August 2014 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

New Technology Renews Old Fears of Manipulation and Control

by Alessandro Mantelero

New Technology Renews Old Fears of Manipulation and Control By Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst, ACLU Speech, Privacy & Technology Projec In the first half of the 20th century, Americans gained a new awareness of the malleability and manipulability of the human mind, and the result was a wave of concern over “propaganda” and other techniques of influence. Today we may be seeing a new wave of similar fears as we begin to wonder whether the ways we use and rely upon technology today are making us susceptible to new, dangerous forms of manipulation. continua qui: https://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/new-technology-renews-old-… -- Avv. Alessandro Mantelero, PhD Aggregate Professor, Politecnico di Torino Director of Privacy and Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet and Society Research Consultant, Sino-Italian Research Center for Internet Torts at Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology Programme Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law, Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University of Shanghai http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero Politecnico di Torino Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 10129 Torino - Italy in libertate fortitudo

Aug. 2, 2014

Powles & Floridi : "A manifesto for the future of the 'right to be forgotten' debate"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

*A manifesto for the future of the 'right to be forgotten' debate** * /The landmark ruling against Google Spain presents the opportunity for a proper debate. Here are five strategies for reframing the ethics of our online lives / Julia Powles and Luciano Floridi theguardian.com, Tuesday 22 July 2014 13.59 BST For more than two months now, the inaptly-named "right to be forgotten" has remained buoyant in the news cycle. The reasons are as complex as the distortions, but distinctly missing from the discourse is critical engagement with the foundations and implications of the European data protection regime that gave flight to the discussion. Also missing is an exploration of the proposed course of action by Google and other players engaged in implementation, and an assessment of how those responses could be strengthened and improved. The Article 29 Working Party -- the advisory association of European data protection authorities that ought to be at the helm of navigating solutions -- has called Google and other search engines to a meeting in Brussels on 24 July to discuss the ruling and its concerns. This is a welcome though belated move, but what is required is a thorough discussion of what is possible: proactive, not reactive. [...] Continua qui: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/22/a-manifesto-for-the-futur…

Aug. 1, 2014

"The best argument yet for net neutrality comes from Major League Baseball"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

*The best argument yet for net neutrality comes from Major League Baseball** * By John McDuling @jmcduling July 28, 2014 Among the more than one million comments about net neutrality received by the US government this year was a submission by... Major League Baseball (MLB). The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is currently reviewing new rules that could allow internet providers to charge content companies for a more direct connection to customers. Some big content distributors (most notably, Netflix) have come out hard against these so-called "fast lanes," arguing that they effectively amount to an internet tax or toll. But MLB has become an important player in streaming video. As I wrote last month, an offshoot of the league, MLB Advanced Media (or BAM as it's known in the industry) is now America's largest distributor of live video on broadband networks. Earlier this month, BAM quietly submitted its own letter to the FCC, where it was equally scathing about internet fast lanes (hat tip to Multichannel's John Eggerton). It's a shame that BAM's comments have been overlooked, because they amount to one of the most coherent arguments in favor of net neutrality we have come across. For example: Fast lanes would serve only one purpose: for Broadband ISPs to receive an economic windfall. American consumers would be worse off as the costs of fast lanes are passed along to them in new fees or charges where there were none, or higher fees or charges where they existed. And later: [...] Continua qui: http://qz.com/241250/the-best-argument-yet-for-net-neutrality-comes-from-ma…

Aug. 1, 2014