March 2016 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Chiusi: "L'ERA DEI ROBOT E LA FINE DEL LAVORO"
by J.C. DE MARTIN March 25, 2016

March 25, 2016

Ampio servizio di Fabio Chiusi (e collaboratori) su questo tema spesso dibattuto in lista: http://storie.valigiablu.it/robot-e-lavoro/ juan carlos

2 1

Open Government Partnership: pubblicata la relazione sullo stato di avanzamento 2014-15
by Mauro Alovisio March 25, 2016

March 25, 2016

gent.me/mi segnalo dal sito Agid Cordiali saluti Mauro Alovisio Open Government Partnership: pubblicata la relazione sullo stato di avanzamento 2014-15 *Mercoledì, 23 Marzo, 2016* Ecco le valutazioni sul secondo Piano d’Azione italiano, aperto ai commenti pubblici fino al 1° aprile 2016. [image: Open Government Partnership: pubblicata la relazione sullo stato di avanzamento 2014-15] L’Open Government Partnership (OGP) è un’iniziativa volontaria internazionale il cui scopo è assicurare gli impegni dei Governi verso i loro cittadini nello sviluppo della trasparenza, nella lotta alla corruzione, nell'aumentare la partecipazione tra la cittadinanza e nel guidare e promuovere nuove tecnologie per rafforzare la governance pubblica. Il meccanismo indipendente di valutazione (Independent Reporting Mechanism - IRM) pubblica, per ogni nazione partecipante all’OGP, un rapporto di medio termine e uno di fine termine a Piano Nazionale d’Azione (NAP) terminato. Il secondo Piano d’Azione, a un anno di distanza dall’adozione del primo, evidenzia che la maggior parte degli impegni presi dall'Agenzia per l'Italia Digitale sono in avanzata fase di sviluppo e mostrano un tasso di avanzamento coerente con le tempistiche. Le azioni legate agli Open data, alla cittadinanza digitale e alla trasparenza delle spese delle pubbliche amministrazioni, tutte iniziative che vedono AgID come responsabile, sono state recepite positivamente. Le raccomandazioni trasversali dei ricercatori IRM suggeriscono che il Governo dovrebbe continuare a coinvolgere la Società Civile nei vari processi per aumentarne la partecipazione nell'attuazione del Piano d’Azione OGP. Inoltre, è necessario che la Società Civile italiana aumenti la propria partecipazione, mantenendo una chiara separazione tra ruoli pubblici e privati. Il report è disponibile sia in italiano (link is external) <http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/Italy_IRM%20Progress%…> che in inglese (link is external) <http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/Italy_2014-15_PublicC…>. L’IRM invita tutti gli stakeholder interessati a commentare pubblicamente (link is external) <http://www.opengovpartnership.org/node/8662> la relazione entro il 1° aprile 2016. I commenti ricevuti verranno pubblicati accanto alla relazione e contribuiranno alla preparazione della sua versione finale. http://www.agid.gov.it/notizie/2016/03/23/open-government-partnership-pubbl… Tag: attività internazionali <http://www.agid.gov.it/tags/attivita-internazionali> Pagina interna sull'argomento: Progetti e programmi internazionali <http://www.agid.gov.it/agenda-digitale/progetti-programmi-internazionali> - [image: Facebook logo] Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A//www.agid.gov.it/notizie/2016/…> - [image: Twitter logo] Twitter <http://twitter.com/share?url=http%3A//www.agid.gov.it/notizie/2016/03/23/op…> Ultimo aggiornamento 23 Marzo 2016

1 0

Re: [nexa] sentenze online: come conciliare trasparenza e privacy?
by Simone Aliprandi March 25, 2016

March 25, 2016

Certo, conosco già la tua posizione, Monica. E infatti, se leggi il mio articolo (soprattutto nella parte finale), l'obbiettivo era proprio quello di aprire il dibattito e segnalare come alcune questioni siano ancora irrisolte. Io non ho risposte e con http://JurisWiki.it ho cercato di proporre qualche soluzione innovativa pur con i mezzi limitati a mia disposizione. Come ho scritto nell'articolo ci sono casi in cui il poter ricollegare la sentenza ad un soggetto specifico sia essenziale per rendere comprensibile il provvedimento nel suo senso strettamente giuridico ma anche in un senso civico. Pensiamo a tutti i casi in cui sia in gioco la gestione della cosa pubblica. Credo davvero che la strada migliore sia quella di trovare un equilibrio tra la massima disponibilità e apertura di informazioni preziose relative all'attività giurisdizionale e la tutela della privacy. Non sono sicuro che la soluzione sia un radicale "anonimizziamo a priori tutte le sentenze presenti sul web" o ancor peggio "togliamo tutte le sentenze dal web". Il problema sta nel trovare nuovi parametri e criteri che siano più adatti al web, cioè ad uno nuovo media che, per la sua stessa natura, tende a livellare e a mettere tutti i contenuti su un unico piano. Cercare di applicare parametri e criteri del mondo pre-digitale è utopia: succede con il copyright e succede anche con la privacy. Un caro saluto. -- Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org | http://www.array.eu Il 23 marzo 2016 18:53, avv. Monica A. Senor <senor(a)penalistiassociati.it> ha scritto: > Buonasera a tutti, > > Simone (e non solo lui!) ben sa che sul tema "open sentenze" abbiamo > opinioni diverse, ma credo che tutti concordiamo sul fatto che un franco > confronto di idee sia sempre utile e foriero di maggiori riflessioni ed > approfondimenti. > Quindi, al solo fine di darvi una diversa prospettiva sul tema, vi invio il > link ad un mio articolo, anch'esso pubblicato su ForumPA il mese scorso: > http://www.forumpa.it/pa-digitale/giustizia-sentenze-on-line-non-e-trasparen > za-ma-violazione-della-privacy

7 9

Autorità Garante francese per la protezione dei dati personali sanziona Google su applicazione diritto all'oblio
by Francesca Mauro March 24, 2016

March 24, 2016

Il CNIL ha sanzionato Google (€ 100.000) per essersi rifiutata di applicare il diritto all'oblio su tutti i suoi domain names (incluso .com). https://www.cnil.fr/en/right-be-delisted-cnil-restricted-committee-imposes-… _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it<mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa<https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa> BIRD & BIRD For information on the international legal practice comprising Bird & Bird LLP and its affiliated and associated businesses (together "Bird & Bird"), our offices, our members and partners, regulatory information, privacy, complaints procedure and the use of e-mail see www.twobirds.com/LN Any e-mail sent from Bird & Bird may contain information which is confidential and/or privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not disclose, copy or use it; please notify the sender immediately and delete it and any copies from your systems. You should protect your system from viruses etc.; we accept no responsibility for damage that may be caused by them. To the extent permitted by law, we may monitor electronic communications for the purposes of ensuring compliance with our legal and regulatory obligations and internal policies. We may also collect email traffic headers for analysing patterns of network traffic and managing client relationships. For further information see www.twobirds.com/LNPrivacy For the terms on which we receive from, hold for or make available to a client or third party client money see www.twobirds.com/CM Studio Legale Bird & Bird Italy is a multidisciplinary partnership formed under Italian law with offices in Italy, Via Borgogna 8, 20122 Milan and Via Flaminia, 133 - 00196 Rome - Italy. The applicable professional regulations in the Codice deontologico forense are at www.consiglionazionaleforense.it/site/home/area-avvocati/codice-deontologic…

1 0

Paper: "When open data is a Trojan Horse: The weaponization of transparency in science and governance"
by J.C. DE MARTIN March 24, 2016

March 24, 2016

*When open data is a Trojan Horse: The weaponization of transparency in science and governance* /Karen EC Levy, David Merritt Johns/ DOI: 10.1177/2053951715621568, Mar 2016 Abstract Openness and transparency are becoming hallmarks of responsible data practice in science and governance. Concerns about data falsification, erroneous analysis, and misleading presentation of research results have recently strengthened the call for new procedures that ensure public accountability for data-driven decisions. Though we generally count ourselves in favor of increased transparency in data practice, this Commentary highlights a caveat. We suggest that legislative efforts that invoke the language of data transparency can sometimes function as “Trojan Horses” through which other political goals are pursued. Framing these maneuvers in the language of transparency can be strategic, because approaches that emphasize open access to data carry tremendous appeal, particularly in current political and technological contexts. We illustrate our argument through two examples of pro-transparency policy efforts, one historical and one current: industry-backed “sound science” initiatives in the 1990s, and contemporary legislative efforts to open environmental data to public inspection. Rules that exist mainly to impede science-based policy processes weaponize the concept of data transparency. The discussion illustrates that, much as Big Data itself requires critical assessment, the processes and principles that attend it—like transparency—also carry political valence, and, as such, warrant careful analysis. Openness, transparency, and reproducibility have become the new watchwords of responsible data practice in science. A series of recent high-profile scandals has brought to light the problems of erroneous analysis, falsified data, problematic methodology, and cherry-picked presentation of research results (Carey and Belluck, 2015 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-5>; Coy, 2013 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-9>; Economist, 2013 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-10>; Kolata, 2011 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-22>). Some evidence suggests these problems, whether intentional or accidental, are more widespread than has been previously recognized, and that existing norms and processes of academic publishing and peer-review are poorly configured to detect or deter them (Gelman, 2015; Horton, 2015 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-15>). For instance, in one recent large-scale reanalysis of 100 published psychology studies, only about one-third of the results could be replicated (Open Science Collaboration, 2015 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-27>); in another recent analysis of 60 published economics papers, less than half of the main results could be replicated (Chang and Li, 2015 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-6>). In response, a number of standard-bearers in the scientific process have recently called for or instituted pro-transparency policies—from requiring researchers to make their data publicly available, to insisting that study results be independently replicated prior to publication (Ablin, 2014 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-1>; Alberts et al., 2015 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-2>; Institute of Medicine, 2015 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-17>; Jacoby, 2015 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-18>). Similar pro-transparency principles have also gained traction in government. The ethos of open government, advocated in recent years by the Obama administration (Ellman and Suh, 2013 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-11>), posits that accessible datasets and transparent decision-making processes are necessary precursors to government accountability, responsible governance, public trust, and, ultimately, improved policy outcomes. Providing open access to information produced in federally funded research is said to be a core function of democracy, an effective means of accelerating job growth and innovation, and an essential strategy for promoting an engaged and informed public (Holdren, 2013 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-14>; Seife and Thacker, 2015 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-35>). As social scientists, we count ourselves in support of the (often overlapping) agendas of the open science and open governance movements. In numerous cases, accessibility and replication have strengthened the integrity of data-driven decisions and increase the accountability of decision-makers. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine many principled arguments /against/ transparency (except to the extent necessary to protect personal privacy or otherwise sensitive information)—especially when data are analyzed as part of public governance processes, or when public money has been used to produce them. However, in this Commentary, we highlight a critical challenge to the growing movement toward increased data transparency in science and public policy. We note that legislative efforts that invoke the language of data transparency can sometimes function as “Trojan Horses” designed to advance goals that have little to do with good science or good governance. Framing these maneuvers in the language of transparency can be politically strategic, because approaches that emphasize open access carry tremendous appeal, particularly in current political, technological, and institutional contexts. We illustrate our argument through two examples of pro-transparency policy efforts, one historical and one current: industry-backed “sound science” lobbying in the 1990s, and contemporary legislative efforts to open environmental data to public inspection. […] Continua qui: http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568

1 0

Economist: "The data republic" (special report)
by J.C. DE MARTIN March 24, 2016

March 24, 2016

*The data republic* /To safeguard democracy, the use of data should be made as transparent as possible/ Mar 26th 2016 | From the print edition “TECHNOLOGY IS NEITHER good nor bad; nor is it neutral,” said the late Melvin Kranzberg, one of the most influential historians of machinery. The same is true for the internet and the use of data in politics: it is neither a blessing, nor is it evil, yet it has an effect. But which effect? And what, if anything, needs to be done about it? Jürgen Habermas, the German philosopher who thought up the concept of the “public sphere”, has always been in two minds about the internet. Digital communication, he wrote a few years ago, has unequivocal democratic merits only in authoritarian countries, where it undermines the government’s information monopoly. Yet in liberal regimes, online media, with their millions of forums for debate on a vast range of topics, could lead to a “fragmentation of the public” and a “liquefaction of politics”, which would be harmful to democracy. The ups and downs of the presidential campaign in America and the political turbulences elsewhere seem to support Mr Habermas’s view. Indeed, it is tempting to ask whether all this online activism is not wasted political energy that could be put to better use in other ways. Indeed, the meteoric rise of many online movements appears to explain their equally rapid demise: many never had time to build robust organisations. But online activism cannot be dismissed. Some movements have had real impact, either by putting an issue on the political agenda or by taking over an existing organisation. Without the Occupy movement, the debate about income inequality in America would be much less prominent. The same goes for the Black Lives Matter campaign and violence against African-Americans. In Britain, Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters managed to commandeer the Labour Party. In America, Donald Trump seems about to do the same with the Republican Party (though whether he can do it to the whole country remains to be seen). […] Continua qui: http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21695195-safeguard-democracy-u…

1 0

Loopholes creeping into the Italian proposal on net neutrality
by Alberto Cammozzo March 23, 2016

March 23, 2016

Loopholes creeping into the Italian proposal on net neutrality <https://edri.org/loopholes-creeping-into-the-italian-proposal-on-net-neutra…> The Italian legislative proposal on net neutrality is currently being discussed by the Italian Parliament. Notwithstanding general provisions on the equal treatment of traffic for Internet access services, its amended text contains loopholes and provisions that raise concerns. The text, now containing references to EU Regulation 2120/2015 on net neutrality (and mobile roaming), generally fails to address its main issues, including prioritisation of traffic. In fact, while including a clause on equal treatment of traffic for internet access services (art. 3(1)), it foresees at the same time the possibility to differentiate among best-effort services and ‘additional’ services (Art. 3(2)). According to the draft Italian law, those services may prioritise classes of traffic, apparently without limitation. If adopted, Internet access providers would be able to offer separate prioritised services as long as they are not included in the general Internet offer. Art. 3(2) of the Italian draft law states that: “In accordance with implementation guidelines of Art. 3(5) of Regulation 2015/2120, ISPs may commercialise added-value services for prioritisation of traffic classes in their network in order to satisfy specific exigencies of business or home customers”. If adopted as law, this would also mean that operators would be free to offer an internet access subscription for €X capped at YMb, on top of which customers can buy zero-rated services, that could be offered à-là-carte or as a bouquet. This would severely restrict the freedom to impart information for Italians. An Italian service provider, TIM, is already offering a zero-rated video streaming service (‘TimVision’), which gives unlimited access to contents provided by TimVision and other affiliated content providers without consuming gigabites. For the moment, it only includes audiovisual entertainment, but TIM announced that they are going to offer a 4k service on wired broadband and a possibility to open it to other commercial partners. [...] Alberto

2 1

UNESCO Principles for governing the Internet: a comparative analysis; 2015
by J.C. DE MARTIN March 23, 2016

March 23, 2016

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/Ulis/cgi-bin/ulis.pl?catno=234435 (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

sentenze online: come conciliare trasparenza e privacy?
by Simone Aliprandi March 23, 2016

March 23, 2016

Cosa succede se il web diventa la principale fonte di informazione giuridica (sentenze) e via via soppianta le banche dati proprietarie? Quali questioni di copyright e privacy emergono? E come conciliare le istanze di trasparenza/open data con la tutela dei dati giudiziari? Qualche riflessione in questo mio articolo uscito ieri per la rubrica Giustizia Digitale del sito di ForumPA: http://www.forumpa.it/pa-digitale/giustizia-juriswiki-e-il-libero-accesso-a…. Un caro saluto. -- Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org | http://www.array.eu

2 1

Don’t Post About Me on Social Media, Children Say
by Alessandro Mantelero March 23, 2016

March 23, 2016

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/dont-post-about-me-on-social-media… -- Prof. Avv. Alessandro Mantelero Politecnico di Torino Nexa Center for Internet and Society | Director of Privacy Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University| Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology | Part-time Expert, School of Public Administration European Data Protection Law Review | Associate Editor http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri)

1 0