September 2014 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

"Internet e TV: modelli a confronto, lezioni per il futuro" - Keynote del Prof. De Martin a Prix Italia 2014 (25 settembre)

by Giuseppe Futia

Gentilissimi, abbiamo il piacere di informarvi che in occasione dell'edizione 2014 di Prix Italia il Prof. Juan Carlos De Martin terrà un keynote dal titolo: "Internet e TV: modelli a confronto, lezioni per il futuro". L'incontro si svolgerà il 25 settembre alle ore 15 presso "RAI, Museo della Radio e TV (Museum Hall)", in via Verdi 16 a Torino. Maggiori informazioni sull'iniziativa sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://www.prixitalia.rai.it/2014/It/grids/Appuntamenti.aspx. Cordiali saluti, -- ------------------------------------------------- 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

Sept. 17, 2014

Re: [nexa] Le BIBLIOTECHE possono digitalizzare i libri e farli scaricare su USB -

by Federico Morando

On 09/13/2014 03:11 PM, Diego Giorio wrote: > http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30d60… > > Ovviamente sotto alcune condizioni Giusta precisazione, purtroppo... e temo che una delle condizioni sia che la biblioteca non si trovi in Italia, ma in un paese che abbia recepito in modo ampio le eccezioni e limitazioni al diritto d'autore, che gli stati membri hanno facoltà di inserire nella loro normativa nazionale (quando recepiscono le Direttive europee) :-( Federico Morando

Sept. 17, 2014

"African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

*African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms** * Posted by Mike Palmedo <http://infojustice.org/archives/author/admin> on September 9, 2014 Add comments <http://infojustice.org/archives/33243#respond> URL: http://infojustice.org/archives/33243 Last week, 23 civil society groups released the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms at the Internet Governance Forum. The Declaration was drafted by a committee led by Edetean Ojo , Executive Director of Media Rights Agenda, which announced the Declaration <http://mediarightsagenda.net/web/african-declaration-on-internet-rights-and…> as “a Pan-African initiative to promote human rights standards and principles of openness in internet policy formulation and implementation on the continent. The Declaration is intended to elaborate on the principles which are necessary to uphold human and people’s rights on the internet, and to cultivate an internet environment that can best meet Africa’s social and economic development needs and goals.” The African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms is organized around twelve key principles, including Freedom of Expression and the Right to Information and Open Data. Excerpt from the section on Freedom of Expression: /Filtering, blocking, removal and other technical or legal limits on access to content constitute serious restrictions on freedom of expression and can only be justified if they strictly comply with international human rights standards relating to limitations and due process requirements. No one should be held liable for content on the Internet of which they are not the author. Furthermore, the State should not use or force intermediaries to undertake censorship on its behalf and intermediaries should not be required to prevent, hide or block content or disclose information about Internet users, or to remove access to user-generated content, including those that infringe copyright laws, unless they are required to do so by an order of a court./ Excerpt from the section on the Right to Information and data: /Data and information held by government should be made publicly accessible, including being released proactively and routinely, except where legitimate grounds for restricting access to such information exists in the relevant access to information legislation… Copyrighted materials held by public bodies should be licensed for re-use in accordance with relevant access to information laws and licensing frameworks./ The full African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms is available at http://africaninternetrights.org/declaration/

Sept. 16, 2014

Berkman Center Webcast live oggi ore 18.30 - Drone Warfare and the Public Imagination

by Giuseppe Futia

Drone Warfare and the Public Imagination http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2014/09/kaag <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2014/06/sigal> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2014/06/sigal> *John Kaag, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Massachusetts Lowell* Today, 6.30 pm Webcast live: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/webcast http://nexa.polito.it/berkman-webcast-live In 2012, U.S. drone strikes occurred most often in which nation? If you don't know, don't feel too bad. You're not alone. You could just admit it and join the 27 percent of Americans who report that they haven't a clue. Or you could guess, give the wrong answer, and join the 60 percent of Americans who just plain get it wrong. Many people know this answer first-hand, but they tend not to be Americans, and for them the answer has a non-trivial significance. A large majority (65 percent) of Americans claimed that they had heard a lot about the U.S. drone program in 2013. This is a significant increase from the year before. But what they'd heard hadn't furnished the answer to this most basic question about the purpose and nature of targeted killings. This makes sense, since the media often focuses on what is most important to its readers: namely, themselves. This is why the death of Americans in targeted killings dominated early discussion of drone warfare, why the mere prospect of domestic surveillance has taken center stage in the drone debate, and why commercial uses of drones has gained more attention in 2014. So what should the media cover when it comes to drones and military robotics? What is worth reporting? And what responsibility do journalists have to focus in on the most pressing moral and legal questions when it comes to drone technologies? At what point should reportage blend into legal commentary and moral argumentation? What are the dangers associated with this sort of public discourse? About John Kaag John Kaag is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Massachusetts Lowell and Director of the Doctoral Program in Global Studies. He recently co-authored Drone Warfare (Polity, 2014) with Sarah Kreps, and is author of A Wilderness of Books: A Study of American Philosophy (forthcoming with Farrar, Straus and Giroux in 2015).

Sept. 16, 2014

Cultural Content and Open Data Strategies - Milan October 10th

by Cristiana Sappa

Dear All, We are pleased to announce that a workshop jointly organized by LAPSI 2.0 and ePSIplatform on Cultural Content Exploitation and Open Data Strategies will take place in Milan on October the 10th. Please save the date: we would very much like to have you with us! Feel free to register: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/exploitation-of-cultural-content-open-data-str… More information is available here: http://www.epsiplatform.eu/content/exploitation-cultural-content-open-data-… Do not hesitate to share this information with anyone that could be interested. Kind Regards and see you in Milan! Cristiana Sappa Project Manager, LAPSI 2.0, www.lapsi-project.eu

Sept. 15, 2014

Re: [nexa] R: interessante sentenza della Cassazione su assenza dell'obbligo di accettare il sistema operativo

by Marco Ciurcina

In data lunedì 15 settembre 2014 10:38:18, lorenzo albertini ha scritto: > tale argomento interpretativo mi pare > adatto ad un documento legislativo più che ad uno contrattuale è importante anche per un contratto quando l'interpretazione alternativa avrebbe l'effetto di determinarne la nullità (vedi art. 1367 c.c.). m.c.

Sept. 15, 2014

Re: [nexa] R: interessante sentenza della Cassazione su assenza dell'obbligo di accettare il sistema operativo

by Marco Ciurcina

In data sabato 13 settembre 2014 09:42:35, lorenzo albertini ha scritto: > Forse poteva dedicare però qualche riga alla questione se l'argomento valga > sempre (sia divenuto principio generale del ns. ordinamento, regola di o.p. > economico) oppure solo per le pratiche che superino una soglia de minimis > (in tale caso affermandone il superamento nella fattispecie concreta) IMHO il paragrafo da "Nell'accertata assenza di controindicazioni tecnologiche" fino a "almeno tendenzialmente monopolista" ed il paragrafo da "E cioè nel senso che" a "specificamente riferibile" esprimono un orientamento "generale" di cui non si può non tenere conto nel futuro. IMHO difficile negare che la frase "..chi acquista un computer sul quale sia stato preinstallato dal produttore un determinato software di funzionamento (sistema operativo) ha il diritto, qualora non intenda accettare le condizioni della licenza d'uso del software propostegli al primo avvio del computer, di trattenere quest'ultimo restituendo il solo software oggetto della licenza non accettata, a fronte del rimborso della parte di prezzo ad esso specificamente riferibile" non è riferita esclusivamente alla fattispecie concreta ma esprime un principio più ampio. > Dubbio: l'equivocità sulla separabilità o meno dei due rapporti contrattuali > costituisce pratica commerciale sleale ingannevole? mah... IMHO la Corte intende dire anche questo quando scrive "..urterebbe per più versi con la disciplina di tutela della libertà di scelta del consumatore finale, e di libertà di concorrenza tra imprese". m.c.

Sept. 15, 2014

Annual Report on Net Neutrality

by Luca Belli

Dear all (apologies for cross-posting), FYI, the 2014 Report of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality “Network Neutrality: an Ongoing Regulatory Debate” is available at http://www.networkneutrality.info/sources.html Outline of the Annual Report: Preface (Vint Cerf)Introduction - Network Neutrality: an Unfinished Debate (Luca Belli & Primavera De Filippi)The net neutrality service model and specialized services (Frode Sørensen)Net Neutrality: an overview of enacted laws in Latin America (Patricia Vargas-Leon)Network Neutrality debates in Telecommunications Reform –Actors, Incentives, Risks (Alejandro Pisanty)Net Neutrality in Australia: an emerging debate (Angela Daly)A New Way Forward for Net Neutrality (Chris Riley)There’s no economic imperative to reconsider on open Internet (Benoît Felten)Net Neutrality Regulation and Broadband Infrastructure Investment: How to Make an Empirical Assessment (Roslyn Layton) Best regards, Luca Belli

Sept. 15, 2014

R: interessante sentenza della Cassazione su assenza dell'obbligo di accettare il sistema operativo

by lorenzo albertini

> -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: lorenzo albertini [mailto:lorenzoalbertini.vr@gmail.com] > Inviato: sabato 13 settembre 2014 09:43 > A: 'nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it' > Oggetto: R: [nexa] interessante sentenza della Cassazione su assenza > dell'obbligo di accettare il sistema operativo > > *** vero. > In particolare noterei che la SC usa questo argomento proconcorrenziale > come argumentum ab inconvenienti per escludere la ricostruzione del > voluto nel senso del collegamento negoziale. > Forse poteva dedicare però qualche riga alla questione se l'argomento > valga sempre (sia divenuto principio generale del ns. ordinamento, > regola di o.p. economico) oppure solo per le pratiche che superino una > soglia de minimis (in tale caso affermandone il superamento nella > fattispecie concreta) > Dubbio: l'equivocità sulla separabilità o meno dei due rapporti > contrattuali costituisce pratica commerciale sleale ingannevole? mah... > lorenzo albertini > VR [****]*** per non dire , poi, che tale argomento interpretativo mi pare adatto ad un documento legislativo più che ad uno contrattuale. > > -----Messaggio originale----- > > Da: nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it [mailto:nexa-bounces@server- > > nexa.polito.it] Per conto di Marco Ciurcina > > Inviato: venerdì 12 settembre 2014 17:50 > > A: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > > Oggetto: Re: [nexa] interessante sentenza della Cassazione su assenza > > dell'obbligo di accettare il sistema operativo > > > > Segnalo, in particolare, la parte della sentenza dove la Corte dice: > > > > "Si ritiene infatti che qualora la volontà delle parti fosse > > davvero > > stata qui orientata a stabilire un collegamento negoziale tra la > > compravendita > > e la concessione in licenza d'uso - con il risultato pratico di > > precludere > > all'utente finale la facoltà di non aderire a quest'ultima > trattenendo > > purtuttavia il computer a fronte del rimborso del prezzo del solo > > software > > rifiutato - l'accordo in oggetto urterebbe per più versi con la > > disciplina di > > tutela della libertà di scelta del consumatore finale, e di libertà > di > > concorrenza tra imprese (art.101 Tratt. FUE, già art.81 Tratt.Ist.CE; > > art. 2 > > l. 287/90). > > Nell'accertata assenza di controindicazioni tecnologiche, > > l''impacchettamento' alla fonte di hardware e sistema operativo > > Windows- > > Microsoft (così come avverrebbe per qualsiasi altro sistema operativo > a > > pagamento) risponderebbe infatti, nella sostanza, ad una politica > > commerciale > > finalizzata alla diffusione forzosa di quest'ultimo nella grande > > distribuzione > > dell'hardware (quantomeno in quella, largamente maggioritaria, > facente > > capo ai > > marchi OEM più affermati); tra l'altro, con riflessi a cascata in > > ordine > > all'imposizione sul mercato di ulteriore software applicativo la cui > > diffusione > > presso i clienti finali troverebbe forte stimolo e condizionamento - > se > > non > > vera e propria necessità - in più o meno intensi vincoli di > > compatibilità ed > > interoperabilità (che potremmo questa volta definire 'tecnologici ad > > effetto > > commerciale') con quel sistema operativo, almeno tendenzialmente > > monopolista. > > Evenienza - a tal punto concreta da essere già stata fatta > > oggetto sotto > > vari profili di interventi restrittivi e sanzionatori da parte degli > > organismi > > antitrust USA e della stessa Commissione UE - che può essere esclusa > > solo > > interpretando la clausola in oggetto in termini di autonomia, e non > di > > collegamento negoziale. > > E cioè nel senso che chi acquista un computer sul quale sia stato > > preinstallato dal produttore un determinato software di funzionamento > > (sistema > > operativo) ha il diritto, qualora non intenda accettare le condizioni > > della > > licenza d'uso del software propostegli al primo avvio del computer, > > di > > trattenere quest'ultimo restituendo il solo software oggetto della > > licenza > > non accettata, a fronte del rimborso della parte di prezzo ad esso > > specificamente riferibile." > > > > IMHO si aprono spazi di cambiamento nel modo in cui funziona il > mercato > > del > > sw. > > > > m.c. > > > > > > > > In data venerdì 12 settembre 2014 08:09:02, M. Fioretti ha scritto: > > > On 2014-09-12 01:01, Mauro Alovisio wrote: > > > > http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/tecnologie/2014-09-11/la-sentenza- > > nessun-ob > > > > bligo-chi-acquista-pc-accettare-sistema-operativo-- > > 183324.shtml?uuid=ABK6v > > > > gsB [2] > > > > > > > > La Cassazione ha bocciato il ricorso della multinazionale > > > > dell'informatica Hewlett Packard Italiana stabilendo che > > «l'acquisto > > > > del computer non implica l'obbligo di accettare il sistema > > operativo, > > > > pena lo scioglimento della vendita e l'azzeramento dell'intera > > > > operazione». Insomma, chi acquista un pc con sistema operativo > > > > installato di serie - in bundle - ha diritto al rimborso del > costo > > del > > > > software, anche quello applicativo, se non clicca > sull'accettazione > > > > della licenza d'uso. > > > > > > quello che (almeno a me) non è chiaro da quell'articolo è se in tal > > caso > > > vale ancora la garanzia? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > nexa mailing list > > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > ----- > > Nessun virus nel messaggio. > > Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com > > Versione: 2014.0.4765 / Database dei virus: 4015/8200 - Data di > > rilascio: 12/09/2014

Sept. 15, 2014

UNHRC: Joint statement on privacy in the digital age

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Joint Civil Society Statement on Privacy in the Digital Age Submitted to the 27th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, September 11, 2014 <http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/HRC27%20joint%20wri…> https://www.ifex.org/international/2014/09/12/privacy_digital_age/ This week's discussion of the report on surveillance by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights at the Human Rights Council is a critical moment in the global understanding of the human rights challenges raised by unlawful and arbitrary surveillance. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights will present a report on the right to privacy in the digital age (A/HRC/27/37). As the report states, "the technological platforms upon which global political, economic and social life are increasingly reliant are not only vulnerable to mass surveillance, they may actually facilitate it" on an unprecedented scale (para 2). It is imperative that the Council and Member States continue to promote and protect the right to privacy as technologies evolve and surveillance and data gathering capabilities become more powerful. In this context, the Human Rights Council has the opportunity to demonstrate leadership, promote global understanding of the right to privacy, and ensure robust state implementation of that right. We ask the Council to create a new special procedures mandate on the right to privacy to ensure sustained attention to the issues raised by the High Commissioner's report within the UN's human rights institutions. *KEY REPORT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS* The report confirms that "international human rights law provides a clear and universal framework for the promotion and protection of the right to privacy, including in the context of domestic and extraterritorial surveillance, the interception of digital communications and the collection of personal data" (para 47). This finding reaffirms the Council's recognition in A/HRC/RES/20/8 that "the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online." The right to privacy is well-established in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The report recognizes that the challenges posed by new digital surveillance capabilities do not confound human rights standards, but rather require re-examination of and renewed attention to state implementation of established standards. Critically, the High Commissioner found that many governments have failed to meet their obligations under the right to privacy. Practices in many states have revealed "a lack of adequate national legislation and/or enforcement, weak procedural safeguards, and ineffective oversight." Combined with a "disturbing lack of governmental transparency," these failings have “contributed to a lack of accountability for arbitrary or unlawful interference in the right to privacy” (paras 47-48). The research of many of the undersigned organizations confirms this finding. As an immediate measure, the High Commissioner called on all states to "review their own national laws, policies and practices to ensure full conformity with international human rights law" and address any shortcomings. To facilitate national review, the report elaborated on several issues: * Digital surveillance may engage a state's human rights obligations extraterritorially, regardless of the nationality or location of individuals whose communications are under surveillance. * A state's obligations can be engaged if that surveillance involves the exercise of power or effective control in relation to communications infrastructure. The same is true where regulatory jurisdiction over a third party that controls data is exercised, including where jurisdiction is asserted over the data of private companies as a result of the incorporation of those companies in the state in question (para 34). In a globalized world where data is routinely held in various jurisdictions and can travel across multiple borders in seconds, this point underlines the importance of the principle of non-discrimination in ensuring meaningful respect for privacy. * States should adopt a clear, precise, accessible, comprehensive, and non-discriminatory legislative framework to regulate all surveillance conducted by law enforcement or intelligence agencies (para 50)*. Surveillance should be undertaken under accessible law with foreseeable effects in accordance with the rule of law, including the right to an effective remedy. In many states, the legal frameworks governing surveillance fail to meet this standard, generating consequent accountability and transparency concerns. *The overarching principles in determining whether an interference is permissible are legality, necessity, and proportionality (para 23)*. In particular, it is essential to reiterate proportionality as a foundational principle. Mass surveillance is by nature disproportionate and large-scale collection practices often fall afoul of this principle. As the High Commissioner notes, "Mass or 'bulk' surveillance programmes may thus be deemed to be arbitrary, even if they serve a legitimate aim and have been adopted on the basis of an accessible legal regime. In other words, it will not be enough that the measures are targeted to find certain needles in a haystack; the proper measure is the impact of the measures on the haystack, relative to the harm threatened; namely, whether the measure is necessary and proportionate" (para 25). *Metadata merits stronger protection than it currently enjoys under national legal frameworks (paras 19-20)*. The interception of data about a communication ("metadata") can be as sensitive as the interception of the content of a communication. There is growing recognition that metadata cannot reasonably be afforded weaker protections than communications content. Such data is storable, accessible, and searchable, and access to and analysis of the data can be revelatory and highly invasive. * The interception, acquisition, and retention of data amounts to an interference with the right to privacy, regardless of whether data is subsequently consulted or used (para 20)*. In the context of mass surveillance programs, "[e]ven the mere possibility of communications information being captured creates an interference with privacy, with the potential chilling effect on rights," including free expression and association (para 20). It also follows that mandatory third-party data retention requirements, where governments require Internet or mobile service providers to store data about all customers, "appears neither necessary nor proportionate" (para 26). *A range of other rights may also be affected by communications surveillance and the collection of personal data, beyond the right to privacy.* The report cites freedom of opinion and expression; the right to peaceful assembly and association; to family life; and to health as illustrative examples. Although beyond the scope of the report, the High Commissioner stated that the linkages between mass surveillance and effects on other rights merit further consideration. *States must ensure effective oversight and remedy for violations of privacy through digital surveillance (paras 37-41)*. The report states that oversight by all branches of government and an independent civilian agency is essential to ensure effective protection of law. Effective remedies can come in a variety of forms, but must meet criteria that are well-established in human rights law. *The private sector should respect human rights if asked to facilitate surveillance or data collection or when providing surveillance technology to states (paras 42-46).* Where Internet or telecommunications companies comply with government requests for user data or surveillance assistance without adequate safeguards, they risk complicity in resulting violations. The report calls on companies to "assess whether and how their terms of service, or their policies for gathering and sharing customer data, may result in an adverse impact on the human rights of their users," implicitly drawing a connection between company data collection practices and government access to data companies hold (para 44). When companies provide surveillance technology to states that do not have adequate legal safeguards, companies risk complicity in violations of the right to privacy and other human rights (para 43). *A NEW SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY* The High Commissioner's report applies well established standards of international human rights law and provides a robust and universal foundation for examining state implementation of human rights obligations to surveillance and data collection activities. However, new surveillance capabilities and technologies raise complex and fast evolving issues. As a result, the High Commissioner urged "ongoing, concerted multi-stakeholder engagement" to address challenges related to the right to privacy (para 49). The report also called for "further discussion and in-depth study of issues relating to the effective protection of the law, procedural safeguards, effective oversight, and remedies," as well as the responsibility of businesses (para 51). We urge the Council to follow up on the High Commissioner's work, including by establishing a dedicated special procedure mandate on the right to privacy for the following reasons: * A dedicated mandate holder would play a critical role in developing common understandings and furthering a considered and substantive interpretation of the right across a variety of settings, as recommended by the report. A dedicated mandate holder would also be an independent expert, allowing for a neutral articulation of the application of the right to privacy that draws on the input of all stakeholders. * Establishing a separate mandate for privacy would allow for the development of a coherent and complementary approach to the interaction between privacy, freedom of expression, and other rights. * A dedicated mandate holder would help assess the implementation by state and non-state actors of their applicable international responsibilities and obligations in a sustained and systematic way. Functions should include carrying out country visits; collecting best practices; receiving and seeking information from states, businesses, and other stakeholders; and issuing recommendations. Submitted by Human Rights Watch Endorsed by: ARTICLE 19 Access American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Amnesty International Association for Progressive Communications Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) Electronic Frontier Foundation International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) Privacy International

Sept. 13, 2014