February 2016 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] "Meet the Robin Hood of Science"

by David Orban

Alexandra era speaker a H+ Summit @ Harvard che ho organizzato nel 2010. http://hplussummit.com Il suo attivismo vendica quello per cui Aaron è stato sottoposto da Jstor MIT e il DA ad una pressione a cui non è stato in grado di resistere. On Friday, February 12, 2016, J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin(a)polito.it> wrote: > Meet the Robin Hood of Science > > by SIMON OXENHAM <http://bigthink.com/users/simonoxenham> > > - > - > > *The tale of how one researcher has made nearly every scientific paper > ever published available for free to anyone, anywhere in the world.* > > On the evening of November 9th, 1989, the Cold War came to a dramatic end > with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Four years ago another wall began to > crumble, a wall that arguably has as much impact on the world as the wall > that divided East and West Germany. The wall in question is the network of > paywalls that cuts off tens of thousands of students and researchers around > the world, at institutions that can’t afford expensive journal > subscriptions, from accessing scientific research. > > On September 5th, 2011, Alexandra Elbakyan, a researcher from Kazakhstan, > created Sci-Hub, a website that bypasses journal paywalls, illegally > providing access to nearly every scientific paper ever published > immediately to anyone who wants it. The website works in two stages, > firstly by attempting to download a copy from the LibGen database of > pirated content, which opened its doors to academic papers in 2012 and now > contains over 48 million scientific papers. The ingenious part of the > system is that if LibGen does not already have a copy of the paper, Sci-hub > bypasses the journal paywall in real time by using access keys donated by > academics lucky enough to study at institutions with an adequate range of > subscriptions. This allows Sci-Hub to route the user straight to the paper > through publishers such as JSTOR, Springer, Sage, and Elsevier. After > delivering the paper to the user within seconds, Sci-Hub donates a copy of > the paper to LibGen for good measure, where it will be stored forever, > accessible by everyone and anyone. > > […] > > Continua qui: http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/a-pirate-bay-for-science > > -- David Orban "What is the question that I should be asking?" twitter, linkedin, etc: davidorban

Feb. 12, 2016

"Meet the Robin Hood of Science"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Meet the Robin Hood of Science bySIMON OXENHAM <http://bigthink.com/users/simonoxenham> * o */The tale of how one researcher has made nearly every scientific paper ever published available for free to anyone, anywhere in the world./* On the evening of November 9th, 1989, the Cold War came to a dramatic end with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Four years ago another wall began to crumble, a wall that arguably has as much impact on the world as the wall that divided East and West Germany. The wall in question is the network of paywalls that cuts off tens of thousands of students and researchers around the world, at institutions that can’t afford expensive journal subscriptions, from accessing scientific research. On September 5th, 2011, Alexandra Elbakyan, a researcher from Kazakhstan, created Sci-Hub, a website that bypasses journal paywalls, illegally providing access to nearly every scientific paper ever published immediately to anyone who wants it. The website works in two stages, firstly by attempting to download a copy from the LibGen database of pirated content, which opened its doors to academic papers in 2012 and now contains over 48 million scientific papers. The ingenious part of the system is that if LibGen does not already have a copy of the paper, Sci-hub bypasses the journal paywall in real time by using access keys donated by academics lucky enough to study at institutions with an adequate range of subscriptions. This allows Sci-Hub to route the user straight to the paper through publishers such as JSTOR, Springer, Sage, and Elsevier. After delivering the paper to the user within seconds, Sci-Hub donates a copy of the paper to LibGen for good measure, where it will be stored forever, accessible by everyone and anyone. […] Continua qui: http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/a-pirate-bay-for-science

Feb. 12, 2016

Schneier: "Security or Surveillance?"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Security or Surveillance? By Bruce Schneier <https://www.lawfareblog.com/contributors/bschneier> Monday, February 1, 2016, 1:01 PM /Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society convened an interdisciplinary group to take on vexing questions of surveillance and cybersecurity. The group has now released the report “Don’t Panic <https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/dont-panic/>.” Here, its authors share some individual reflections./ *** Both the “going dark” metaphor <https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/going-dark-are-technology-privacy-and-pub…> of FBI Director James Comey and the contrasting “golden age of surveillance” metaphor <https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/07-08-15%20Swire%20Testimony…> of privacy law professor Peter Swire focus on the value of data to law enforcement. As framed in the media, encryption debates are about whether law enforcement should have surreptitious access to data, or whether companies should be allowed to provide strong encryption to their customers. It’s a myopic framing that focuses only on one threat — criminals, including domestic terrorists — and the demands of law enforcement and national intelligence. This obscures the most important aspects of the encryption issue: the security it provides against a much wider variety of threats. […] Continua qui: https://www.lawfareblog.com/security-or-surveillance

Feb. 12, 2016

Worldwide Review of Encryption Products - by Bruce Schneier et al.

by J.C. DE MARTIN

In this paper, which is modeled on a similar effort in 1999 by researchers from George Washington University, Berkman Fellow Bruce Schneier and collaborator Kathleen Seidel together with Harvard College student Saranya Vijayakuma identify and survey 865 encryption products from 55 different countries, 546 of them from outside the United States. In contrast, the 1999 survey found 805 encryption products from outside the US. Very few products from the earlier survey appear in the new one, indicating much change in this market over the last 17 years. The new survey also identified 587 entities that sell or give away encryption products, and of those, two-thirds are outside the US. Schneier argues in the paper that the survey findings call into question the efficacy of any US mandates forcing backdoors for law-enforcement access. He asserts that they show that anyone who wants to avoid US surveillance has hundreds of competing products to choose from. The report findings indicate that foreign products offer a wide variety of secure applications—voice encryption, text message encryption, file encryption, network-traffic encryption, anonymous currency—providing the same levels of security as US products do today. Additional findings include: * The most common non-US country for encryption products is Germany, with 112 products. This is followed by the United Kingdom, Canada, France, and Sweden, in that order. * The five most common countries for encryption products—including the US—account for two-thirds of the total. But smaller countries like Algeria, Argentina, Belize, the British Virgin Islands, Chile, Cyprus, Estonia, Iraq, Malaysia, St. Kitts and Nevis, Tanzania, and Thailand each produce at least one encryption product. * Of the 546 foreign encryption products we found, 56% are available for sale and 44% are free. 66% are proprietary, and 34% are open source. Some for-sale products also have a free version. * At least 587 entities—primarily companies—either sell or give away encryption products. Of those, 374, or about two-thirds, are outside the US. * Of the 546 foreign encryption products, 47 are file encryption products, 68 e-mail encryption products, 104 message encryption products, 35 voice encryption products, and 61 virtual private networking products. The full paper is available for download as part of the Berkman Publication Series on SSRN at: <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2731160>http://ssrn.com/abstract=2731160.

Feb. 12, 2016

Re: [nexa] U.S. Intel Chief: Smart Home Devices Present "New Opportunities" for Spying

by J.C. DE MARTIN

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/09/internet-of-things-smart-… On 11/02/16 13:32, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/10/headlines/us_intel_chief_smart_home_d… > > > jc > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Feb. 11, 2016

Google to extend 'right to be forgotten' to all its domains accessed in EU

by Matteo Flora

Google to extend 'right to be forgotten' to all its domains accessed in EU The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/11/google-extend-right-to-be…

Feb. 11, 2016

Fwd: 3 Premi da AICA e ROTARY per tesi su "ETIC" - Scadenza bando 12 marzo 2016

by J.C. DE MARTIN

-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: 3 Premi da AICA e ROTARY per tesi su "ETIC" - Scadenza bando 12 marzo 2016 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:34:33 +0100 From: AICA-COMUNICAZIONI <aica-newsletter(a)cu.mi.it> Reply-To: comunicazioni(a)aicanet.it cid:image001.jpg@01D16421.A200B9F0 *PREMI ETIC 2015-2016 - C’è tempo fino al 12 Marzo 2016 per partecipare* *AICA e ROTARY INTERNATIONAL*, con il patrocinio della *CRUI*, promuovono la sesta edizione del bando per l'assegnazione di *3 Premi*: un premio nazionale dell’importo di Euro 2.000, due premi distrettuali dell’importo di Euro 1.500 ciascunoper tesi di laurea o di dottorato su argomenti concernenti l'area dell'ETIC (*Etica e Tecnologie dell’Informazione e della Comunicazione*). Possono partecipare al concorso laureati che abbiano conseguito il titolo presso una Università italiana o dottori di ricerca che abbiano consegnato formalmente la tesi o superato l'esame finale di dottorato nel periodo 21 febbraio 2015 - 29 febbraio 2016. La domanda di partecipazione dovrà essere presentata entro il 12 marzo 2016 per via telematica, accedendo al sito di AICA http://www.aicanet.it <http://www.aicanet.it/article/bando-premio-etic-2015-2016> In allegato si inoltra la locandina del bando con invito a diffonderla a quanti possono essere interessati. Con i migliori saluti Giulio Occhini Direttore AICA

Feb. 11, 2016

U.S. Intel Chief: Smart Home Devices Present "New Opportunities" for Spying

by J.C. DE MARTIN

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/10/headlines/us_intel_chief_smart_home_d… jc

Feb. 11, 2016

Nuova pubblicazione: "The Turn to Infrastructure in Internet Governance"

by Francesca Musiani

Buongiorno, sono lieta di annunciare la pubblicazione del volume "The Turn to Infrastructure in Internet Governance", che ho curato insieme a Derrick Cogburn, Laura DeNardis e Nanette Levinson. Il libro è disponibile in formato cartaceo e lo sarà presto come e-book, sul sito di Palgrave e altri siti come Amazon. http://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9781137533265 Il volume include contributi di Matthew Schruers, Primavera De Filippi, Danièle Bourcier, Meryem Marzouki, Nicolas Arpagian, John Laprise, Patricia Vargas-Leon, Kenneth Merrill e Tatevik Sargsyan, oltre a quelle dei curatori. La verison pre-print del capitolo introduttivo scritto da Laura DeNardis e da me sarà presto disponibile su SSRN. *This edited volume brings together experts from around the world to provide coverage and analysis of infrastructure's role in Internet governance, both now and in the future. Never in history have conflicts over Internet governance attracted such widespread attention. High-profile controversies include the disclosures about NSA surveillance by intelligence analyst Edward Snowden, controversy over a decision by the US government to relinquish its historic oversight of Internet names and numbers, and countless cybersecurity breaches involving unauthorized access to Internet users' personal data. Much of the Internet governance ecosystem—both technical architecture and coordinating institutions—is behind the scenes but increasingly carries significant public interest implications. An area once concealed in institutional and technological complexity is now rightly bracketed among other shared global issues —such as environmental protection and human rights—that have considerable global implications but are simply incongruous with national borders. This transformation into an era of global governance by Internet infrastructure presents a moment of opportunity for scholars to bring these politicized infrastructures to the foreground.* Carissimi saluti, Francesca -- Francesca Musiani (ph.d.) assistant research professor (*chargée de recherche*), CNRS, ISCC <http://www.iscc.cnrs.fr/> associate researcher, i3, CSI <http://www.csi.ensmp.fr/>, MINES ParisTech co-chair, ESN-IAMCR <http://iamcr.org/s-wg/cctmc/esn> academic editor, @PolicyR <http://policyreview.info/> on the web <http://www.csi.mines-paristech.fr/People/musiani/> | on twitter <https://twitter.com/franmusiani>

Feb. 11, 2016

Roman intelligence and Jesus as a security risk.

by Alberto Cammozzo

Col. Rose Mary Sheldon <http://warontherocks.com/2016/02/jesus-as-a-security-risk-intelligence-and-…> [...] Roman intelligence had done its job correctly. They had detected a public figure stirring up the people; they had watched him create public disturbances and preach things contrary to Rome’s interests. He was rounded up and eliminated. They did not wait to see how things would play out if they left him on the streets. Scholars will continue to argue on the precise nature and meaning of the Triumphal Entry, the Cleansing of the Temple, the disciple’s swords and the arrest of Jesus, the Barabbas episode, and the trial or trials. No consensus is ever likely to be reached based on the available evidence. But the attitude of Jesus to the Temple, as well as his sayings concerning social injustice would have had to bring him, sooner or later, into conflict with the authorities whose task it was to maintain order and to whom every national movement appeared suspicious. Witnesses may have included individuals willing to sell information to the Romans. In a poverty stricken province like Judaea, it would not have been hard to find what local sources called “a mouth willing to talk.” Reports from various agents may have been confused or contradicting as happens with all such reports. Agents may have exaggerated the accounts to make themselves seem more important. Some of the intelligence may have been useful, some not. Whether or not Jesus actually claimed to be king, intelligence may have reported only that people were saying he did. What matters in this case is not the literal truth, but rather how the situation appeared to the Roman administration based on the intelligence it had at hand at the time. From the point of view of Rome’s immediate security needs, Pilate had Jesus crucified for a justifiable reason: He was a security risk. Pilate was acting in Rome’s self-interest. In the context of the first century occupation of Palestine, this meant nipping any revolutionary action in the bud. Like many decision-makers, Pilate made a judgment on the basis of the intelligence he had, even if that intelligence was fragmentary. Whether the threat to Roman security was real or imagined is, in some ways, irrelevant. [...]

Feb. 11, 2016