October 2016 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Surveillance in the Post-Obama Era
by fabio chiusi Oct. 9, 2016

Oct. 9, 2016

Editoriale del NyTimes, da leggere: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/09/opinion/sunday/surveillance-in-the-post-o… f.

1 0

Book: "The Politics of Bitcoin - Software as Right-Wing Extremism"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Oct. 8, 2016

Oct. 8, 2016

Non l'ho ancora letto, ma sembra interessante. juan carlos The Politics of Bitcoin Software as Right-Wing Extremism 2016 • Author: David Golumbia http://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/the-politics-of-bitcoin/ The first comprehensive account of Bitcoin’s underlying right-wing politics Since its introduction in 2009, Bitcoin has been widely promoted as a digital currency that will revolutionize everything from online commerce to the nation-state. Yet supporters of Bitcoin and its blockchain technology subscribe to a form of cyberlibertarianism that depends to a surprising extent on far-right political thought. Since its introduction in 2009, Bitcoin has been widely promoted as a digital currency that will revolutionize everything from online commerce to the nation-state. Yet supporters of Bitcoin and its blockchain technology subscribe to a form of cyberlibertarianism that depends to a surprising extent on far-right political thought. The Politics of Bitcoin exposes how much of the economic and political thought on which this cryptocurrency is based emerges from ideas that travel the gamut, from Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, and Ludwig von Mises to Federal Reserve conspiracy theorists.

1 0

WashPost: "THIS IS WHERE MOBILE TECHNOLOGY BEGINS"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Oct. 7, 2016

Oct. 7, 2016

Straordinario. jc THE COBALT PIPELINE Tracing the path from deadly hand-dug mines in Congo to consumers’ phones and laptops Story byTodd C. Frankel <https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/todd-c-frankel/>Photos byMichael Robinson Chavez <https://twitter.com/chavismophoto>Video editing byJorge Ribas <https://twitter.com/jribas?lang=en> September 30, 2016 https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/batteries/congo-cobalt-min…

2 1

Mastercard con riconoscimento facciale anche in Italia?
by Alberto Cammozzo Oct. 6, 2016

Oct. 6, 2016

L'app Mastercard Identity Check introduce l'autenticazione attraverso impronta digitale o riconoscimento facciale. Sarebbe stato varato o dovrebbe essere varato anche in Italia. <http://www.inc.com/neil-c-hughes/this-new-form-of-biometric-authentication-…> <http://newsfeeding.net/technology/biometrics/mastercard-introduces-facial-r…> E' installabile da Google Play anche se non suggerita in play in italiano. Non ho ancora provato l'installazione. <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mastercard.identitycheck.…> Ho cercato nel sito del Garante se ci sono verifiche preliminari ma non ho trovato nulla. Non mi risultano nemmeno autorizzazioni in tal senso per attività finanziarie. Qualcuno ne sa qualcosa? grazie e ciao, Alberto

1 0

Toward a Constructive Technology Criticism
by Enrico Bergamini Oct. 6, 2016

Oct. 6, 2016

Lungo report per il Tow Center for Digital Journalism di Sara M Watson sullo stato dell'arte della critica tecnologica. > In this report, I draw on interviews with journalists and critics, as well > as a broad reading of published work, to assess the current state of > technology coverage and criticism in the popular discourse, and to offer > some thoughts on how to move the critical enterprise forward. I find that > what it means to cover technology is a moving target. Today, the technology > beat focuses less on the technology itself and more on how technology > intersects with and transforms everything readers care about—from politics > to personal relationships. But as technology coverage matures, the > distinctions between reporting and criticism are blurring. Even the most > straightforward reporting plays a role in guiding public attention and > setting agendas. http://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/constructive_technology_criticism.php <http://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/constructive_technology_criticism.php>

1 0

Internet Policy Review Special Issue 'Doing Internet Governance'
by Antonio Casilli Oct. 6, 2016

Oct. 6, 2016

Via Francesca Musiani (CNRS). Gli articoli sono in accesso libero qui: http://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/doing-internet- governance-practices-controversies-infrastructures-and-0 --- This special issue makes an argument for, and illustrates, the applicability of a science and technology studies (STS) informed approach to internet governance research. The conceptual framework put forward in this editorial and the articles composing this issue add to the mainstream internet governance scholarship by unpacking macro questions of politics and power. They do so through the analysis of the mundane and taken-for-granted practices and discourses that constitute the design, regulation, maintenance, and use of both technical and institutional arrangements of internet governance. Together, this body of work calls to rethink how we conceptualise both internet and governance. The issue includes an editorial and 10 articles: - Editorial: Doing internet governance: how science and technology studies inform the study of internet governance Dmitry Epstein, University of Illinois at Chicago, United States Christian Katzenbach, Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Germany Francesca Musiani, CNRS/Université Paris-Sorbonne, France - Disclosing and concealing: internet governance, information control and the management of visibility Mikkel Flyverbom, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark - Beyond “Points of Control”: logics of digital governmentality Romain Badouard, Université de Cergy-Pontoise, France Clément Mabi, Université de Technologie de Compiègne, France Guillaume Sire, Université Paris II (Panthéon-Assas), France - Instability and internet design Sandra Braman, Texas A&M University, United States - The problem of future users: how constructing the DNS shaped internet governance Steven Malcic, University of California Santa Barbara, United States - The myth of the decentralised internet Ashwin J. Mathew, University of California, Berkeley, United States - The invisible politics of Bitcoin: governance crisis of a decentralised infrastructure Primavera De Filippi, Harvard University, United States Benjamin Loveluck, Télécom ParisTech (Université Paris-Saclay) and CERSA (CNRS-Paris 2), France - Multistakeholder governance processes as production sites: enhanced cooperation "in the making" Julia Pohle, Berlin Social Science Center (WZB), Germany - Internet governance as 'ideology in practice' – India's 'Free Basics' controversy Anita Gurumurthy, IT for Change, India Nandini Chami, IT for Change, India - What we talk about when we talk about cybersecurity: security in internet governance debates Josephine Wolff, Rochester Institute of Technology, United States - Governing the internet in the privacy arena Carsten Ochs, Universität Kassel, Germany Fabian Pittroff, Universität Kassel, Germany Barbara Büttner, Universität Kassel, Germany Jörn Lamla, Universität Kassel, Germany

1 0

Internet Policy Review Special Issue 'Doing Internet Governance'
by Francesca Musiani Oct. 6, 2016

Oct. 6, 2016

Care e cari, ho il piacere di annunciare la pubblicazione di un numero speciale dell'Internet Policy Review intitolato "Doing internet governance: practices, controversies, infrastructures, and institutions" e curato da me, Dmitry Epstein e Christian Katzenbach. Eccone la presentazione: This special issue makes an argument for, and illustrates, the applicability of a science and technology studies (STS) informed approach to internet governance research. The conceptual framework put forward in this editorial and the articles composing this issue add to the mainstream internet governance scholarship by unpacking macro questions of politics and power. They do so through the analysis of the mundane and taken-for-granted practices and discourses that constitute the design, regulation, maintenance, and use of both technical and institutional arrangements of internet governance. Together, this body of work calls to rethink how we conceptualise both internet and governance. The issue includes an editorial and 10 articles: - Editorial: Doing internet governance: how science and technology studies inform the study of internet governance Dmitry Epstein, University of Illinois at Chicago, United States Christian Katzenbach, Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Germany Francesca Musiani, CNRS/Université Paris-Sorbonne, France - Disclosing and concealing: internet governance, information control and the management of visibility Mikkel Flyverbom, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark - Beyond “Points of Control”: logics of digital governmentality Romain Badouard, Université de Cergy-Pontoise, France Clément Mabi, Université de Technologie de Compiègne, France Guillaume Sire, Université Paris II (Panthéon-Assas), France - Instability and internet design Sandra Braman, Texas A&M University, United States - The problem of future users: how constructing the DNS shaped internet governance Steven Malcic, University of California Santa Barbara, United States - The myth of the decentralised internet Ashwin J. Mathew, University of California, Berkeley, United States - The invisible politics of Bitcoin: governance crisis of a decentralised infrastructure Primavera De Filippi, Harvard University, United States Benjamin Loveluck, Télécom ParisTech (Université Paris-Saclay) and CERSA (CNRS-Paris 2), France - Multistakeholder governance processes as production sites: enhanced cooperation "in the making" Julia Pohle, Berlin Social Science Center (WZB), Germany - Internet governance as 'ideology in practice' – India's 'Free Basics' controversy Anita Gurumurthy, IT for Change, India Nandini Chami, IT for Change, India - What we talk about when we talk about cybersecurity: security in internet governance debates Josephine Wolff, Rochester Institute of Technology, United States - Governing the internet in the privacy arena Carsten Ochs, Universität Kassel, Germany Fabian Pittroff, Universität Kassel, Germany Barbara Büttner, Universität Kassel, Germany Jörn Lamla, Universität Kassel, Germany Tutti gli articoli sono in open access al seguente indirizzo: http://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/doing- internet-governance-practices-controversies-infrastructures-and-0 Cordialmente, Francesca -- Francesca Musiani (ph.d.) associate research professor (*chargée de recherche*), CNRS, ISCC <http://www.iscc.cnrs.fr/> associate researcher, i3, CSI <http://www.csi.ensmp.fr/>, MINES ParisTech vice-chair, CPT <http://iamcr.org/s-wg/section/cp-t>, IAMCR academic editor, @PolicyR <http://policyreview.info/> on the web <http://www.csi.mines-paristech.fr/People/musiani/> | on twitter <https://twitter.com/franmusiani>

1 0

Coding is not ‘fun’, it’s technically and ethically complex
by Alberto Cammozzo Oct. 6, 2016

Oct. 6, 2016

Programming computers is a piece of cake. Or so the world’s digital-skills gurus would have us believe. From the non-profit Code.org’s promise that ‘Anybody can learn!’ to Apple chief executive Tim Cook’s comment that writing code is ‘fun and interactive’, the art and science of making software is now as accessible as the alphabet. Unfortunately, this rosy portrait bears no relation to reality. For starters, the profile of a programmer’s mind is pretty uncommon. As well as being highly analytical and creative, software developers need almost superhuman focus to manage the complexity of their tasks. Manic attention to detail is a must; slovenliness is verboten. Attaining this level of concentration requires a state of mind called being ‘in the flow’, a quasi-symbiotic relationship between human and machine that improves performance and motivation. Coding isn’t the only job that demands intense focus. But you’d never hear someone say that brain surgery is ‘fun’, or that structural engineering is ‘easy’. When it comes to programming, why do policymakers and technologists pretend otherwise? For one, it helps lure people to the field at a time when software (in the words of the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen) is ‘eating the world’ – and so, by expanding the labour pool, keeps industry ticking over and wages under control. Another reason is that the very word ‘coding’ sounds routine and repetitive, as though there’s some sort of key that developers apply by rote to crack any given problem. It doesn’t help that Hollywood has cast the ‘coder’ as a socially challenged, type-first-think-later hacker, inevitably white and male, with the power to thwart the Nazis or penetrate the CIA. nsisting on the glamour and fun of coding is the wrong way to acquaint kids with computer science. It insults their intelligence and plants the pernicious notion in their heads that you don’t need discipline in order to progress. As anyone with even minimal exposure to making software knows, behind a minute of typing lies an hour of study. It’s better to admit that coding is complicated, technically and ethically. Computers, at the moment, can only execute orders, to varying degrees of sophistication. So it’s up to the developer to be clear: the machine does what you say, not what you mean. More and more ‘decisions’ are being entrusted to software, including life-or-death ones: think self-driving cars; think semi-autonomous weapons; think Facebook and Google making inferences about your marital, psychological or physical status, before selling it to the highest bidder. Yet it’s rarely in the interests of companies and governments to encourage us to probe what’s going on beneath these processes. All of these scenarios are built on exquisitely technical foundations. But we can’t respond to them by answering exclusively technical questions. Programming is not a detail that can be left to ‘technicians’ under the false pretence that their choices will be ‘scientifically neutral’. Societies are too complex: the algorithmic is political. Automation has already dealt a blow to the job security of low-skilled workers in factories and warehouses around the world. White-collar workers are next in line. The digital giants of today run on a fraction of the employees of the industrial giants of yesterday, so the irony of encouraging more people to work as programmers is that they are slowly mobilising themselves out of jobs. In an ever-more intricate and connected world, where software plays a larger and larger role in everyday life, it’s irresponsible to speak of coding as a lightweight activity. Software is not simply lines of code, nor is it blandly technical. In just a few years, understanding programming will be an indispensable part of active citizenship. The idea that coding offers an unproblematic path to social progress and personal enhancement works to the advantage of the growing techno-plutocracy that’s insulating itself behind its own technology. <https://aeon.co/ideas/coding-is-not-fun-it-s-technically-and-ethically-comp…>

1 0

'Too big to fail' cloud giants like AWS threaten civilization as we know it • The Register
by Elia Gabriele Oct. 5, 2016

Oct. 5, 2016

un bell'articolo di warning sul medio termine .. mentre l'informatica cala del 10% in europa le vendite di cloud Amazon, Microsoft e Google crescono del 50% (e da soli fanno il 50% del mercato) se cambierà il loro modello di business (p.es. perchè smetteranno di salire in borsa del 30% all'anno) l'impatto sulle aziende che li usano sarà devastante ... ciao g http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/04/cloud_vendors_too_big_to_fail/ 'Too big to fail' cloud giants like AWS threaten civilization as we know it Canalys chief warns traditional hardware skills could die out 4 Oct 2016 at 18:29, Joe Fay<http://www.theregister.co.uk/Author/45> Channel Forums The world’s largest cloud players are in danger of becoming too big to fail, the boss of Canalys warned today. This is a problem because the list of potential trip hazards for the likes of Azure, AWS and Google is growing ever longer – and at least one of them is going to stumble and fall, taking customers' off-premises systems with them. With traditional hardware skills in danger of dying out, it’s not like we can do anything about it. The dual warning came in Canalys founder Steve Brazier’s keynote address to the audience of resellers, distributors, and vendors at the firm’s Channel Forums<https://www.canalyschannelsforum.com/emea> bash in Barcelona, which kicked off with a scorecard of channel performance so far this year. Brazier said that traditional sectors had done poorly. EMEA storage revenues were down 5 per cent in the first half of this year, as were server revenues. PCs had plummeted 12 per cent, while smart phones were up 1 per cent, only because of strong sales in Africa. On the upside, sales of hyperconverged systems were up 74 per cent, detachable tablet sales had skyrocketed 150 per cent, and flash storage was up 100 per cent. However, he warned, these were largely accounted for by shifts of revenue from the traditional markets. Just to drive home how channel economics had changed, he said that only three years ago, 25 per cent of server sales were direct, with the balance going through the channel. Now, just 40 per cent went through the channel, with 35 per cent of sales going to the public cloud, and the balance going to managed service providers. The villains in all of this were the major public cloud vendors. Canalys said that AWS had grown 59 per cent, while Azure had grown its revenues a whopping 98 per cent and Google was not far behind with 89 per cent growth. Together those three accounted for over 50 per cent of the public cloud, which grew 50 per cent overall. Brazier said the cloud firms were waging a massive PR war over the benefits of running your business in the cloud, which traditional vendors had yet to truly respond to. In the meantime, he said, Amazon was close to “crossing the chasm” to have its business model considered “established” and not at all flakey<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/25/public_iaas_crisis/>. But, he continued, there were two possible dangers to this breakneck growth. The first was that customers would find themselves increasingly locked in to one of three armed camps. He said that cloud marketplaces had struggled, in part because they were rarely able to offer services from more than one cloud provider. Far more sinister though was the prospect – which may become apparent in two years, or 20 – that these organizations could simply become “too big to fail.” And depending on when this happens, the potential consequences for all businesses could be catastrophic. “If one of these companies goes down, hundreds of thousands of other companies go down too,” Brazier warned. The likes of AWS were potentially vulnerable to financial shocks – a hike in interest rates for example – or a cyber attack that would wreck its business AND those of its customers. They were also subject to a range of other catastrophic risks – for example power grid failures or natural disasters – with the fallout propagated worldwide. He cited AWS’ hiking of its UK prices post-Brexit as an example of how quickly customers could be affected. Of course, the simple answer to this is for companies or service suppliers to build their own infrastructures. However, Brazier had a final sting in the tail, pointing out that young techies were overwhelmingly focused on coding as a career. Hardware engineers were getting increasingly old, as a workforce, and there is a genuine danger, he claimed, of the skill set dying out. It was down to service providers and vendors to “encourage people to go down the hardware route.” Of course, this is all speculative. Brazier also said that established markets were subject to increasing numbers of shocks and unpredictability. It was hard to predict the course of the UK and European market as Brexit takes shape, he said. Then there is the clincher ... Trump in November. ® Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. [rispetta l'ambiente]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.

1 0

90° Mercoledì di Nexa - 12 ottobre 2016
by Francesco Ruggiero Oct. 5, 2016

Oct. 5, 2016

Se non visualizzi correttamente questo messaggio clicca qui <http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-88> NEXA 90° Mercoledì di Nexa Mercoledi 12 ottobre 2016, ore 18.00 - 20.00 Politecnico di Torino http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-90 FirstLife un social network georeferenziato per gli urban commons Speakers Guido Boella (Professore ordinario presso il Dipartimento di Informatica dell’Università di Torino) This event will be webcast live: http://nexa.polito.it/upcoming-events Secondo la recente letteratura che ha origine nei lavori del premio Nobel Elinor Ostrom su co-produzione e commons,*anche le città possono essere viste come “commons”*. Una creazione collettiva sia della realtà materiale che di quella culturale fatta dai cittadini e per i cittadini, che si esplica anche in un sistema di gestione da parte dei cittadini: un insieme di pratiche sociali e norme che permettono di preservare le risorse e orientarle per il bene collettivo. Per questo il verbo “commoning” descrive meglio queste realtà del sostantivo “commons”. Le attività di commoning permesse negli spazi urbani si stanno però riducendo: da un lato edifici e piazze sono sempre più gestite da privati, dall’altro il ruolo dell’amministrazione pubblica è limitato dalla crisi e dalla conseguente riduzione dei budget. *Il commoning potrebbe essere invece una soluzione alternativa alle sfide che si presentano nelle città*, delegando ai cittadini la gestione dei commons che vivono giornalmente . Questo porta ad una visione policentrica della governance urbana. Ma la realtà urbana presenta molte differenze rispetto ai tradizionali commons legati alle risorse naturali. In particolare, la disgregazione del tessuto urbano, la dimensione dei gruppi che utilizzano i commons, la difficoltà di comunicazione fra persone che non si conoscono pur utilizzando gli stessi spazi urbani sono l’opposto delle tradizionali premesse per il buon funzionamento del commoning. *Può la tecnologia basata su internet, come auspicato da autori come Christian Iaione e David Bollier, diventare un supporto per il commoning urbano?* Si può riportare a livello locale urbano i meccanismi (passaparola, continuità fra le persone, fiducia reciproca, visibilità delle azioni) che hanno portato al successo i nuovi media che costituiscono il cosiddetto “villaggio globale” di Marshall MacLuhan? Guido Boella presenterà il progetto FirstLife dell’Università di Torino: un nuovo tipo di social network basato su una mappa interattiva che vuole promuovere la collaborazione fra i cittadini nella creazione e gestione degli urban commons. *FirstLife vuole coprire una dimensione della nostra vita non coperta dagli altri social network: le persone come cittadini e non come privati o come professionisti*. Vuole essere un nuovo media che permette di accedere alle informazioni di interesse tramite la mappa temporizzata, piuttosto che tramite hashtag, motori di ricerca o tramite algoritmi sconosciuti che ti chiudono in una filter bubble. Per saperne di più BIOGRAFIE - e informazioni supplementari [ALIPRANDI - BLENGINO] GUIDO BOELLA è Professore ordinario presso il Dipartimento di Informatica dell’Università di Torino. Ha seguito un percorso che lo ha portato dalla laurea in filosofia, al dottorato in informatica sui temi della collaborazione in sistemi multi-agente e, in seguito, alla ricerca in informatica legale e geo-informatica. La sua attività scientifica ha un carattere fortemente interdisciplinare, che investe i campi dei sistemi normativi, dei linguaggi naturali, delle ontologie formali, delle scienze cognitive e dell’intelligenza artificiale. È stato coordinatore scientifico e referente per il Dipartimento di Informatica di numerosi progetti nazionali e internazionali, tra i quali EUcases, ITxLAW, WeGovNow!. Ha realizzato diversi software (powerJava, powerJade, Legal taxonomy syllabus, Eunomos) e partecipato a progetti di trasferimento tecnologico verso le imprese, fondando nel 2010 l’azienda Nomotika. Negli ultimi anni, i suoi interessi e attività si sono estesi ai temi dei social networks e al loro potenziale utilizzo per la gestione dei beni comuni e come strumenti di supporto alla co-produzione dei servizi a scala locale. In qualità di coordinatore scientifico di FirstLife, si occupa dell’inquadramento e della supervisione del lavoro di ricerca legato alla piattaforma, nonché della preparazione di progetti e proposte per una sua applicazione in ambiti che vanno dall’inclusione sociale alle emergenze, dai nuovi sistemi di governance a forme economiche alternative. Letture consigliate e link utili: * The Co-City: Sharing, Collaborating, Cooperating, Commoning in the City <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2708296>, di Christian Iaione * Collective Action and the Urban Commons <%20http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1791767>, di Sheila Foster. Che cosa sono il Centro Nexa e i cicli di incontri “Mercoledì di Nexa” e “Nexa Lunch Seminar” Il Centro Nexa su Internet & Società del Politecnico di Torino (Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica) è un centro di ricerca indipendente e interdisciplinare che studia Internet e il suo effetto sulla società. Maggiori informazioni all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/about. Durante i “*Mercoledì di Nexa*”, che si tengono *ogni 2° mercoledì del mese* alle *ore 18 in punto*, il Centro Nexa su Internet e Società apre le sue porte non solo agli esperti e a tutti coloro i quali lavorano con Internet, ma anche a semplici appassionati e cittadini. Il ciclo di incontri intende approfondire, con un linguaggio preciso ma divulgativo, i temi legati alla Rete: motori di ricerca, Creative Commons, social networks, open source/software libero, neutralità della rete, libertà di espressione, privacy, file sharing, big e open data, smart cities e molto altro. Al centro di quasi tutti gli incontri un ospite pronto a dialogare con i direttori del Centro Nexa, il Prof. Juan Carlos De Martin del Politecnico di Torino e il Prof. Marco Ricolfi dell'Università di Torino, nonché lo staff e i Fellows del Centro Nexa. Maggiori informazioni sui Mercoledì di Nexa, incluso un elenco di tutti i “Mercoledì” passati, sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi. Si segnala inoltre che dal maggio 2012 *ogni 4° mercoledì* del mese *dalle ore 13 alle ore 14* il Centro Nexa organizza anche i "*Nexa Lunch Seminar*". Una lista di tutti i “Lunch Seminar” passati è disponibile all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/lunch-seminars. See our events calendar <http://nexa.polito.it/events> if you're curious about future luncheons, discussions, lectures, and conferences not listed in this email. Our events are free and open to the public, unless otherwise noted. Maggiori informazioni sui Mercoledì di Nexa e i Nexa Lunch Seminar, sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/events. Weekly Events Newsletter. Sign up <http://nexa.polito.it/mailing-lists> to receive this newsletter if this email was forwarded to you. To manage your subscription preferences, please click here <https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa>. Connect & get involved: Jobs, internships, and more <http://nexa.polito.it/get-involved> Nexa Center for Internet and Society Newsletter

1 0