January 2017 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Convegno diritto all'oblio

by Diego Giorio

Segnalo questo convegno dedicato al diritto all'oblio, a marzo a Lugano: http://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2017/01/11/il-diritto-a-oblio-e-la-nu… Saluti a tutti D.

Jan. 11, 2017

Pubblicato il testo di proposta del nuovo regolamento europeo che sostuitirà la ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC (Regulation on Privacy and Electronic Communications)

by Francesca Mauro

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/regulation-privacy-and-e… Buona giornata 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…

Jan. 10, 2017

93° Mercoledì di Nexa - 11 gennaio 2017

by Francesco Ruggiero

*REMINDER*: vi ricordiamo che mercoledì 11 gennaio 2017, dalle ore 18 alle ore 20, si svolgerà il 93° Mercoledì di Nexa, con un incontro dal titolo: *"Integrazione di Big Data per la medicina di precisione".* Ospite dell'incontro *Enzo Medico* (Università degli Studi di Torino). Ingresso libero, webcast live all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/upcoming-events. Maggiori informazioni sono disponibili all'indirizzo: *https://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-93 <https://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-93>* Cordiali saluti, Francesco Il giorno 2 gennaio 2017 17:08, Francesco Ruggiero < francesco.ruggiero(a)polito.it> ha scritto: > Se non visualizzi correttamente questo messaggio clicca qui > <http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-93> > [image: NEXA] > > 93° Mercoledì di Nexa > Mercoledì 11 gennaio 2017, ore 18.00 - 20.00 > > Politecnico di Torino > > http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-93 > Integrazione di Big Data per la medicina di precisione > > Speaker > Enzo Medico (Università degli Studi di Torino) > > This event will be webcast live: http://nexa.polito.it/upcoming-events > > La Medicina di Precisione (Precision Medicine) è intesa come “un approccio > emergente di trattamento e prevenzione delle malattie che tiene conto della > variabilità individuale di geni, ambiente e stili di vita di ciascuna > persona”. *Si fonda sui dati che il corpo umano produce costantemente*, > in misura crescente. Una parte dei Big Data è assorbita dalla salute, e > scorre insieme a ingenti gruppi di nozioni che compongono il flusso > dell’informazione. L'Intelligenza Artificiale e le biotecnologie, la > matematica e la bioinformatica consentono al medico e al ricercatore di > godere di quella smisurata estensione dell’intelletto e di trattare dati in > modo del tutto inedito per quantità e qualità. > > Tutto ciò contribuisce a migliorare le terapie, limitare gli errori, > inefficienze e sprechi, evitare la somministrazione di farmaci a chi non ne > trae beneficio, personalizzando i piani di cura; *medici, ricercatori e > amministratori pubblici potranno misurare con maggiore precisione il > rapporto costo-beneficio di quanto stanno attuando*. > Lo stesso vale per gli studi sul cancro; una malattia complessa e > determinata da una varietà di componenti che oggi è possibile iniziare a > vedere nel loro insieme: è possibile, ad esempio, raccogliere di uno stesso > paziente i risultati di test di laboratorio, dati clinici, storia > familiare, immagini, informazioni genetiche. E confrontarli con quelli di > altre migliaia di persone. Benché solo agli inizi, alcuni pazienti colpiti > da tumori con determinate caratteristiche genetiche oggi vengono già > trattati con terapie personalizzate. > > BIOGRAFIE - e informazioni supplementari > > [image: [MEDICO]] > > ENZO MEDICO è Professore Associato di Istologia e Direttore del > Laboratorio di Oncogenomica dell'IRCC, Università di Torino. Il laboratorio > si occupa di ricerca traslazionale genomica finalizzata all'identificazione > di tratti molecolari associati all'aggressività neoplastica e alla > resistenza/sensibilità a trattamenti terapeutici, con lo scopo di mettere a > punto strumenti diagnostici di patologia molecolare e di identificare e > caratterizzare nuovi bersagli terapeutici. Nel 2001 è stato borsista > Armenise-Harvard, presso la Harvard Medical School, Department of Genetics, > per la messa a punto di metodologie di generazione e analisi di profile di > espressione genica con DNA microarrays. > > *Letture consigliate e link utili:* > > - *The Precision Medicine Initiative* > <https://www.whitehouse.gov/precision-medicine>, WhiteHouse.gov. > - *Integrative Bioinformatics* > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrative_bioinformatics>, Wikipedia. > - *Biology: The big challenges of big data* > <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7453/full/498255a.html>, > Nature, June 2013. > > > > > 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 mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > -- Francesco Ruggiero Communication Manager Nexa Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino - DAUIN Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 - 10129 Torino web: http://nexa.polito.it mail: francesco.ruggiero(a)polito.it tel: 011 090 7219

Jan. 9, 2017

Re: [nexa] DNI: Putin Led Cyber, Propaganda Effort to Elect Trump, Denigrate Clinton

by Luca De Biase

Se serve, segnalo questo pezzo del documentato Stefano Zanero, professore associato al Politecnico di Milano, che si occupa di security https://m.facebook.com/raistolo/posts/10155645847539307 E naturalmente aggiungo: no, noi giornalisti non siamo preparati a leggere la realtà dietro tutte le informazioni più o meno contorte e falsificabili che sono contenute nei documenti... Senza contare che dei documenti dei servizi pubblicati volontariamente si deve comunque dubitare a prescindere... ma in questo caso non c'è un solo protagonista che non abbia motivo di fare un qualche doppio gioco.. i giornalisti non ce la fanno, i politici usano quello che possono per la loro propaganda, ma anche per gli studiosi è dura: la società subisce imho.. > Il giorno 08 gen 2017, alle ore 20:11, Alberto Cammozzo <ac+nexa(a)zeromx.net> ha scritto: > > Due analisi del rapporto DNI sulla vicenda Putin-DNC. > Mi paiono concordi sul valore politico interno della risposta di Obama e > sulla debolezza tecnica a supporto delle tesi esposte. > > ICT diventerà un tema centrale nella politica dei prossimi anni, e si > presterà a facili ep ericolose strumentalizzazioni per opacità e > asimmetria informativa. > Mi chiedo: I politici sono preparati? E i giornalisti che ne devono parlare? > > > <https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/01/dni-putin-led-cyberattack-propaganda-ef…> > > DNI: Putin Led Cyber, Propaganda Effort to Elect Trump, Denigrate Clinton > > Russian President Vladimir Putin directed a massive propaganda and cyber > operation aimed at discrediting Hillary Clinton and getting Donald Trump > elected, the top U.S. intelligence agencies said in a remarkable yet > unshocking report released on Friday. > > > <https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/01/06/the-declassified-russian-hack-report/> > > The Intelligence Community’s report on Russia’s tampering in the > election is here. > > What we see of it is uneven. I think the report is strongest on Russia’s > motive for tampering with the election, even if the report doesn’t > provide evidence. I think there are many weaknesses in the report’s > discussion of media. That raises concerns that the material on the > actual hack — which we don’t get in any detail at all — is as weak as > the media section. > > This will be a working thread. > > The first 5 pages are front-matter and fluff, which means this is less > than a 10 page report, plus a media annex which is problematic. > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Jan. 8, 2017

DNI: Putin Led Cyber, Propaganda Effort to Elect Trump, Denigrate Clinton

by Alberto Cammozzo

Due analisi del rapporto DNI sulla vicenda Putin-DNC. Mi paiono concordi sul valore politico interno della risposta di Obama e sulla debolezza tecnica a supporto delle tesi esposte. ICT diventerà un tema centrale nella politica dei prossimi anni, e si presterà a facili ep ericolose strumentalizzazioni per opacità e asimmetria informativa. Mi chiedo: I politici sono preparati? E i giornalisti che ne devono parlare? <https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/01/dni-putin-led-cyberattack-propaganda-ef…> DNI: Putin Led Cyber, Propaganda Effort to Elect Trump, Denigrate Clinton Russian President Vladimir Putin directed a massive propaganda and cyber operation aimed at discrediting Hillary Clinton and getting Donald Trump elected, the top U.S. intelligence agencies said in a remarkable yet unshocking report released on Friday. <https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/01/06/the-declassified-russian-hack-report/> The Intelligence Community’s report on Russia’s tampering in the election is here. What we see of it is uneven. I think the report is strongest on Russia’s motive for tampering with the election, even if the report doesn’t provide evidence. I think there are many weaknesses in the report’s discussion of media. That raises concerns that the material on the actual hack — which we don’t get in any detail at all — is as weak as the media section. This will be a working thread. The first 5 pages are front-matter and fluff, which means this is less than a 10 page report, plus a media annex which is problematic.

Jan. 8, 2017

Re: [nexa] Balkin: The Three Laws of Robotics in the Age of Big Data

by Antonio Casilli

Al volo mi aggrego ai ringraziamenti soprattutto per la ragione (1). Di lealtà (delle piattaforme e degli algoritmi) se ne sente parlare moltissimo qui in Francia dal 2013 (dopo i lavori del CNNum e del Consiglio di Stato a riguardo che proseguono ancora oggi - v. questo testo: https://cnnumerique.fr/tribune-loyaute-des-plateformes-daccord-mais-loyaute…) ma in letteratura anglofona non si incontrano molti esempi. Balkin è uno di questi rari esempi, soprattutto nel suo articolo pubblicato un paio di anni fa nella UC Davis Law Rev.: https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/49/4/Lecture/49-4_Balkin.pdf Quest'ultimo articolo è una buona lettura anche per un'altra ragione, legata a una questione di scottante attualità. Alcuni intermediari e fiduciari digitali (operatori di pubblicità online, fornitori d'accesso internet e compagnie di telefonia) hanno presentato una petizione alla FCC domandando che il loro diritto di tracciare gli utenti, di estrarre dati personali in deroga alle leggi sulla privacy, e di trattarli per scopi commerciali non specificati sia protetto in nome del primo emendamento della costituzione americana - cf.: "The creation, analysis, and transfer of consumer data for marketing purposes constitutes speech. Non-misleading commercial speech regarding a lawful activity is protected under the First Amendment." http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/292165/ad-groups-petition-con… Balkin nel suo articolo del 2015 spiegava in maniera molto vivace e chiara che i fiduciari d'informazione sono soggetti a restrizioni specifiche alla loro libertà d'espressione. Come un medico, per esempio, non può diffondere delle informazioni personali raccolte nel contesto di una consultazione in nome del free speech per ottenere un vantaggio personale a svantaggio dei propri pazienti, così le piattaforme non possono fare con i dati dei loro utenti tutto quello che vogliono a dei fini di personalizzazione dell'offerta e targeting pubblicitario, proprio perché hanno un dovere di lealtà relativo all'informazione che gli è confidata. "Commercial speech is a special case. Like contractual speech, it is a form of market behavior. Its social function is to induce people to buy goods and services. But unlike the speech involved in bargaining over contracts, commercial speech actively tries to reshape popular culture in order to sell products and services. It does so by providing information, ideas, images, and opinions to the general public, attempting to reshape people’s self-image, beliefs and desires. Commercial speech, in other words, is market behavior that attempts to alter public culture to facilitate itself. The hybrid nature of commercial speech — as affecting public opinion but not participating in public discourse — shapes the distinctive way that the First Amendment treats it. Constitutional doctrine does not treat advertisers as attempting to participate in public discourse. Rather, it views advertisers as adding information that might be valuable to people who are participating in public discourse. As the Court explained in Central Hudson, “[t]heFirst Amendment’s concern for commercial speech is based on the informational function of advertising.” Thus, the First Amendment focuses not on the right of the advertiser to speak but on the right of the public to receive the advertiser’s information. (...) How does the idea of an information fiduciary interact with the First Amendment? Does being an information fiduciary affect one’s free speech rights? Yes, it does. The First Amendment treats information practices by fiduciaries very differently than it treats information practices involving relative strangers. Suppose that you are a gynecologist, and in the course of your practice, you learn all sorts of interesting things about your patients, including the crazy things your patients say to you. You decide to comment on what you have learned by making a work of art, appropriately entitled, “Crazy Stuff My Patients Say.” You create an art installation at a contemporary art museum. It features a rotating cylinder with flashing lights on which are projected pictures of your patients, and quotes of interesting things that patients have said to you in the course of your practice; surrounding the cylinder, encased in plastic, are copies of case histories and medical reports. You present this to the public as a work of art that offers a profound commentary on the state of medicine and the nature of the human body in the twenty-first century. Your patients are understandably annoyed to see themselves featured in your art, and they sue you for malpractice or for breach of a professional (fiduciary) duty. You defend yourself on the grounds that you are an artist, and you point out that your work, like the best contemporary art, is designed to be transgressive. Yet the fact that you are an artist, who makes amazing works of art with your patients’ personal data and medical records, would probably not be a sufficient defense in a tort action for malpractice or breach of professional duty. Why is this? Well, you are using sensitive information to your advantage and to the disadvantage of your patients. Generally speaking, when the law prevents a fiduciary from disclosing or selling information about a client — or using information to a client’s disadvantage — this does not violate the First Amendment, even though the activity would be protected if there were no fiduciary relationship. " ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alberto Cammozzo" <ac+nexa(a)zeromx.net> À: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it Envoyé: Samedi 7 Janvier 2017 16:43:57 Objet: Re: [nexa] Balkin: The Three Laws of Robotics in the Age of Big Data Grazie Juan Carlos, Paper importante. Due punti mi piacciono molto: (1) parla di *lealtà* degli algoritmi. <<Fiduciaries have two central duties. The first is a duty of care. The second is a duty of loyalty. The duty of care means that a fiduciary has to act with reasonable care to avoid harming the client or patient. The duty of loyalty means that the fiduciary has to avoid creating conflicts of interest with their clients or patients and must look out for their interests. The degree of loyalty demanded depends on the nature of the relationship between the fiduciary and the client.>> Il modello di business attuale delle piattaforme "gratuite" impone di monetizzare le informazioni dell'utente: difficile essergli del tutto leale. (2) esplicita l'aspetto "ambientale" dell'inquinamento algoritmico: <<the public duty of algorithm operators is not to “pollute,” that is, unjustifiably externalize costs onto others.>> Alberto On 06/01/2017 21:11, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > > https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2890965 > > > The Three Laws of Robotics in the Age of Big Data > > > Jack M. Balkin > > <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=293225> > Yale University - Law School > > October 22, 2016 > > / > /Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 78, (2017), Forthcoming > <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2890965##>/ > / > > > *Abstract: * > In his short stories and novels, Isaac Asimov imagined three law of > robotics programmed into every robot. In our world, the "laws of > robotics" are the legal and policy principles that should govern how > human beings use robots, algorithms, and artificial intelligence agents. > > This essay introduces these basic legal principles using four key > ideas: (1) the homunculus fallacy; (2) the substitution effect; (3) > the concept of information fiduciaries; and (4) the idea of > algorithmic nuisance. > > The /homunculus fallacy/ is the attribution of human intention and > agency to robots and algorithms. It is the false belief there is a > little person inside the robot or program who has good or bad intentions. > > The /substitution effect/ refers to the multiple effects on social > power and social relations that arise from the fact that robots, AI > agents, and algorithms substitute for human beings and operate as > special-purpose people. > > The most important issues in the law of robotics require us to > understand how human beings exercise power over other human beings > mediated through new technologies. The "three laws of robotics" for > our Algorithmic Society, in other words, should be laws directed at > human beings and human organizations, not at robots themselves. > > Behind robots, artificial intelligence agents and algorithms are > governments and businesses organized and staffed by human beings. A > characteristic feature of the Algorithmic Society is that new > technologies permit both public and private organizations to govern > large populations. In addition, the Algorithmic Society also features > significant asymmetries of information, monitoring capacity, and > computational power between those who govern others with technology > and those who are governed. > > With this in mind, we can state three basic "laws of robotics" for the > Algorithmic Society: > > First, operators of robots, algorithms and artificial intelligence > agents are /information fiduciaries/ who have special duties of good > faith and fair dealing toward their end-users, clients and customers. > > Second, privately owned businesses who are not information fiduciaries > nevertheless have duties toward the general public. > > Third, the central public duty of those who use robots, algorithms and > artificial intelligence agents is not to be /algorithmic nuisances/. > Businesses and organizations may not leverage asymmetries of > information, monitoring capacity, and computational power to > externalize the costs of their activities onto the general public. The > term "algorithmic nuisance" captures the idea that the best analogy > for the harms of algorithmic decision making is not intentional > discrimination but socially unjustified "pollution" - that is, using > computational power to make others pay for the costs of one's activities. > > Obligations of transparency, due process and accountability flow from > these three substantive requirements. Transparency - and its cousins, > accountability and due process - apply in different ways with respect > to all three principles. Transparency and/or accountability may be an > obligation of fiduciary relations, they may follow from public duties, > and they may be a prophylactic measure designed to prevent unjustified > externalization of harms or in order to provide a remedy for harm. > > *Number of Pages in PDF File:* 22 > > *Keywords:* Asimov, robotics, algorithms, artificial intelligence, > homunculus fallacy, substitution effect, information fiduciary, > algorithmic nuisance > > *JEL Classification:* K10 > > > (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

Jan. 7, 2017

Re: [nexa] Balkin: The Three Laws of Robotics in the Age of Big Data

by Alberto Cammozzo

Grazie Juan Carlos, Paper importante. Due punti mi piacciono molto: (1) parla di *lealtà* degli algoritmi. <<Fiduciaries have two central duties. The first is a duty of care. The second is a duty of loyalty. The duty of care means that a fiduciary has to act with reasonable care to avoid harming the client or patient. The duty of loyalty means that the fiduciary has to avoid creating conflicts of interest with their clients or patients and must look out for their interests. The degree of loyalty demanded depends on the nature of the relationship between the fiduciary and the client.>> Il modello di business attuale delle piattaforme "gratuite" impone di monetizzare le informazioni dell'utente: difficile essergli del tutto leale. (2) esplicita l'aspetto "ambientale" dell'inquinamento algoritmico: <<the public duty of algorithm operators is not to “pollute,” that is, unjustifiably externalize costs onto others.>> Alberto On 06/01/2017 21:11, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > > https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2890965 > > > The Three Laws of Robotics in the Age of Big Data > > > Jack M. Balkin > > <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=293225> > Yale University - Law School > > October 22, 2016 > > / > /Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 78, (2017), Forthcoming > <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2890965##>/ > / > > > *Abstract: * > In his short stories and novels, Isaac Asimov imagined three law of > robotics programmed into every robot. In our world, the "laws of > robotics" are the legal and policy principles that should govern how > human beings use robots, algorithms, and artificial intelligence agents. > > This essay introduces these basic legal principles using four key > ideas: (1) the homunculus fallacy; (2) the substitution effect; (3) > the concept of information fiduciaries; and (4) the idea of > algorithmic nuisance. > > The /homunculus fallacy/ is the attribution of human intention and > agency to robots and algorithms. It is the false belief there is a > little person inside the robot or program who has good or bad intentions. > > The /substitution effect/ refers to the multiple effects on social > power and social relations that arise from the fact that robots, AI > agents, and algorithms substitute for human beings and operate as > special-purpose people. > > The most important issues in the law of robotics require us to > understand how human beings exercise power over other human beings > mediated through new technologies. The "three laws of robotics" for > our Algorithmic Society, in other words, should be laws directed at > human beings and human organizations, not at robots themselves. > > Behind robots, artificial intelligence agents and algorithms are > governments and businesses organized and staffed by human beings. A > characteristic feature of the Algorithmic Society is that new > technologies permit both public and private organizations to govern > large populations. In addition, the Algorithmic Society also features > significant asymmetries of information, monitoring capacity, and > computational power between those who govern others with technology > and those who are governed. > > With this in mind, we can state three basic "laws of robotics" for the > Algorithmic Society: > > First, operators of robots, algorithms and artificial intelligence > agents are /information fiduciaries/ who have special duties of good > faith and fair dealing toward their end-users, clients and customers. > > Second, privately owned businesses who are not information fiduciaries > nevertheless have duties toward the general public. > > Third, the central public duty of those who use robots, algorithms and > artificial intelligence agents is not to be /algorithmic nuisances/. > Businesses and organizations may not leverage asymmetries of > information, monitoring capacity, and computational power to > externalize the costs of their activities onto the general public. The > term "algorithmic nuisance" captures the idea that the best analogy > for the harms of algorithmic decision making is not intentional > discrimination but socially unjustified "pollution" - that is, using > computational power to make others pay for the costs of one's activities. > > Obligations of transparency, due process and accountability flow from > these three substantive requirements. Transparency - and its cousins, > accountability and due process - apply in different ways with respect > to all three principles. Transparency and/or accountability may be an > obligation of fiduciary relations, they may follow from public duties, > and they may be a prophylactic measure designed to prevent unjustified > externalization of harms or in order to provide a remedy for harm. > > *Number of Pages in PDF File:* 22 > > *Keywords:* Asimov, robotics, algorithms, artificial intelligence, > homunculus fallacy, substitution effect, information fiduciary, > algorithmic nuisance > > *JEL Classification:* K10 > > > (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Jan. 7, 2017

e-book gratis

by Diego Giorio

Segnalo questa pagina dalla quale si possono scaricare diversi e-book gratuiti in materia di sicurezza, programmazione, management ed altri argomenti ancora http://www.oreilly.com/free/reports.html [http://cdn.oreillystatic.com/oreilly/images/oreilly-social-icon-200.png]<http://www.oreilly.com/free/reports.html> Free O'Reilly Ebooks<http://www.oreilly.com/free/reports.html> www.oreilly.com Saluti e buon anno a tutti D.

Jan. 7, 2017

Balkin: The Three Laws of Robotics in the Age of Big Data

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2890965 The Three Laws of Robotics in the Age of Big Data Jack M. Balkin Yale University - Law School October 22, 2016 Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 78, (2017), Forthcoming Abstract: In his short stories and novels, Isaac Asimov imagined three law of robotics programmed into every robot. In our world, the "laws of robotics" are the legal and policy principles that should govern how human beings use robots, algorithms, and artificial intelligence agents. This essay introduces these basic legal principles using four key ideas: (1) the homunculus fallacy; (2) the substitution effect; (3) the concept of information fiduciaries; and (4) the idea of algorithmic nuisance. The homunculus fallacy is the attribution of human intention and agency to robots and algorithms. It is the false belief there is a little person inside the robot or program who has good or bad intentions. The substitution effect refers to the multiple effects on social power and social relations that arise from the fact that robots, AI agents, and algorithms substitute for human beings and operate as special-purpose people. The most important issues in the law of robotics require us to understand how human beings exercise power over other human beings mediated through new technologies. The "three laws of robotics" for our Algorithmic Society, in other words, should be laws directed at human beings and human organizations, not at robots themselves. Behind robots, artificial intelligence agents and algorithms are governments and businesses organized and staffed by human beings. A characteristic feature of the Algorithmic Society is that new technologies permit both public and private organizations to govern large populations. In addition, the Algorithmic Society also features significant asymmetries of information, monitoring capacity, and computational power between those who govern others with technology and those who are governed. With this in mind, we can state three basic "laws of robotics" for the Algorithmic Society: First, operators of robots, algorithms and artificial intelligence agents are information fiduciaries who have special duties of good faith and fair dealing toward their end-users, clients and customers. Second, privately owned businesses who are not information fiduciaries nevertheless have duties toward the general public. Third, the central public duty of those who use robots, algorithms and artificial intelligence agents is not to be algorithmic nuisances. Businesses and organizations may not leverage asymmetries of information, monitoring capacity, and computational power to externalize the costs of their activities onto the general public. The term "algorithmic nuisance" captures the idea that the best analogy for the harms of algorithmic decision making is not intentional discrimination but socially unjustified "pollution" - that is, using computational power to make others pay for the costs of one's activities. Obligations of transparency, due process and accountability flow from these three substantive requirements. Transparency - and its cousins, accountability and due process - apply in different ways with respect to all three principles. Transparency and/or accountability may be an obligation of fiduciary relations, they may follow from public duties, and they may be a prophylactic measure designed to prevent unjustified externalization of harms or in order to provide a remedy for harm. Number of Pages in PDF File: 22 Keywords: Asimov, robotics, algorithms, artificial intelligence, homunculus fallacy, substitution effect, information fiduciary, algorithmic nuisance JEL Classification: K10 (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

Jan. 6, 2017

Gli hacker russi attaccano la rete elettrica americana (ma è una bufala di cui i giornali italiani non si accorgono)

by A Dicorinto

Quando una notizia falsa può causare una cyberguerra e nessuno la corregge perché è impegnato a discutere delle fake news su Facebook e co. Continua qui... http://cybersecurity.startupitalia.eu/53828-20170104-bufala-attacco-russo-r… -- Arturo Di Corinto 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

Jan. 6, 2017