spying. Disclosures by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden about the agency's vast capability for spying on Americans' electronic communications prompted a number of tech executives whose firms cooperated with the government to insist they had done so only when compelled by a court of law. But Al Jazeera has obtained two sets of email communications dating from a year before Snowden became a household name that suggest not all cooperation was under pressure. On the morning of June 28, 2012, an email from Alexander invited Schmidt to attend a four-hour-long "classified threat briefing" on Aug. 8 at a "secure facility in proximity to the San Jose, CA airport." [...] Continua qui: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/6/nsa-chief-google.html

2 1

"Sweep Day": il Garante privacy controllerà le app per smartphone e tablet
by Mauro Alovisio May 6, 2014

May 6, 2014

gent.me/mi segnalo dal sito del Garante interessante iniziativa a presto Mauro Alovisio *http://www.garanteprivacy.it/web/guest/home/docweb/-/docweb-display/docweb/3098433 <http://www.garanteprivacy.it/web/guest/home/docweb/-/docweb-display/docweb/…>* *Arriva lo "Sweep Day": il Garante privacy controllerà le app per smartphone e tablet Verranno esaminate le applicazioni mediche scaricabili su smartphone e tablet* Il Garante per la privacy avvierà un'indagine su alcune app scaricabili su smartphone e tablet per verificare il grado di trasparenza sull'uso delle informazioni degli utenti italiani, le autorizzazioni richieste loro per scaricare le applicazioni e il rispetto della normativa italiana sulla protezione dati. L'azione del Garante si inserisce nell'ambito del "Privacy Sweep 2014", un'iniziativa promossa dal Global Privacy Enforcement Network (GPEN), la rete internazionale nata per rafforzare la cooperazione tra le Autorità della privacy di diversi Paesi, di cui il Garante italiano fa parte. *"Le applicazioni mobili sono sempre più diffuse *- sottolinea Antonello Soro, Presidente dell'Autorità italiana.* "Chi possiede uno smartphone normalmente ha attive in media 40 applicazioni che offrono servizi di vario genere, ma che sono in grado di raccogliere grandi quantità di dati personali, per esempio accedendo alla rubrica telefonica, alle foto oppure utilizzando dati di localizzazione. Spesso tutto ciò avviene senza che l'utente dia un consenso libero ed informato e questo può comportare rischi per la privacy. Occorre dunque un'adeguata definizione di garanzie e misure a tutela dei dati personali e a questo risponde l'iniziativa del GPEN"*. Le 28 Autorità che fanno parte del network effettueranno dunque uno "sweep" (letteralmente "indagine a tappeto") per esaminare alcune app e inseriranno le informazioni raccolte in un report, nel quale sono presenti indicatori che consentono di verificare caratteristiche e funzionalità delle app e la loro conformità alle diverse normative nazionali sulla privacy. L'ambito prescelto dal Garante italiano è quello delle applicazioni mediche, un settore che presenta profili molto delicati, riguardando dati sanitari, e che risulta in crescente sviluppo. Gli "sweepers" dell'Authority concentreranno dunque il loro esame su alcune app italiane e su alcune di quelle straniere individuate tra le 50 più importanti disponibili sulle varie piattaforme (Android, iOs, Windows, etc.). Gli eventuali profili di violazione della privacy rilevati saranno valutati dal Garante ai fini di possibili interventi prescrittivi o sanzionatori. Il giorno per l'effettuazione dello "sweep" sarà scelto dal Garante in una data tra il 12 e il 18 maggio, settimana individuata dal GPEN per coordinare temporalmente l'azione delle Autorità privacy. L'iniziativa assunta a livello globale servirà anche a realizzare una serie di importanti obiettivi: accrescere la consapevolezza della necessità di proteggere i dati personali; favorire il rispetto delle norme a salvaguardia degli utenti; sviluppare azioni di sensibilizzazione e formazione del pubblico sull'uso delle applicazioni mobili; promuovere iniziative globali sulla privacy. I risultati dell'indagine verranno resi noti il prossimo autunno. *Roma, 6 maggio 2014*

1 0

White House Advisors Demand Internet Bill Of Rights
by Anna Masera May 6, 2014

May 6, 2014

qualcuno in lista l'aveva visto questo? che cosa ne pensate? grazie, anna ----------------------- Three months ago President Obama put together a group to study internet privacy, the use of collected data, and other concerns to the public spawned in the light of recent spying concerns risen from the NSA. As the report neared completion, the White House posted a public consultation that the citizens of the US could go to voice their opinions on a variety of internet issues. White House counselor John Podesta has finally released that report, though many consider it inconsistent and lacking many of the major issues surrounding the problem today. For example, there is no mention of the NSA or the spying they did on Americans, nor the foreign political figures that have scorned the White House over the intrusion. That aside, advocacy groups have embraced the report, known as “Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values,” for its declaration that more needs to be done to protect people’s civil rights when it comes to large data collection in government and private sectors, using Google and Apple as some of the bigger examples. The report also pointed to the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 and how its current obsolete state needs major amendment changes to bring in into the 21st century’s digital realm. One of the calling points on the ECPA was a statute that allows authorities to openly read and assess emails more than six months old that the document considers an “archaic distinction.” The White House report did offer policies that help prevent data breaches and show what to do should a system become compromised. However reviewers claim that a policy change by Google appears to mirror the document’s privacy to non-US citizens and to students, appearing to have been all but copied and pasted from their model. Regardless of where they pulled it from, consumer groups such as the ACLU who unsuccessfully tried to sue the NSA for data breaching, praised every suggestion made. They did, however, send a warning to Washington — and the White House specifically — that “now Congress and the administration need to make this vision a reality by enacting ECPA reform without any loopholes.” The Big Data document is part of a larger whole in the investigation into the NSA’s antagonistic data collection procedures that encompasses both governmental and private concerns. Among particular offense was the “notice and consent” standard used by many large corporations such as Google which only gives a user a single chance to give permission to share data, something the panel feels gives people far too restrictive control over where their personal data goes and how it could be re-used in the future. For this reason, the panel suggest that both Congress and the White House get together and form an Internet Bill of Rights. Their voice joins with President Obama who encouraged the same two years previously. The White House panel isn’t the only group out there seeking to find out what to do with the miracle we call the internet. Firefox has launched a site called “The Web We Want” that asks the people of the world what they want most out of the internet in the future and tallies the results. According to their interactive map, privacy ranks above other such things as freedom, accessibility and user control. At present, nearly 75 million people across the globe have taken part in the survey, with the numbers rising at the top of the screen in real-time. The White House encourages the citizens of America to contact their representatives in Congress to express their feelings and concerns by offering an easy way to reach the once difficult to contact civil servant Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1235671/white-house-advisors-demand-internet-bill-… AVVISO: Questo messaggio ed i suoi eventuali allegati sono rivolti esclusivamente ai destinatari e possono contenere informazioni riservate. Qualsiasi utilizzo, diffusione o riproduzione senza autorizzazione è proibita. Qualora vi fosse pervenuto questo messaggio per errore, esso va cancellato immediatamente con preghiera di avvisare il mittente. Grazie.

3 2

Fwd: [IP] evel 3 accuses five unnamed US ISPs of abusing their market power in peering
by J.C. DE MARTIN May 5, 2014

May 5, 2014

(Sent from my tiny-screen wireless device; excuse brevity or typos) Begin forwarded message: > From: Dave Farber <dave(a)farber.net> > Date: 05 maggio 2014 21:10:56 CEST > To: "ip" <ip(a)listbox.com> > Subject: [IP] evel 3 accuses five unnamed US ISPs of abusing their market power in peering > Reply-To: dave(a)farber.net > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Dewayne Hendricks" <dewayne(a)warpspeed.com> > Date: May 5, 2014 2:02 PM > Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Level 3 accuses five unnamed US ISPs of abusing their market power in peering > To: "Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net" <dewayne-net(a)warpspeed.com> > Cc: > > Level 3 accuses five unnamed US ISPs of abusing their market power in peering > By Stacey Higginbotham > May 5 2014 > <http://gigaom.com/2014/05/05/level-3-accuses-five-unnamed-us-isps-of-abusin…> > > SUMMARY: > Level 3 is accusing 5 U.S. ISPs of using their market power to limit the amount of traffic that can get on their networks, thus degrading the consumer broadband experience in hopes of charging content providers money. > > Level 3 Communications, a company that provides bandwidth for a wide variety of customers trying to get content from point A to point B on the internet, just accused five U.S. ISPs and one European ISP of using their market power to interfere with how traffic flows from Level 3 onto the ISPs’ last-mile network. The result is that customers of those ISPs experience degraded quality for services going over Level 3′s network. > > This is a so-called peering problem. The topic has been in the news since early this year, when consumers began complaining about the quality of their Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Instant Video streams on networks like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner Cable. The issue is that at the interconnection points where Netflix traffic attempts to enter the last-mile ISP’s network, there isn’t enough capacity. Usually, when that happens, the transit provider or the content provider negotiate to add more capacity by opening up more ports. (I explain the process in this story.) > > However, in recent months Level 3, Netflix and Cogent have all gone publicaccusing some ISPs of keeping those ports congested while trying to charge above-market rates for direct interconnection. Netflix has signed such a direct interconnection agreement with both Comcast and Verizon. But it isn’t happy about it and accuses the ISPs of abusing their market power to extract payments from content companies trying to serve the last mile. > > In covering this issue, I’ve argued that the FCC needs to get data on these peering agreements and practices before we can prove that there’s a problem. It’s clear there is consumer harm, but what’s unclear is whether ISPs are actively blocking traffic, or hurting specific providers. It’s also unclear if ISPs are charging abusive rates to get direct interconnection agreements. > > These peering agreements are deeply held secrets, which means the FCC will have to force providers to disclose the terms of their agreements and what traffic looks like on their networks. By sharing some of its network details, Level 3 is offering us a transparency strip tease, giving us (and the FCC) a glimpse of the data it has without naming names. > > [snip] > > Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: <http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/> > > > Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now

2 1