September 2016 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] PI: "Copyright UE, potrebbe andare peggio. Potrebbe piovere"

by Marco Ciurcina

Secondo me l'hanno fatto apposta. Hanno lasciato dei buchi sperando di generare un "frame" di dibattito che poi, nel "pericoloso" passaggio parlamentare, soddisfi l'opinione pubblica, chessò, aggiungendo qualche eccezione al diritto ancillare degli editori e il diritto di panorama. m.c. In data venerdì 2 settembre 2016 09:05:06, J.C. DE MARTIN ha scritto: > * "Copyright UE, potrebbe andare peggio. Potrebbe piovere"** > * > /Nuovi documenti sgorgati dalle istituzioni europee confermano le > estensioni dei diritti a favore degli editori e degli operatori di > streaming di contenuti protetti. In attesa della discussione sulla > proposta di direttiva, si torna a parlare di tassa sui link e geoblocking > > giovedì 1 settembre 2016 > di Claudio Tamburrino > > /Roma - Nuove indiscrezioni sulla proposta di riforma del copyright a > livello europeo confermano le più pessimistiche anticipazioni: > dall'estensione della tutela del diritto d'autore a favore degli editori > fino all'erosione dei principi di non responsabilità degli intermediari > previsto dalla direttiva Europea 31/2000/CE. > > A sollevare un polverone stavolta è la bozza della Direttiva di riforma > della disciplina del copyright nel Mercato Digitale Unico, che rispetto > al piano di azione diffuso nei giorni scorsi fornisce maggiori dettagli > sulle intenzioni delle istituzioni europee: in ogni caso conferma la > volontà di abbracciare la causa degli editori a discapito di tutte > quelle voci che spingevano per una visione progressista della tutela > della proprietà intellettuale online. > > […] > > Continua qui: > http://punto-informatico.it/4337019/PI/News/copyright-ue-potrebbe-andare-peg > gio-potrebbe-piovere.aspx

Sept. 2, 2016

Re: [nexa] ACLU: "Predictive Policing Software Is More Accurate at Predicting Policing Than Predicting Crime"

by Alessandro Mantelero

il punto chiave sottolineato da ACLU direi che è questo: "It is essential that before law enforcement deploys any new technology that there is a thorough, public debate and a rigorous, independent assessment of the technology’s statistical validity and community impact". Questa conclusione conferma la necessità di un ripensamento di nozioni quali la data protection in una dimensione collettiva e partecipativa, anche in termini di analisi e prevenzione degli impatti individuali e sociali dell'uso dei dati. Per chi volesse, condivido una mia riflessione in tal senso, che muove anche dal caso delle tecniche di Predictive Policing: Mantelero, A. 2016. Personal data for decisional purposes in the age of analytics: From an individual to a collective dimension of data protection. Computer Law and Security Review, 32 (2):238-255 http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero/Mantelero_Personal_data_for_dec… AM On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 09:20:20 +0200 "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it> wrote: > > *Predictive Policing Software Is More Accurate at >Predicting Policing Than Predicting Crime** > * > By Ezekiel Edwards, Director, ACLU Criminal Law Reform >Project > > August 31, 2016 | 12:15 PM > > > “Predictive policing” has an enticing ring to it. The >idea is that you feed a bunch of data into a mysterious >algorithm, and poof, out comes intelligence about the >future that tells police where the next crime is going to >occur, or even who is going to commit it. What’s not to >get excited about? > > Unfortunately, many predictions made by policing >software don’t come true. This is because predictive >tools are only as good as the data they are fed. Put >another way: garbage in, garbage out. > > Data collected by police is notoriously bad (we don’t >even know how many people police kill every year), easily >manipulated, glaringly incomplete, and too often >undermined by racial bias. When you feed a predictive >tool contaminated data, it will produce polluted >predictions. In fact, it appears predictive policing >software is more accurate at predicting policing than >predicting crime. Rather than informing us where >criminals will be and when they will commit crimes, these >algorithms more reliably predict where the police will >deploy. > > […] > > Continua qui: >https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/predictive-policing-software-more-ac… > -- 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: once a day (Mon-Fri)

Sept. 2, 2016

ACLU: "Predictive Policing Software Is More Accurate at Predicting Policing Than Predicting Crime"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

*Predictive Policing Software Is More Accurate at Predicting Policing Than Predicting Crime** * By Ezekiel Edwards, Director, ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project August 31, 2016 | 12:15 PM “Predictive policing” has an enticing ring to it. The idea is that you feed a bunch of data into a mysterious algorithm, and poof, out comes intelligence about the future that tells police where the next crime is going to occur, or even who is going to commit it. What’s not to get excited about? Unfortunately, many predictions made by policing software don’t come true. This is because predictive tools are only as good as the data they are fed. Put another way: garbage in, garbage out. Data collected by police is notoriously bad (we don’t even know how many people police kill every year), easily manipulated, glaringly incomplete, and too often undermined by racial bias. When you feed a predictive tool contaminated data, it will produce polluted predictions. In fact, it appears predictive policing software is more accurate at predicting policing than predicting crime. Rather than informing us where criminals will be and when they will commit crimes, these algorithms more reliably predict where the police will deploy. […] Continua qui: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/predictive-policing-software-more-ac…

Sept. 2, 2016

Re: [nexa] Stupid Patent of the Month: Elsevier Patents Online Peer Review

by Antonio Vetrò

Piccolo commento su brevetti e innovazione, ma in campo software: due anni fa feci una ricerca tra grandi aziende tedesche in campo automotive/avionics/automation (Lufthansa, Siemens, Bosch, ecc ….) sul trasferimento tecnologico in ambito software, da cui scaturì che i brevetti erano l’ultima cosa che quelle aziende usassero per fare trasferimento tecnologico. La ricerca è disponibile qui: http://porto.polito.it/2626809/1/2015_esem_tt.pdf <http://porto.polito.it/2626809/1/2015_esem_tt.pdf> - Antonio > On 01 Sep 2016, at 21:28, Andrea Glorioso <andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it> wrote: > > E purtroppo i confronti tra "innovazione" (whatever that means...) in Europa e negli Stati Uniti si fa spesso (anche) sulla base del numero di brevetti rilasciati, ragion per cui l'Europa pare sempre soffrire di chissà quali carenze di cervelli (e non è solo una questione di immagine, questi numeri sono anche usati in altre negoziazioni e tendono a porci in posizioni di svantaggio.) > > On Thursday, September 1, 2016, J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin(a)polito.it <mailto:demartin@polito.it>> wrote: > Is there no end to this madness? > jc > > > August 31, 2016 | By Elliot Harmon and Daniel Nazer > > Stupid Patent of the Month: Elsevier Patents Online Peer Review > > On August 30, 2016, the Patent Office issued U.S. Patent No. 9,430,468, titled; “Online peer review and method.” The owner of this patent is none other than Elsevier, the giant academic publisher. When it first applied for the patent, Elsevier sought very broad claims that could have covered a wide range of online peer review. Fortunately, by the time the patent actually issued, its claims had been narrowed significantly. So, as a practical matter, the patent will be difficult to enforce. But we still think the patent is stupid, invalid, and an indictment of the system. > > Before discussing the patent, it is worth considering why Elsevier might want a government granted monopoly on methods of peer review. Elsevier owns more than 2000 academic journals. It charges huge fees and sometimes imposes bundling requirements whereby universities that want certain high profile journals must buy a package including other publications. Universities, libraries, and researchers are increasingly questioning whether this model makes sense. After all, universities usually pay the salaries of both the researchers that write the papers and of the referees who conduct peer review. Elsevier’s business model has been compared to a restaurant where the customers bring the ingredients, do all the cooking, and then get hit with a $10,000 bill. > > […] > > Continua qui: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/08/stupid-patent-month-elsevier-patents-… <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/08/stupid-patent-month-elsevier-patents-…> > > > > -- > > -- > 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 <https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro> > _______________________________________________ > 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>

Sept. 2, 2016

PI: "Copyright UE, potrebbe andare peggio. Potrebbe piovere"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

* "Copyright UE, potrebbe andare peggio. Potrebbe piovere"** * /Nuovi documenti sgorgati dalle istituzioni europee confermano le estensioni dei diritti a favore degli editori e degli operatori di streaming di contenuti protetti. In attesa della discussione sulla proposta di direttiva, si torna a parlare di tassa sui link e geoblocking giovedì 1 settembre 2016 di Claudio Tamburrino /Roma - Nuove indiscrezioni sulla proposta di riforma del copyright a livello europeo confermano le più pessimistiche anticipazioni: dall'estensione della tutela del diritto d'autore a favore degli editori fino all'erosione dei principi di non responsabilità degli intermediari previsto dalla direttiva Europea 31/2000/CE. A sollevare un polverone stavolta è la bozza della Direttiva di riforma della disciplina del copyright nel Mercato Digitale Unico, che rispetto al piano di azione diffuso nei giorni scorsi fornisce maggiori dettagli sulle intenzioni delle istituzioni europee: in ogni caso conferma la volontà di abbracciare la causa degli editori a discapito di tutte quelle voci che spingevano per una visione progressista della tutela della proprietà intellettuale online. […] Continua qui: http://punto-informatico.it/4337019/PI/News/copyright-ue-potrebbe-andare-pe…

Sept. 2, 2016

Re: [nexa] Stupid Patent of the Month: Elsevier Patents Online Peer Review

by Andrea Glorioso

E purtroppo i confronti tra "innovazione" (whatever that means...) in Europa e negli Stati Uniti si fa spesso (anche) sulla base del numero di brevetti rilasciati, ragion per cui l'Europa pare sempre soffrire di chissà quali carenze di cervelli (e non è solo una questione di immagine, questi numeri sono anche usati in altre negoziazioni e tendono a porci in posizioni di svantaggio.) On Thursday, September 1, 2016, J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin(a)polito.it> wrote: > Is there no end to this madness? > jc > > > August 31, 2016 | By Elliot Harmon and Daniel Nazer > > *Stupid Patent of the Month: Elsevier Patents Online Peer Review* > > On August 30, 2016, the Patent Office issued U.S. Patent No. 9,430,468, > titled; “Online peer review and method.” The owner of this patent is none > other than Elsevier, the giant academic publisher. When it first applied > for the patent, Elsevier sought very broad claims that could have covered a > wide range of online peer review. Fortunately, by the time the patent > actually issued, its claims had been narrowed significantly. So, as a > practical matter, the patent will be difficult to enforce. But we still > think the patent is stupid, invalid, and an indictment of the system. > > Before discussing the patent, it is worth considering why Elsevier might > want a government granted monopoly on methods of peer review. Elsevier owns > more than 2000 academic journals. It charges huge fees and sometimes > imposes bundling requirements whereby universities that want certain high > profile journals must buy a package including other publications. > Universities, libraries, and researchers are increasingly questioning > whether this model makes sense. After all, universities usually pay the > salaries of both the researchers that write the papers and of the referees > who conduct peer review. Elsevier’s business model has been compared to a > restaurant where the customers bring the ingredients, do all the cooking, > and then get hit with a $10,000 bill. > > […] > > Continua qui: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/08/stupid-patent-month- > elsevier-patents-online-peer-review > > -- -- 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

Sept. 1, 2016

Stupid Patent of the Month: Elsevier Patents Online Peer Review

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Is there no end to this madness? jc August 31, 2016 | By Elliot Harmon and Daniel Nazer *Stupid Patent of the Month: Elsevier Patents Online Peer Review* On August 30, 2016, the Patent Office issued U.S. Patent No. 9,430,468, titled; “Online peer review and method.” The owner of this patent is none other than Elsevier, the giant academic publisher. When it first applied for the patent, Elsevier sought very broad claims that could have covered a wide range of online peer review. Fortunately, by the time the patent actually issued, its claims had been narrowed significantly. So, as a practical matter, the patent will be difficult to enforce. But we still think the patent is stupid, invalid, and an indictment of the system. Before discussing the patent, it is worth considering why Elsevier might want a government granted monopoly on methods of peer review. Elsevier owns more than 2000 academic journals. It charges huge fees and sometimes imposes bundling requirements whereby universities that want certain high profile journals must buy a package including other publications. Universities, libraries, and researchers are increasingly questioning whether this model makes sense. After all, universities usually pay the salaries of both the researchers that write the papers and of the referees who conduct peer review. Elsevier’s business model has been compared to a restaurant where the customers bring the ingredients, do all the cooking, and then get hit with a $10,000 bill. […] Continua qui: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/08/stupid-patent-month-elsevier-patents-…

Sept. 1, 2016

Letture data & digital labor

by Antonio Casilli

Due articoli freschi freschi in inglese su dati personali, lavoro degli utilizzatori e economia delle piattaforme digitali. Il primo è nel numero 2 di ROAR Magazine: Socialize the Internet! Google and Facebook are techno-parasites. They rake our data and squeeze us for profit. Let us demand remuneration. Let us demand data liberation. https://roarmag.org/magazine/socialize-the-internet/ Il secondo è una lunga inchiesta su Facebook: Immaterial Labour and Data Harvesting Facebook Algorithmic Factory (1) https://labs.rs/en/facebook-algorithmic-factory-immaterial-labour-and-data-… Buona lettura, -- Antonio A. Casilli Associate Professor, Telecom ParisTech Research Fellow Edgar-Morin Center (EHESS)

Sept. 1, 2016

O'Neill: "How algorithms rule our working lives"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

E' un estratto del libro, appena uscito, "Weapons of Math Distruction" (v. https://mathbabe.org/) sui cui non mi pronuncio, non avendolo ancora letto. juan carlos *----------- How algorithms rule our working lives* /Employers are turning to mathematically modelled ways of sifting through job applications. Even when wrong, their verdicts seem beyond dispute – and they tend to punish the poor/ by Cathy O'Neil Thursday 1 September 2016 06.00 BST A few years ago, a young man named Kyle Behm took a leave from his studies at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. He was suffering from bipolar disorder and needed time to get treatment. A year and a half later, Kyle was healthy enough to return to his studies at a different university. Around that time, he learned from a friend about a part-time job. It was just a minimum-wage job at a Kroger supermarket, but it seemed like a sure thing. His friend, who was leaving the job, could vouch for him. For a high-achieving student like Kyle, the application looked like a formality. But Kyle didn’t get called in for an interview. When he inquired, his friend explained to him that he had been “red-lighted” by the personality test he’d taken when he applied for the job. The test was part of an employee selection program developed by Kronos, a workforce management company based outside Boston. When Kyle told his father, Roland, an attorney, what had happened, his father asked him what kind of questions had appeared on the test. Kyle said that they were very much like the “five factor model” test, which he’d been given at the hospital. That test grades people for extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to ideas. […] Continua qui: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/sep/01/how-algorithms-rule-our-wor…

Sept. 1, 2016

seminario 13 settembre 2016, presso Università di Torino ad oggetto:" Controllo lavoratori, cyber espionage e tutela del segreto industriale

by Mauro Alovisio

Gent.me/mi ho il piacere di segnalarvi il seminario gratuito in materia di controllo lavoratori, cyber espionage e tutela del segreto industriale che si svolgerà presso l'Università degli Studi di Torino il prossimo 13 settembre 2016 dalle ore 14,30 alle ore 18,30; tra i relatori: prof. Francesco Pizzetti,magistrati, avvocati (fra cui Giuseppe Vaciago) ed esperti. L'evento a cura di Techn and Law Center è accreditato per la formazione obbligatoria per gli avvocati. Cordiali saluti Mauro Alovisio mar 13 settembre 2016 14:30 – 18:30 CONTROLLO DEL LAVORATORE, CYBER ESPIONAGE E TUTELA DEL SEGRETO INDUSTRIALE da Tech and Law Center <https://www.eventbrite.it/e/biglietti-controllo-del-lavoratore-cyber-espion…> Gratuito - Condividi questo evento <https://www.eventbrite.it/e/biglietti-controllo-del-lavoratore-cyber-espion…> - SALVA QUESTO EVENTO <https://www.eventbrite.it/e/biglietti-controllo-del-lavoratore-cyber-espion…> Informazioni sull'evento Descrizione Programma: Ore 14.30 - 15.00: Francesco Pizzetti - Università degli Studi di Torino Jobs Act e dati informatici del dipendente. Il potere di controllo e tutela della dignità e riservatezza del lavoratore Ore 15.00 - 16.00: Vito Sandro Destito e Ciro Santoriello - Procura della Repubblica di Torino L’utilizzabilità nel processo penale dei dati informatici aziendali acquisiti senza il consenso del lavoratore Ore 16.00 - 16.30 – Coffee Break I profili tecnici – Moderatore: Giuseppe Dezzani – Studio Ass. DiFob Ore 16.30 - 17.00 - Stefano Fratepietro – Tesla Consulting S.r.l. Il controllo pro-attivo degli asset che governano il patrimonio digitale aziendale Ore 17.00 - 17.30 - Paolo Dal Checco – Studio Ass. DiFob La “cristallizzazione” delle prove presenti su computer, cellulari, server, email nel rispetto della privacy del dipendente. I profili di compliance – Moderatore: Giuseppe Vaciago – Tech and Law Center Ore 17.30 - 18.00 - Jacopo Giunta – Studio Legale Ambrosio & Commodo Le policy aziendali a tutela dei lavoratori e il regolamento sulle risorse informatiche aziendali Ore 18.00 - 18.30 - Francesco Meloni – Studio Legale Ambrosio & Commodo L’impatto in Italia della Direttiva “Trade Secret” e la protezione del know aziendale per iscrizioni e approfondimenti. https://www.eventbrite.it/e/biglietti-controllo-del- lavoratore-cyber-espionage-e-tutela-del-segreto-industriale-26852253814?utm_ source=eb_email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=order_ confirmation_email&utm_term=eventname&ref=eemailordconf

Sept. 1, 2016