April 2015 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] Voce.info: "Ma la scuola 2.0 è buona scuola?"

by Giorgio Ventre

Caro Juan Carlos, se fai riferimento agli "illusi" come noi di "Programma il Futuro" le tue critiche sono sempre uno stimolo a riflettere su questi temi e quindi ben vengano queste tue considerazioni. Permettimi di rispondere evitando di abusare troppo della pazienza tua e di chi segue questa lista. Primo punto: la scuola 2.0 è la Buona Scuola? Ovviamente no. Io direi che una scuola 2.0 (per quello che vale questo termine e che considererò dopo) è una condizione necessaria ma non sufficiente ad avere una buona scuola, che invece ovviamente richiederebbe anche e soprattutto le cose che tu elenchi. Secondo punto: cosa è una scuola 2.0? Secondo me è una scuola dove il digitale è sia una disciplina sia una tecnologia di supporto alle altre discipline. Non credo che una Scuola 2.0 sia una Scuola totalmente digitale e non mi piacciono approcci "finlandesi", se mi consentite di usare un termine che fa riferimento ad alcune notizie pubbicate dalla stampa relative a scelte didattiche di questo paese. Ma anche qui è u a opinione assolutamente personale. Terzo punto: ma l'informatica ed il digitale sono davvero anche una disciplina? IMHO l'informatica, ed in particolare alcuni suoi aspetti come il coding per esempio, aiuta lo sviluppo di capacità di problem solving attraverso quello che viene definito il pensiero computazionale (ma che io amo chiamare pensiero procedurale per legarlo maggiormente alla teoria degli atti linguistici). Sono invece molto perplesso rispetto approcci puramente tecnologi alla ECDL e patenti e certificazioni varie. Quarto punto: ammesso e non concesso che il coding sia importante per la Scuola 2.0, l'approccio che stiamo seguendo con eventi tipo Programma il Futuro (che comunque è un progetto che coinvolge il MIUR) oppure quello con eventi di natura bottom-up alla CoderDojo e similari sono i migliori possibile? Secondo me ovviamente no, ma se aspettiamo che il MIUR renda strutturali iniziative in questa direzione potremmo attendere decenni. E temo che comunque non ci sia un silver bullet. Quinto punto: ma ci sono evidenze empiriche del fatto che la Scuola (intesa come docenti e discenti) vuole avere iniziative di questo genere? La mia risposta anche qui è positiva perchè i numeri che stiamo avendo sono estremamente lusinghieri: Qui http://www.programmailfuturo.it/progetto/monitoraggio-del-progetto c'è un report che abbiamo da poco prodotto con dei numeri davvero molto interessanti. Non ho evidenze se queste cose si tradurranno in un effettivo miglioramento delle capacità logiche di queste povere vittime che hanno fatto l'ora del codice !-) Un caro saluto e perdonate la lunghezza della mail. Giorgio ======================================================================== Prof. Ing. Giorgio Ventre Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica e Tecnologie dell'Informazione Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II Via Claudio 21 80125, Napoli, Italy Tel: +39 081 7683908 Fax: +39 081 7683816 Mob: +39 3807679372 E-mail: giorgio(a)unina.it http://www.comics.unina.it http://www.docenti.unina.it/giorgio.ventre ======================================================================== On 08/04/2015 11:45, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > Lo so che dò un dolore ad alcuni amici, > ma purtroppo sono anni che la letteratura scientifica è > piuttosto concorde nel ritenere che i benefici dell'ICT > a scuola si manifestano solo in alcuni, limitati scenari. > In tutti gli altri casi è meglio spendere i soldi per > avere insegnanti migliori e remunerati dignitosamente, > classi meno affollate, locali belli e sicuri, > e scuole dotate di biblioteche > (sì, quegli strani posti con tanti libri sugli scaffali, > con strane persone che a quanto pare di professione > si occupano proprio di quei libri... strano, vero?). > > juan carlos > > > *Ma la scuola 2.0 è buona scuola?* > 08.04.15 > Daniele Checchi e Enrico Rettore > > Le attrezzature informatiche migliorano gli apprendimenti degli > alunni? Prima di investire nuove risorse pubbliche nell’acquisto di > tablet o lavagne multimediali servirebbero risposte basate su dati e > rigorosa valutazione di efficacia degli esperimenti pilota. > L’esperienza del progetto Cl@ssi 2.0. > > INFRASTRUTTURE SCOLASTICHE: LA SITUAZIONE > > La dotazione infrastrutturale della scuola italiana è carente. Ne è un > preoccupante indicatore la manutenzione degli edifici scolastici. Se > prendiamo per esempio l’ultima indagine svolta da Legambiente, il 32,5 > per cento delle scuole necessita di interventi urgenti e solo il > 30,9per cento è dotato di certificati essenziali come quello della > prevenzione incendi. > La situazione appare particolarmente degradata nelle aree meridionali > del paese, anche a causa del prosciugarsi delle risorse a disposizione > degli enti locali, che dovrebbero assicurare la fruibilità degli > edifici scolatici. > Le circostanze non appaiono migliori dal punto di vista della > dotazione di attrezzature. Se utilizziamo la banca dati de La scuola > in chiaro osserviamo che meno della metà delle classi italiane dispone > di una connessione a internet, e poco più di un quarto possiede una > lavagna interattiva multimediale (Lim). > > […] > > Continua qui: > http://www.lavoce.info/archives/34099/ma-la-scuola-2-0-e-buona-scuola/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

April 8, 2015

Voce.info: "Ma la scuola 2.0 è buona scuola?"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Lo so che dò un dolore ad alcuni amici, ma purtroppo sono anni che la letteratura scientifica è piuttosto concorde nel ritenere che i benefici dell'ICT a scuola si manifestano solo in alcuni, limitati scenari. In tutti gli altri casi è meglio spendere i soldi per avere insegnanti migliori e remunerati dignitosamente, classi meno affollate, locali belli e sicuri, e scuole dotate di biblioteche (sì, quegli strani posti con tanti libri sugli scaffali, con strane persone che a quanto pare di professione si occupano proprio di quei libri... strano, vero?). juan carlos *Ma la scuola 2.0 è buona scuola?* 08.04.15 Daniele Checchi e Enrico Rettore Le attrezzature informatiche migliorano gli apprendimenti degli alunni? Prima di investire nuove risorse pubbliche nell’acquisto di tablet o lavagne multimediali servirebbero risposte basate su dati e rigorosa valutazione di efficacia degli esperimenti pilota. L’esperienza del progetto Cl@ssi 2.0. INFRASTRUTTURE SCOLASTICHE: LA SITUAZIONE La dotazione infrastrutturale della scuola italiana è carente. Ne è un preoccupante indicatore la manutenzione degli edifici scolastici. Se prendiamo per esempio l’ultima indagine svolta da Legambiente, il 32,5 per cento delle scuole necessita di interventi urgenti e solo il 30,9per cento è dotato di certificati essenziali come quello della prevenzione incendi. La situazione appare particolarmente degradata nelle aree meridionali del paese, anche a causa del prosciugarsi delle risorse a disposizione degli enti locali, che dovrebbero assicurare la fruibilità degli edifici scolatici. Le circostanze non appaiono migliori dal punto di vista della dotazione di attrezzature. Se utilizziamo la banca dati de La scuola in chiaro osserviamo che meno della metà delle classi italiane dispone di una connessione a internet, e poco più di un quarto possiede una lavagna interattiva multimediale (Lim). […] Continua qui: http://www.lavoce.info/archives/34099/ma-la-scuola-2-0-e-buona-scuola/

April 8, 2015

Re: [nexa] Grégoire Chamayou: "How Drones Turned American Wars Into Manhunts and Humans Into Prey"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Thanks, Philippe. There is a footnote on pragmatic co-presence also in the Italian edition, altough apparently shorter: p. 117-121. juan carlos On 07/04/15 22:44, Philippe Aigrain wrote: > Grégoire Chamayou's book is a major piece of political philosphy, with > great value for the understanding of the drift of the exercise of power > towards more dangerously asymetric relations, and also of digitally > meadiated interaction. In the French edition there is a 20-page footnote > on the concept of pragmatic co-presence that I have found immensely > inspiring and which I hope he will at some stage turn into a book of its > own. > > Best, > > Philippe AIgrain > > On 07/04/2015 20:33, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: >> *How Drones Turned American Wars Into Manhunts and Humans Into Prey* >> /The remote-controlled hunting of human beings has become standard >> practice in American warfare./ >> >> Grégoire Chamayou >> >> April 7, 2015 >> >> /This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of >> important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates >> from TomDispatch.com./ >> >> [The following is slightly adapted from chapters two and three of >> Grégoire Chamayou’s new book, A Theory of the Drone, with special thanks >> to his publisher, the New Press.] >> >> Initially, the English word “drone” meant both an insect and a sound. It >> was not until the outbreak of World War II that it began to take on >> another meaning. At that time, American artillery apprentices used the >> expression “target drones” to designate the small remotely controlled >> planes at which they aimed in training. The metaphor did not refer >> solely to the size of those machines or the brm-brm of their motors. >> Drones are male bees, without stingers, and eventually the other bees >> kill them. Classical tradition regarded them as emblems of all that is >> nongenuine and dispensable. That was precisely what a target drone was: >> just a dummy, made to be shot down. >> >> However, it was a long time before drones were to be seen cruising above >> battlefields. To be sure, the idea dates back quite a while: there were >> the Curtiss-Sperry aerial torpedo and the Kettering Bug at the end of >> World War I, and then the Nazi V-1s and V-2s unleashed on London in >> 1944. But those old flying torpedoes may be considered more as the >> ancestors of cruise missiles than as those of present-day drones. The >> essential difference lies in the fact that while the former can be used >> only once, the latter are reusable. The drone is not a projectile, but a >> projectile-carrying machine. >> >> It was during the Vietnam War that the U.S. Air Force, to counteract the >> Soviet surface-to-air missiles that had inflicted heavy casualties on >> it, invested in reconnaissance drones nicknamed “Lightning Bugs,” >> produced by Ryan Aeronautical. An American official explained that >> “these RPVs [remotely piloted vehicles] could help prevent aircrews from >> becoming casualties or prisoners… With RPVs, survival is not the driving >> factor.” >> >> […] >> >> Continua qui: >> http://www.thenation.com/article/203713/how-drones-turned-american-wars-man… >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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

April 8, 2015

Re: [nexa] USA Executive Order -- "Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Intanto questo è il commento di EFF: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/whitehouses-new-executive-order-cyber… juan carlos On 04/04/15 14:47, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Caro Arturo, > > Puoi elaborare il tuo commento? Lo strumento delle sanzioni, al di là > delle valutazioni sulla loro efficacia, è utilizzato ampiamente in > molti settori delle relazioni internazionali. > > Grazie, ciao, > > Andrea > > On Thursday, April 2, 2015, A Dicorinto <arturo.dicorinto(a)uniroma1.it > <mailto:arturo.dicorinto@uniroma1.it>> wrote: > > Che abominio. Alla faccia della libertà. > > 2015-04-01 17:54 GMT+02:00 J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin(a)polito.it > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','demartin(a)polito.it');>>: > > https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/01/executive-order-bloc… > > The White House > > Office of the Press Secretary > > For Immediate Release > April 01, 2015 > > > Executive Order -- "Blocking the Property of Certain Persons > Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities" > > EXECUTIVE ORDER > > - - - - - - - > > BLOCKING THE PROPERTY OF CERTAIN PERSONS ENGAGING IN > > SIGNIFICANT MALICIOUS CYBER-ENABLED ACTIVITIES > > By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution > and the laws of the United States of America, including the > International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et > seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et > seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality > Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, > United States Code, > > I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, > find that the increasing prevalence and severity of malicious > cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by > persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the > United States constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat > to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the > United States. I hereby declare a national emergency to deal > with this threat. > > Accordingly, I hereby order: > > _Section 1_. (a) All property and interests in property that > are in the United States, that hereafter come within the > United States, or that are or hereafter come within the > possession or control of any United States person of the > following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, > paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: > > (i) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in > consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of > State, to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have > engaged in, directly or indirectly, cyber-enabled activities > originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or > in substantial part, outside the United States that are > reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed > to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign > policy, or economic health or financial stability of the > United States and that have the purpose or effect of: > > (A) harming, or otherwise significantly compromising the > provision of services by, a computer or network of computers > that support one or more entities in a critical infrastructure > sector; > > (B) significantly compromising the provision of services by > one or more entities in a critical infrastructure sector; > > (C) causing a significant disruption to the availability of a > computer or network of computers; or > > (D) causing a significant misappropriation of funds or > economic resources, trade secrets, personal identifiers, or > financial information for commercial or competitive advantage > or private financial gain; or > > (ii) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, > in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of > State: > > (A) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged > in, the receipt or use for commercial or competitive advantage > or private financial gain, or by a commercial entity, outside > the United States of trade secrets misappropriated through > cyber-enabled means, knowing they have been misappropriated, > where the misappropriation of such trade secrets is reasonably > likely to result in, or has materially contributed to, a > significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, > or economic health or financial stability of the United States; > > (B) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided > financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or > services in support of, any activity described in subsections > (a)(i) or (a)(ii)(A) of this section or any person whose > property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to > this order; > > (C) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or > purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, > any person whose property and interests in property are > blocked pursuant to this order; or > > (D) to have attempted to engage in any of the activities > described in subsections (a)(i) and (a)(ii)(A)-(C) of this > section. > > (b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply > except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, > orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to > this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or > any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of > this order. > > _Sec. 2_. I hereby determine that the making of donations of > the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA > (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any > person whose property and interests in property are blocked > pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my > ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this > order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by > section 1 of this order. > > _Sec. 3_. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include > but are not limited to: > > (a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, > goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person > whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant > to this order; and > > (b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, > goods, or services from any such person. > > _Sec. 4_. I hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and > nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined > to meet one or more of the criteria in section 1(a) of this > order would be detrimental to the interests of the United > States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as > immigrants or nonimmigrants, of such persons. Such persons > shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of > Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of > Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans > and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions). > > _Sec. 5_. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the > purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or > attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this > order is prohibited. > > (b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions > set forth in this order is prohibited. > > _Sec. 6_. For the purposes of this order: > > (a) the term "person" means an individual or entity; > > (b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, > joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other > organization; > > (c) the term "United States person" means any United States > citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the > laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the > United States (including foreign branches), or any person in > the United States; > > (d) the term "critical infrastructure sector" means any of the > designated critical infrastructure sectors identified in > Presidential Policy Directive 21; and > > (e) the term "misappropriation" includes any taking or > obtaining by improper means, without permission or consent, or > under false pretenses. > > _Sec. 7_. For those persons whose property and interests in > property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a > constitutional presence in the United States, I find that > because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets > instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to > be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures > ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to > be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in > this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or > determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order. > > _Sec. 8_. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with > the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby > authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of > rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the > President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the > purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may > redelegate any of these functions to other officers and > agencies of the United States Government consistent with > applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government > are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within > their authority to carry out the provisions of this order. > > _Sec. 9_. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with > the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby > authorized to submit the recurring and final reports to the > Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, > consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) > and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)). > > _Sec. 10_. This order is not intended to, and does not, create > any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable > at law or in equity by any party against the United States, > its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, > employees, or agents, or any other person. > > BARACK OBAMA > > THE WHITE HOUSE, > April 1, 2015. > > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it');> > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > > > > -- > > Arturo Di Corinto > www.dicorinto.it <http://www.dicorinto.it> > ---------------------------------> > > AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003 Le informazioni contenute > in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o nel/i file/s > allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il loro > utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del > messaggio, per le finalità indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora > riceviate questo messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi > preghiamo cortesemente di darcene notizia via e-mail e di > procedere alla distruzione del messaggio stesso, cancellandolo dal > Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso, divulgarlo anche > in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od utilizzarlo > per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai > principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003 > > > > -- > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. > Keep it in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro

April 8, 2015

Re: [nexa] Grégoire Chamayou: "How Drones Turned American Wars Into Manhunts and Humans Into Prey"

by Philippe Aigrain

Grégoire Chamayou's book is a major piece of political philosphy, with great value for the understanding of the drift of the exercise of power towards more dangerously asymetric relations, and also of digitally meadiated interaction. In the French edition there is a 20-page footnote on the concept of pragmatic co-presence that I have found immensely inspiring and which I hope he will at some stage turn into a book of its own. Best, Philippe AIgrain On 07/04/2015 20:33, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > *How Drones Turned American Wars Into Manhunts and Humans Into Prey* > /The remote-controlled hunting of human beings has become standard > practice in American warfare./ > > Grégoire Chamayou > > April 7, 2015 > > /This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of > important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates > from TomDispatch.com./ > > [The following is slightly adapted from chapters two and three of > Grégoire Chamayou’s new book, A Theory of the Drone, with special thanks > to his publisher, the New Press.] > > Initially, the English word “drone” meant both an insect and a sound. It > was not until the outbreak of World War II that it began to take on > another meaning. At that time, American artillery apprentices used the > expression “target drones” to designate the small remotely controlled > planes at which they aimed in training. The metaphor did not refer > solely to the size of those machines or the brm-brm of their motors. > Drones are male bees, without stingers, and eventually the other bees > kill them. Classical tradition regarded them as emblems of all that is > nongenuine and dispensable. That was precisely what a target drone was: > just a dummy, made to be shot down. > > However, it was a long time before drones were to be seen cruising above > battlefields. To be sure, the idea dates back quite a while: there were > the Curtiss-Sperry aerial torpedo and the Kettering Bug at the end of > World War I, and then the Nazi V-1s and V-2s unleashed on London in > 1944. But those old flying torpedoes may be considered more as the > ancestors of cruise missiles than as those of present-day drones. The > essential difference lies in the fact that while the former can be used > only once, the latter are reusable. The drone is not a projectile, but a > projectile-carrying machine. > > It was during the Vietnam War that the U.S. Air Force, to counteract the > Soviet surface-to-air missiles that had inflicted heavy casualties on > it, invested in reconnaissance drones nicknamed “Lightning Bugs,” > produced by Ryan Aeronautical. An American official explained that > “these RPVs [remotely piloted vehicles] could help prevent aircrews from > becoming casualties or prisoners… With RPVs, survival is not the driving > factor.” > > […] > > Continua qui: > http://www.thenation.com/article/203713/how-drones-turned-american-wars-man… > > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >

April 7, 2015

How the German Foreign Intelligence Agency BND tapped the Internet Exchange Point DE-CIX in Frankfurt, since 2009 | netzpolitik.org

by Luca Cicchelli

https://netzpolitik.org/2015/how-the-german-foreign-intelligence-agency-bnd… In aggiunta segnalo che da poco DE-CIX ha fatto un agreement conTI Sparkle per gestire un IX nel loro Data Center di Palermo -- Luca Sent by mobile

April 7, 2015

Grégoire Chamayou: "How Drones Turned American Wars Into Manhunts and Humans Into Prey"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

*How Drones Turned American Wars Into Manhunts and Humans Into Prey* /The remote-controlled hunting of human beings has become standard practice in American warfare./ Grégoire Chamayou April 7, 2015 /This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com./ [The following is slightly adapted from chapters two and three of Grégoire Chamayou’s new book, A Theory of the Drone, with special thanks to his publisher, the New Press.] Initially, the English word “drone” meant both an insect and a sound. It was not until the outbreak of World War II that it began to take on another meaning. At that time, American artillery apprentices used the expression “target drones” to designate the small remotely controlled planes at which they aimed in training. The metaphor did not refer solely to the size of those machines or the brm-brm of their motors. Drones are male bees, without stingers, and eventually the other bees kill them. Classical tradition regarded them as emblems of all that is nongenuine and dispensable. That was precisely what a target drone was: just a dummy, made to be shot down. However, it was a long time before drones were to be seen cruising above battlefields. To be sure, the idea dates back quite a while: there were the Curtiss-Sperry aerial torpedo and the Kettering Bug at the end of World War I, and then the Nazi V-1s and V-2s unleashed on London in 1944. But those old flying torpedoes may be considered more as the ancestors of cruise missiles than as those of present-day drones. The essential difference lies in the fact that while the former can be used only once, the latter are reusable. The drone is not a projectile, but a projectile-carrying machine. It was during the Vietnam War that the U.S. Air Force, to counteract the Soviet surface-to-air missiles that had inflicted heavy casualties on it, invested in reconnaissance drones nicknamed “Lightning Bugs,” produced by Ryan Aeronautical. An American official explained that “these RPVs [remotely piloted vehicles] could help prevent aircrews from becoming casualties or prisoners… With RPVs, survival is not the driving factor.” […] Continua qui: http://www.thenation.com/article/203713/how-drones-turned-american-wars-man…

April 7, 2015

Re: [nexa] USA Executive Order -- "Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Caro Andrea, in attesa dei commenti di Arturo, ci dici tu cosa ne pensi? Ovviamente a titolo personale, ecc. ecc. E' una non notizia, ovvero, un atto di ordinaria ammistrazione, come sembrebbero indicare le tue parole, o ci sono profili inediti che vale la pena commentare? Grazie! juan carlos On 04/04/15 14:47, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Caro Arturo, > > Puoi elaborare il tuo commento? Lo strumento delle sanzioni, al di là > delle valutazioni sulla loro efficacia, è utilizzato ampiamente in > molti settori delle relazioni internazionali. > > Grazie, ciao, > > Andrea > > On Thursday, April 2, 2015, A Dicorinto <arturo.dicorinto(a)uniroma1.it > <mailto:arturo.dicorinto@uniroma1.it>> wrote: > > Che abominio. Alla faccia della libertà. > > 2015-04-01 17:54 GMT+02:00 J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin(a)polito.it > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','demartin(a)polito.it');>>: > > https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/01/executive-order-bloc… > > The White House > > Office of the Press Secretary > > For Immediate Release > April 01, 2015 > > > Executive Order -- "Blocking the Property of Certain Persons > Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities" > > EXECUTIVE ORDER > > - - - - - - - > > BLOCKING THE PROPERTY OF CERTAIN PERSONS ENGAGING IN > > SIGNIFICANT MALICIOUS CYBER-ENABLED ACTIVITIES > > By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution > and the laws of the United States of America, including the > International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et > seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et > seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality > Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, > United States Code, > > I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, > find that the increasing prevalence and severity of malicious > cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by > persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the > United States constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat > to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the > United States. I hereby declare a national emergency to deal > with this threat. > > Accordingly, I hereby order: > > _Section 1_. (a) All property and interests in property that > are in the United States, that hereafter come within the > United States, or that are or hereafter come within the > possession or control of any United States person of the > following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, > paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: > > (i) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in > consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of > State, to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have > engaged in, directly or indirectly, cyber-enabled activities > originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or > in substantial part, outside the United States that are > reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed > to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign > policy, or economic health or financial stability of the > United States and that have the purpose or effect of: > > (A) harming, or otherwise significantly compromising the > provision of services by, a computer or network of computers > that support one or more entities in a critical infrastructure > sector; > > (B) significantly compromising the provision of services by > one or more entities in a critical infrastructure sector; > > (C) causing a significant disruption to the availability of a > computer or network of computers; or > > (D) causing a significant misappropriation of funds or > economic resources, trade secrets, personal identifiers, or > financial information for commercial or competitive advantage > or private financial gain; or > > (ii) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, > in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of > State: > > (A) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged > in, the receipt or use for commercial or competitive advantage > or private financial gain, or by a commercial entity, outside > the United States of trade secrets misappropriated through > cyber-enabled means, knowing they have been misappropriated, > where the misappropriation of such trade secrets is reasonably > likely to result in, or has materially contributed to, a > significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, > or economic health or financial stability of the United States; > > (B) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided > financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or > services in support of, any activity described in subsections > (a)(i) or (a)(ii)(A) of this section or any person whose > property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to > this order; > > (C) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or > purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, > any person whose property and interests in property are > blocked pursuant to this order; or > > (D) to have attempted to engage in any of the activities > described in subsections (a)(i) and (a)(ii)(A)-(C) of this > section. > > (b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply > except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, > orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to > this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or > any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of > this order. > > _Sec. 2_. I hereby determine that the making of donations of > the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA > (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any > person whose property and interests in property are blocked > pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my > ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this > order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by > section 1 of this order. > > _Sec. 3_. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include > but are not limited to: > > (a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, > goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person > whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant > to this order; and > > (b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, > goods, or services from any such person. > > _Sec. 4_. I hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and > nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined > to meet one or more of the criteria in section 1(a) of this > order would be detrimental to the interests of the United > States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as > immigrants or nonimmigrants, of such persons. Such persons > shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of > Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of > Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans > and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions). > > _Sec. 5_. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the > purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or > attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this > order is prohibited. > > (b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions > set forth in this order is prohibited. > > _Sec. 6_. For the purposes of this order: > > (a) the term "person" means an individual or entity; > > (b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, > joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other > organization; > > (c) the term "United States person" means any United States > citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the > laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the > United States (including foreign branches), or any person in > the United States; > > (d) the term "critical infrastructure sector" means any of the > designated critical infrastructure sectors identified in > Presidential Policy Directive 21; and > > (e) the term "misappropriation" includes any taking or > obtaining by improper means, without permission or consent, or > under false pretenses. > > _Sec. 7_. For those persons whose property and interests in > property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a > constitutional presence in the United States, I find that > because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets > instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to > be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures > ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to > be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in > this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or > determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order. > > _Sec. 8_. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with > the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby > authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of > rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the > President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the > purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may > redelegate any of these functions to other officers and > agencies of the United States Government consistent with > applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government > are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within > their authority to carry out the provisions of this order. > > _Sec. 9_. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with > the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby > authorized to submit the recurring and final reports to the > Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, > consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) > and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)). > > _Sec. 10_. This order is not intended to, and does not, create > any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable > at law or in equity by any party against the United States, > its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, > employees, or agents, or any other person. > > BARACK OBAMA > > THE WHITE HOUSE, > April 1, 2015. > > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it');> > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > > > > -- > > Arturo Di Corinto > www.dicorinto.it <http://www.dicorinto.it> > ---------------------------------> > > AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003 Le informazioni contenute > in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o nel/i file/s > allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il loro > utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del > messaggio, per le finalità indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora > riceviate questo messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi > preghiamo cortesemente di darcene notizia via e-mail e di > procedere alla distruzione del messaggio stesso, cancellandolo dal > Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso, divulgarlo anche > in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od utilizzarlo > per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai > principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003 > > > > -- > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. > Keep it in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro

April 7, 2015

Council of Europe multi-stakeholder consultations on Internet freedom

by WIELOCH Marta

On behalf of Elvana Thaçi Dear all, The Council of Europe is working on a draft recommendation by the Committee of Ministers to its member states on Internet freedom (attached). The draft is currently being elaborated by a committee of experts operating under the authority of the Council of Europe's Steering Committee on Media and Information Society. As part of its multi-stakeholder outreach and dialogue, the Council of Europe would like your feedback, comments and suggestions on the draft recommendation to be sent to us, at the latest by 30 April 2015, by E-mail to Marta.WIELOCH(a)coe.int<mailto:Marta.WIELOCH@coe.int> . Thank you in advance Elvana Thaçi Administrator, Media & Internet Council of Europe + 33 (0) 3 90 21 56 98 + 33 (0) 6 20 74 64 48 elvana.thaci(a)coe.int<mailto:elvana.thaci@coe.int> [cid:image001.png@01D03F0E.4AD6FD80]<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Information-Society-Group/771851256242082?fr…>[cid:image002.png@01D00B04.68105560]<https://twitter.com/elvanathaci>

April 7, 2015

Re: [nexa] 74° mercoledì di nexa - 8 aprile 2015

by Daniele Bettini

Magari qualcuno può essere interessato. Sottolinearei che la Call vale solo per amministrazioni/enti pubblici. Buongiorno. La nostra redazione si sta occupando del *Premio Smart Communities* e dello Smart Communities Road Show nell'ambito delle diverse edizioni regionali di SMAU. Il Premio Smart Communities è finalizzato a selezionare e dare visibilità a esperienze e progetti innovativi in tema di città e territori intelligenti, realizzati dagli enti pubblici. Le aree tematiche sono numerose: ad esempio la riqualificazione del territorio, il turismo, i trasporti, l'innovazione in agricoltura e nella cultura dell'alimentazione, medicina e salute, l'educazione e la formazione, la sostenibilità ambientale, le politiche temporali. Stiamo lavorando all'edizione di *Torino che si svolgerà** il 29-30 aprile 2015, * aperta a candidature provenienti dal Piemonte, Valle D'Aosta, Liguria. Se state lavorando a progetti riconducibili alle politiche delle Smart City, vi segnaliamo l'opportunità di candidare il vostro ente (o l'ente pubblico per cui lavorate) al Premio Smart Communities, compilando il form su questa pagina: http://www.smau.it/inquiry/questionnaire/candidatura-premio-smartcommunitie… Il limite per presentare la candidatura è il *17 aprile 2015.* La partecipazione al Premio è gratuita e garantisce visibilità ai progetti, e agli enti che li stanno realizzando, sul sito di SMAU. I finalisti e i vincitori riceveranno un riconoscimento pubblico nell'ambito dell'evento istituzionale organizzato da SMAU in programma a Torino. Alla premiazione saranno presenti rappresentanti delle istituzioni, giornalisti di quotidiani nazionali e locali, stampa specializzata, radio e TV. Siamo a disposizione per ogni ulteriore informazione. In attesa di un gentile riscontro, cordiali saluti. Triwu' - La web TV dell'innovazione Redazione trasmissioni Smart City e Moebius di Radio24 Coordinamento Smart City Roadshow e Premio Smart Communities SMAU Via Massimiano 25, Milano Tel. 02 2046602 - 02 2046170 Daniele

April 7, 2015