August 2017 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

AI Programs Are Learning to Exclude Some African-American Voices

by Antonio Vetro'

Questo breve articolo fa 2-3 piccoli ma chiari esempi di bias di alcuni algoritmi usati nel riconoscimento vocale e di sentimenti : https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608619/ai-programs-are-learning-to-exclu… Un caro saluto, Antonio

Aug. 31, 2017

Corso di Perfezionamento in Criminalità Informatica e Investigazioni Digitali

by Silvia Martinelli

Cari tutti, solo per segnalare il Corso di Perfezionamento dell'Università degli Studi di Milano in Criminalità Informatica e Investigazioni Digitali, Prof. Giovanni Ziccardi, che si terrà a Milano a partire dal mese di ottobre. Il corso si rivolge ai possessori di laurea e laurea magistrale e intende fornire ai partecipanti nozioni al fine di gestire le emergenze connesse alla valutazione, acquisizione e gestione del rischio, della prova digitale e dell’informazione elettronica in generale sia a fini processuali (penali, civili, giuslavoristici, amministrativi) sia per lo svolgimento di investigazioni interne e/o aziendali nonché alla gestione del rischio, della prova digitale in contesti transnazionali e alla comprensione dell’aspetto sostanziale e processuale dei principali e più comuni reati informatici. Il percorso formativo è strutturato in 56 ore di didattica frontale: - stalking e bullismo; - crimini informatici a sfondo sessuale; - odio domestico; - ambito finanziario e aziendale; - diritto di famiglia; - normativa 231, privacy, misure di sicurezza e trattamento illecito dei dati; - reputazione dell’individuo online e sua tutela/violazione. Le lezioni si terranno un giorno a settimana, di giovedì (12 e 26 ottobre, 9,16,23 e 30 novembre, 14 dicembre. Dalle 9 alle 18) Contributo di iscrizione: € 706,00 Per ulteriori informazioni: infomaster.giurisprudenza(a)unimi.it o giovanni.ziccardi(a)unimi.it Iscrizioni aperte da oggi! http://www.unimi.it/studenti/corsiperf/111497.htm Un caro saluto, S.

Aug. 31, 2017

NYT: "Google Critic Ousted From Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

*Google Critic Ousted From Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant* By KENNETH P. VOGEL AUG. 30, 2017 WASHINGTON — In the hours after European antitrust regulators levied a record $2.7 billion fine against Google in late June, an influential Washington think tank learned what can happen when a wealthy tech giant is criticized. The New America Foundation has received more than $21 million from Google; its parent company’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt; and his family’s foundation since the think tank’s founding in 1999. That money helped to establish New America as an elite voice in policy debates on the American left and helped Google shape those debates. But not long after one of New America’s scholars posted a statement on the think tank’s website praising the European Union’s penalty against Google, Mr. Schmidt, who had been chairman of New America until 2016, communicated his displeasure with the statement to the group’s president, Anne-Marie Slaughter, according to the scholar. […] Continua qui: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-google-new-amer…

Aug. 31, 2017

Studio accurato Università di Princeton: ISPs Can Use IOT Devices to Spy on You (Smart Home)

by gabriele elia

più o meno ma mettere le cose insieme da un'idea precisa ... ovviamente in Europa non permesso da GDPR p.es. e altre norme privacy g Study: ISPs Can Use IOT Devices to Spy on You -<http://wirelessiq.us8.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=5000b2674aa552c31856aa…> A new study out of Princeton (hat tip, New Scientist) discusses how it's relatively easy for an ISP to use the internet of things (IOT) devices in many households to spy on and collect profitable data on consumers. Such "smart" devices are all the rage, from internet-connected televisions and refrigerators, to numerous flavors of internet-connected smart speakers like Amazon Echo. But in many instances, security and privacy are an afterthought, resulting in the devices being hijacked and used in botnets, or worse. Noah Apthorpe at Princeton University set up a fake home, complete with seven real internet-connected devices, in the hopes of finding out what they might reveal about their users. Apthorpe and other researchers found that it was notably trivial for an ISP to identify and track usage of numerous devices around the home, which could (if it's not already) be used to make the carrier even more money off of your everyday behavior. The study found that ISPs could track a user s sleep patterns by detecting when sleep trackers accessed to the internet, or observe when a home camera detected movement or when someone is watching a live video feed. That should be of concern given that ISPs recently successfully lobbied the GOP and Donald Trump to kill consumer broadband privacy protections that require ISPs to transparently detail what data they collect, and who they sell it to. That said, the study also found that tech-savvy users could take several steps to protect themselves from the prying eyes of their internet service provider. While tunneling smart home traffic through a VPN can help make ISP tracking and monetization of IOT data more difficult, the study found that "certain common device combinations and user activity patterns minimize the ability of a VPN to obfuscate smart home traffic metadata." More effective, according to the study, was home network traffic shaping by independent link padding (ILP), which can prevent any metadata attacks while preserving device functionality -- all with a minimal impact on home-network performance. "For smart homes without devices that stream audio or video, we found that only a maximum of 7.5 KB/s of cover traffic is needed to completely mask user activities," notes the report. "This is < 0.4% of the 2016 average broadband upload and download speeds in the United States. This rate of cover traffic would result in approximately 19GB of extra data used per month, much less than the 1TB monthly broadband data caps enforced by the largest United States and Canadian ISPs. "For smart homes with devices that stream audio or video, we found that no more than 40KB/s of cover traffic per household was needed for effective ILP shaping," the report adds. "While more costly than shaping for non-A/V devices, it is still < 2% of the average upload speeds of United States broadband internet." Those interested can find the full study here (pdf). read comment(s) http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Study-ISPs-Can-Use-IOT-Devices-to-Spy-on… [http://i.dslr.net/syms/b648e600373ebf8380a0f8c850ba043b.jpg]<http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Study-ISPs-Can-Use-IOT-Devices-to-Spy-on…> Study: ISPs Can Use IOT Devices to Spy on You<http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Study-ISPs-Can-Use-IOT-Devices-to-Spy-on…> www.dslreports.com News: A new study out of Princeton (hat tip, New Scientist) discusses how it's relat https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.05044 [1708.05044] Spying on the Smart Home: Privacy Attacks and ...<https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.05044> arxiv.org Abstract: The growing market for smart home IoT devices promises new conveniences for consumers while presenting new challenges for preserving privacy within the home. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2145450-your-broadband-provider-can-us… [https://d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/25154410/g…]<https://www.newscientist.com/article/2145450-your-broadband-provider-can-us…> Your broadband provider can use your smart devices to spy on you<https://www.newscientist.com/article/2145450-your-broadband-provider-can-us…> www.newscientist.com We knew hackers can use our voice assistants, baby monitors and even vibrators to put us under surveillance. But broadband providers may be a bigger threat

Aug. 30, 2017

VI Premio internazionale Vittorio Frosini in informatica giuridica e diritto dell'informatica 2015-2017

by avv. Monica A. Senor

Ricevo e volentieri giro in lista: La Rivista Il diritto dell'informazione e dell'informatica, unitamente con la famiglia Frosini, promuove il premio dedicato alla memoria di Vittorio Frosini e destinato a una tesi di dottorato in informatica giuridica e diritto dellinformatica già discussa, oppure presentata in via definitiva, negli anni 2015-2016-2017. Il premio giunto alla sesta edizione è ormai internazionale e intende rendere omaggio alla memoria di Vittorio Frosini, ricordando il Suo contributo di fondatore della informatica giuridica in Italia, attraverso la Sua pionieristica opera Cibernetica, diritto e società del 1968, e poi in numerosissimi studi nellarco di oltre trentanni. Il bando di concorso del premio che è visibile al seguente link: http://www.fondazionecalamandrei.it. Un caro saluto, Monica

Aug. 30, 2017

Paper: "Artificial Intelligence Policy: A Roadmap"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3015350 *Artificial Intelligence Policy: A Roadmap* 30 Pages Posted: 9 Aug 2017 Ryan Calo University of Washington - School of Law; Stanford University - Law School; Yale Law School Date Written: August 8, 2017 Abstract Talk of artificial intelligence is everywhere. People marvel at the capacity of machines to translate any language and master any game. Others condemn the use of secret algorithms to sentence criminal defendants or recoil at the prospect of machines gunning for blue, pink, and white-collar jobs. Some worry aloud that artificial intelligence will be humankind’s “final invention.” This essay, prepared in connection with UC Davis Law Review's 50th anniversary symposium, explains why AI is suddenly on everyone's mind and provides a roadmap to the major policy questions AI raises. The essay is designed to help policymakers, investors, technologists, scholars, and students understand the contemporary policy environment around AI at least well enough to initiative their own exploration. Topics covered include: • Justice and equity • Use of force • Safety and certification • Privacy (including data parity); and • Taxation and displacement of labor In addition to these topics, the essay will touch briefly on a selection of broader systemic questions: • Institutional configuration and expertise • Investment and procurement • Removing hurdles to accountability; and • Correcting mental models of AI Keywords: artificial intelligence, robotics, policy, law, ethics

Aug. 30, 2017

"The right to ‘offend, shock or disturb,’ or the importance of protecting unpleasant speech"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

*The right to ‘offend, shock or disturb,’ or the importance of protecting unpleasant speech* Nani Jansen ReventlowAssociate Tenant, Doughty Street Chambers. @bkcharvard fellow @cyberlawclinic advisor. Free speech, a fundamental component of democracy, has been the subject of increasing debate as harmful speech, both online and offline, has emerged as a topic of public attention. While a recent New York Times article calls into question whether fixing problems such as online harassment is even possible, the serious threat that online abuse, especially of women, poses to free speech is widely acknowledged. With such harms in mind, this brief essay does not dispute the importance of striving toward an internet that is a safe and open space for all to exchange views and ideas, regardless of gender, race, religion, or affiliation. Instead, it intends to underline the importance of devising measures to combat harmful speech online that leave sufficient space for the right to “offend, shock or disturb,” as the European Court of Human Rights aptly stated in the Handyside case. While stopping short of arguing for the creation of a “right to insult,” as was recently proposed, this essay does argue that we should take care in safeguarding a space in which unpleasant, unpopular, and offensive ideas and views can be freely shared, to ensure that free speech indeed remains the cornerstone of a democratic society. […] Continua qui: https://medium.com/berkman-klein-center/the-right-to-offend-shock-or-distur…

Aug. 29, 2017

Re: [nexa] Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Supreme Court in Unanimous Verdict

by Guido Noto La Diega

Interessante! Avevo parlato di privacy in India, con riguardo a net neutrality e database biometrici, in questo articoletto: https://www.academia.edu/34350609/The_Internet_of_Citizens._A_lawyer_s_view… On 24 August 2017 at 11:31, Alberto Cammozzo <ac+nexa(a)zeromx.net> wrote: > Implicazioni per Aadhaar. > > <https://thewire.in/170303/supreme-court-aadhaar-right-to-privacy/> > > New Delhi: A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court has ruled that > Indians enjoy a fundamental right to privacy, that it is intrinsic to > life and liberty and thus comes under Article 21 of the Indian > constitution. > > On Thursday, the bench, led by Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, pronounced a > unanimous judgement even if the judges had slightly different > arguments as to how privacy is intrinsic to right to life and liberty. > > The bench comprised Chief Justice Khehar and Justices J. Chelameswar, > S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agrawal, Rohinton Nariman, A.M. Sapre, D.Y. > Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S. Abdul Nazeer. > > In its 547-page judgment > <https://www.scribd.com/document/357098939/SC-Right- > to-Privacy-Judgment#from_embed> > that declares privacy to be a fundamental right, the Supreme Court has > overruled verdicts given in the /M.P. Sharma/ case in 1958 and the > /Kharak Singh/ case in 1961, both of which said that the right to > privacy is not protected under the Indian constitution. > > The judgment includes within it six separate judgments from different > judges, though the conclusion is unanimous. /The Wire/ has broken the > main judgment into its constituent parts to make it easier to see what > the different judges said. (see below) > > The judgment also included a two-page final order, which states that /MP > Sharma/ and /Kharak Singh/ are overruled, and the right to privacy is > fundamental. > > [...] > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > -- Guido Dr Guido Noto La Diega Lecturer in Law @ Northumbria University CEO @italiot | Fellow @ Nexa Center for Internet & Society | Founder @DPA2018 Northumbria Law School City Campus East, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST noto.la.diega(a)gmail.com +44(0)191 349 5562 Twitter @guidonld You can access my papers on Academia.edu <http://northumbria.academia.edu/GuidoNotoLaDiega> and on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1794950>) This e-mail and any attachment hereto are strictly confidential and are exclusively intended for the person above identified. Without intended recipient’s entitlement, use, copy and dissemination of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error, please advice us immediately by telephone and return the documents received to the above address, deleting the files. Thank you. Unless necessary, please do not print this e-mail.

Aug. 25, 2017

Il cyber-tribunale cinese, Alibaba e il conflitto di interessi 2.0

by Guido Noto La Diega

Nel nuovo cyber-tribunale tutto e' smaterializzato, l'identita' delle parti e' verificata tramite Alibaba, che e' anche responsabile per la sicurezza delle comunicazioni del tribunale... "Taobao, an online marketplace founded by Alibaba, has recently been under fire for allowing vendors to sell both illegal VPNs <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-censorship-vpn-idUSKCN1AX0KX> that allow individuals to bypass China’s online censorship and customized photos and videos featuring African children <https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/10/16121668/chinese-web-merchants-taobao-af…> that have been called racist and exploitative. If the newly established cyber-court handles cases against Taobao, that means Alibaba could end up hosting and authorizing legal proceedings against itself." https://www.theverge.com/tech/2017/8/18/16167836/china-cyber-court-hangzhou… -- Guido Dr Guido Noto La Diega Lecturer in Law @ Northumbria University CEO @italiot | Fellow @ Nexa Center for Internet & Society | Founder @DPA2018 Northumbria Law School City Campus East, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST noto.la.diega(a)gmail.com +44(0)191 349 5562 Twitter @guidonld You can access my papers on Academia.edu <http://northumbria.academia.edu/GuidoNotoLaDiega> and on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1794950>) This e-mail and any attachment hereto are strictly confidential and are exclusively intended for the person above identified. Without intended recipient’s entitlement, use, copy and dissemination of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error, please advice us immediately by telephone and return the documents received to the above address, deleting the files. Thank you. Unless necessary, please do not print this e-mail.

Aug. 24, 2017

Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Supreme Court in Unanimous Verdict

by Alberto Cammozzo

Implicazioni per Aadhaar. <https://thewire.in/170303/supreme-court-aadhaar-right-to-privacy/> New Delhi: A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court has ruled that Indians enjoy a fundamental right to privacy, that it is intrinsic to life and liberty and thus comes under Article 21 of the Indian constitution. On Thursday, the bench, led by Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, pronounced a unanimous judgement even if the judges had slightly different arguments as to how privacy is intrinsic to right to life and liberty. The bench comprised Chief Justice Khehar and Justices J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agrawal, Rohinton Nariman, A.M. Sapre, D.Y. Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S. Abdul Nazeer. In its 547-page judgment <https://www.scribd.com/document/357098939/SC-Right-to-Privacy-Judgment#from…> that declares privacy to be a fundamental right, the Supreme Court has overruled verdicts given in the /M.P. Sharma/ case in 1958 and the /Kharak Singh/ case in 1961, both of which said that the right to privacy is not protected under the Indian constitution. The judgment includes within it six separate judgments from different judges, though the conclusion is unanimous. /The Wire/ has broken the main judgment into its constituent parts to make it easier to see what the different judges said. (see below) The judgment also included a two-page final order, which states that /MP Sharma/ and /Kharak Singh/ are overruled, and the right to privacy is fundamental. [...]

Aug. 24, 2017

Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right

by avv. Monica A. Senor

Importantissima pronuncia della Corte suprema indiana, con decisione unanime, in tema di privacy e data protection: https://thewire.in/170303/supreme-court-aadhaar-right-to-privacy/

Aug. 24, 2017

Re: [nexa] EFF's Jillian York on censorship: "What we need is for companies to choose openness, transparency, and due process"

by Stefano Quintarelli

L'articolo è ben scritto e dal mio punto di vista largamente condivisibile. In effetti pensavo di scrivere una cosa simile sul mio blog. Dissento però dalle conclusioni. Non mi pare né sufficiente né desiderabile che siano le aziende a fare i giudici, per quanto si impegnino ad apertura, trasparenza e giusto processo. Mi pare che i sottintesi possano essere due: 1) una corte normale è troppo lenta per intervenire o 2) una corte non può intervenire sui sistemi dell'azienda. Pensare che sia impossibile che una corte riesca ad avere le competenze e strumenti mi pare che sia dichiarare un proprio fallimento. Pensare che una corte sia intrinsecamente troppo lenta mi pare ancora peggio, è abdicare pilatescamente al proprio ruolo ritenendo che non sia possibile una giustizia celere e lavarsene le mani: "non si può fare, facciano loro". Mi pare che la cosa a cui tendere dovrebbe essere superare questi limiti. Magari non si può fare tutto subito e magari occorreranno procedure diverse e specifiche; dovremo pensarci e farle. Ad esempio a partire dall'anonimato protetto e dalla garanzia che chiunque voglia esprimere qualcosa, assumendone responsabilità rispetto a possibile rilevanza penale, possa farlo. Imho. Ciao, s. In data 24 agosto 2017 7:37:28 AM gianluca quaglia <gianlucaquaglia(a)gmail.com> ha scritto: > EFF's Jillian York on censorship: "What we need is for companies to choose > openness, transparency, and due process" > > Continua qui > > > https://www.facebook.com/eff/posts/10154674401606946 > -- > Sent from my smartphone Excuse any typos due to small screen (also...) > > > > ---------- > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >

Aug. 24, 2017

Sonos says users must accept new privacy policy

by gianluca quaglia

Sonos says users must accept new privacy policy or devices may "cease to function" Continue here http://www.zdnet.com/article/sonos-accept-new-privacy-policy-speakers-cease… -- Sent from my smartphone Excuse any typos due to small screen (also...)

Aug. 24, 2017

EFF's Jillian York on censorship: "What we need is for companies to choose openness, transparency, and due process"

by gianluca quaglia

EFF's Jillian York on censorship: "What we need is for companies to choose openness, transparency, and due process" Continua qui https://www.facebook.com/eff/posts/10154674401606946 -- Sent from my smartphone Excuse any typos due to small screen (also...)

Aug. 24, 2017

Re: [nexa] Elon Musk leads 116 experts calling for outright ban of killer robots

by Ugo Pagallo

Caro Andrea, aggiungo alle tue proposte di letture, l'ultimo libro di Toby Walsh che, tra le altre cose, soppesa proprio i pro e contra dei killer robot... Qui il link al libro: https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/books/its-alive Ne parlo con Toby e Stuart Russel dopodomani a Melbourne: http://www.medianet.com.au/releases/141447/ Cheers, Ugo 2017-08-21 11:28 GMT+02:00 Andrea Glorioso <andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it>: > Carissimi, > > nello spirito di confronto che anima questa lista, pur sapendo che > l'argomento è particolarmente controverso, mi permetto di rimandarvi a > questo breve pezzo di Kenneth Anderson e Matthew Waxman, professori > rispettivamente alla American University e alla Columbia Law School. Il > primo in particolare si occupa dell'argomento da molto tempo: > > https://www.lawfareblog.com/primer-debates-over-law-and- > ethics-autonomous-weapon-systems > > "An international public debate over the law and ethics of autonomous > weapon systems (AWS) has been underway since 2012, with those urging legal > regulation of AWS under existing principles and requirements of the > international law of armed conflict, on the one side, in argument with > opponents who favor, instead, a preemptive international treaty ban on all > such weapons, on the other. This Chapter provides an introduction to this > international debate, offering the main arguments on each side. These > include disputes over defining an AWS, the morality and law of automated > targeting and target selection by machine, and the interaction of humans > and machines in the context of lethal weapons of war. Although the Chapter > concludes that a categorical ban on AWS is unjustified morally and legally > — favoring the law of armed conflict’s existing case-by-case legal > evaluation — it offers an exposition of arguments on each side of the AWS > issue." > > Il pezzo introduce e rimanda ad un articolo più lungo, disponibile su > SSRN, e ad altri lavori che potrebbero essere utili per comprendere le > posizioni in campo. > > Suggerisco anche a chi fosse a digiuno degli elementi di base il libro > "Moral Machines" di Wallach ed Allen, OUP (2010). Non mi risulta una > edizione italiana. > > A presto, > > Andrea > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 4:14 AM, Stefano Quintarelli < > stefano(a)quintarelli.it> wrote: > >> ben fatto.. >> anche qui... >> http://aic.camera.it/aic/scheda.html?numero=1/01620&ramo=CAMERA&leg=17 >> >> >> > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/20/elon-musk >> -killer-robots-experts-outright-ban-lethal-autonomous-weapons-war >> > >> > Some of the world’s leading robotics and artificial intelligence >> pioneers >> > are calling on the United Nations to ban the development and use of >> killer >> > robots. >> > >> > Tesla’s Elon Musk and Google’s Mustafa Suleyman are leading a group of >> 116 >> > specialists from across 26 countries who are calling for the ban on >> > autonomous weapons. >> > >> > The UN recently voted to begin formal discussions on such weapons which >> > include drones, tanks and automated machine guns. Ahead of this, the >> group >> > of founders of AI and robotics companies have sent an open letter to the >> > UN calling for it to prevent the arms race that is currently under way >> for >> > killer robots. >> > ..._______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > > > > -- > > -- > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > >

Aug. 21, 2017

Fwd: China’s dystopian push to revolutionize surveillance

by Alberto Cammozzo

-------- Original Message -------- From: Greg Walton <greg.secure(a)GMAIL.COM> Sent: August 20, 2017 2:24:34 PM GMT+02:00 To: SURVEILLANCE(a)JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: China’s dystopian push to revolutionize surveillance China’s dystopian push to revolutionize surveillance By Maya Wang | August 18 at 10:09 AM Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/ 2017/08/18/chinas-dystopian-push-to-revolutionize-surveillance /?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.df73d813863e As part of a new multimillion-dollar project in Xinjiang, the Chinese government is attempting to “build a fortress city with technologies <http://stock.jrj.com.cn/2017/07/03210922691114.shtml>.” If this sounds Orwellian, that’s because it is. According to the Sina online news portal, the project is supposed to strengthen the authorities’ hands against unexpected social unrest. Using “big data” from various sources, including the railway system and visitors’ systems in private residential compounds, its ultimate aim is to “predict … individuals and vehicles posing heightened risks <https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IcPjLZTnMjwJ:news.sin…>” to public safety. And this isn’t the only project in China that aims to expand surveillancewhile denying people privacy rights. Across the country, local governments are spending billions of dollars <http://homelandsecurityresearch.com/2013/09/china-safe-cities-technologies-…> implementing sophisticated technological systems for mass surveillance. The consequences for human rights are ominous. [image: subscribe] The story must be told. Your subscription supports journalism that matters. Try 1 month for 99¢ <https://subscribe.washingtonpost.com/acquisition/?promo=display_hp_subsbnr_…> Beijing’s impulse to surveil is certainly not new. But mass migration and privatization during the transition to a market economy have undermined the power of older practices that allowed the state to keep tabs on people, such as the “hukou” residency registration system. To bolster and broaden surveillance, the Ministry of Public Security turned to new technologies, launching the Golden Shield Project <https://books.google.com/books?id=S9rP0A2q14UC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inaut…> in 2000 <https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-11/FreedomOfInf…>. The project aims to build a nationwide, intelligent digital surveillance network capable of identifying and locating individuals, as well as offering the state immediate access to personal records <https://archive.org/stream/230159-china-golden-shield/230159-china-golden-s…> at the push of a button. This dystopian project is bearing fruit. China’s pervasive Internet censorship and its use of countless security cameras <https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/06/05/one-legacy-of-tiananmen-chin…> in public spaces are well known. Recent reporting reveals authorities’ aspirations to enable facial recognition <https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-all-seeing-surveillance-state-feared-in-th…> through upgraded cameras, to calculate citizens’ “social credit” scores based on economic and social status and to establish a national DNA database <https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/05/15/china-police-dna-database-threatens-pri…> that logs genetic code irrespective of anyone’s connection to a crime. But we still know little of China’s full range of efforts to revolutionize surveillance. We have few details about China’s use of voice and speech recognition. There has not been any investigation into China’s nationwide “safe city” projects that vow to promote public safety using technology. We know even less about how China plans to use big data for crime prediction. What we do know is that China has no effective privacy protections and that it often treats peaceful speech as a crime. It is also worrying that some of these systems are designed to identify “focus personnel <https://www.hrw.org/video-photos/interactive/2017/06/20/tibet-glossary-repr…>” — a catchall term for both those with a criminal record and those whom authorities deem threatening or antisocial, including peaceful critics, political activists, minorities or people with a drug use record. The story of Wu Bing <http://news.sina.com.cn/c/zg/jpm/2015-06-26/12541179.html> may offer a taste of what is to come. Wu is one of nearly 3 million individuals whose name is logged into a police database known as the “Online Dynamic Control and Early Warning System for Drug Addicts.” Wu kicked the habit in 2005, but whenever he uses his ID — when he checks into a hotel, for example — the police are alerted and sometimes force him to take a drug test. What’s worse, the Chinese government is promoting its surveillance model abroad. It has pushed the concept of “Internet sovereignty <https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-pushes-to-rewrite-rules-of-global-intern…>” — the idea that, instead of a free World Wide Web, a country’s rulers should determine what netizens can say and read. And its efforts are aided by Chinese companies eager to peddle their wares. In 2014, a Human Rights Watch report <https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/03/25/ethiopia-telecom-surveillance-chills-ri…> found that Chinese telecom giant ZTE sold technology and provided training to monitor mobile phones and Internet activity to Ethiopia’s repressive government. Meanwhile, closed-circuit television cameras and monitoring systems made by Chinese companies — some high-definition and equipped with facial and movement recognition powers — have been sold to countries around the world, including Brazil <http://news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2016-08/18/c_129239008.htm>, Ecuador <http://news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2016-08/18/c_129239008.htm>, Kenya <http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2016-11/04/content_27269942.htm> and Britain <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/communist-state-funded-cctv-company-that…> . But we are beginning to see a backlash against Chinese companies with strong ties to the Chinese government, prompted by security concerns. In July 2017, Germany <http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/breaking-news/germany-curbs-foreign…> became the first European Union nation to tighten rules on foreign corporate acquisitions; this ensures that Germany retains control over critical technologies, including artificial intelligence applications. Others, including the United States <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-artificialintelligence-idUSKBN…> and Britain <https://www.ft.com/content/9cb95e84-6bc2-11e7-b9c7-15af748b60d0> are mulling similar restrictions. Yet foreign governments need to take stronger and more systematic action. They should first understand and review the ways in which the transfer of technologies used for abusive purposes is taking place. The United States needs to review and enhance a long-standing ban on exporting policing and “crime control” equipment to China. The sanctions, passed in the aftermath of the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre, have been largely ineffective in preventing U.S.-based companies <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/selling-china-surveillance> from selling software and hardware for surveillance purposes. That review should ensure that the list of equipment barred is regularly updated or supplemented to cover the latest technologies and that the sanctions are vigorously enforced. If the Chinese government’s Orwellian drive at home does not alarm the international community, its willingness to export that approach should. It’s not just the liberty of people in China at stake — it is the liberty of people across the globe. **************************************************** This is a message from the SURVEILLANCE listserv for research and teaching in surveillance studies. To unsubscribe, please send the following message to <LISTSERV(a)jiscmail.ac.uk>: UNSUBSCRIBE SURVEILLANCE For further help, please visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help ****************************************************

Aug. 21, 2017

Re: [nexa] Elon Musk leads 116 experts calling for outright ban of killer robots

by Andrea Glorioso

Carissimi, nello spirito di confronto che anima questa lista, pur sapendo che l'argomento è particolarmente controverso, mi permetto di rimandarvi a questo breve pezzo di Kenneth Anderson e Matthew Waxman, professori rispettivamente alla American University e alla Columbia Law School. Il primo in particolare si occupa dell'argomento da molto tempo: https://www.lawfareblog.com/primer-debates-over-law-and-ethics-autonomous-w… "An international public debate over the law and ethics of autonomous weapon systems (AWS) has been underway since 2012, with those urging legal regulation of AWS under existing principles and requirements of the international law of armed conflict, on the one side, in argument with opponents who favor, instead, a preemptive international treaty ban on all such weapons, on the other. This Chapter provides an introduction to this international debate, offering the main arguments on each side. These include disputes over defining an AWS, the morality and law of automated targeting and target selection by machine, and the interaction of humans and machines in the context of lethal weapons of war. Although the Chapter concludes that a categorical ban on AWS is unjustified morally and legally — favoring the law of armed conflict’s existing case-by-case legal evaluation — it offers an exposition of arguments on each side of the AWS issue." Il pezzo introduce e rimanda ad un articolo più lungo, disponibile su SSRN, e ad altri lavori che potrebbero essere utili per comprendere le posizioni in campo. Suggerisco anche a chi fosse a digiuno degli elementi di base il libro "Moral Machines" di Wallach ed Allen, OUP (2010). Non mi risulta una edizione italiana. A presto, Andrea On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 4:14 AM, Stefano Quintarelli <stefano(a)quintarelli.it > wrote: > ben fatto.. > anche qui... > http://aic.camera.it/aic/scheda.html?numero=1/01620&ramo=CAMERA&leg=17 > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/20/elon- > musk-killer-robots-experts-outright-ban-lethal-autonomous-weapons-war > > > > Some of the world’s leading robotics and artificial intelligence pioneers > > are calling on the United Nations to ban the development and use of > killer > > robots. > > > > Tesla’s Elon Musk and Google’s Mustafa Suleyman are leading a group of > 116 > > specialists from across 26 countries who are calling for the ban on > > autonomous weapons. > > > > The UN recently voted to begin formal discussions on such weapons which > > include drones, tanks and automated machine guns. Ahead of this, the > group > > of founders of AI and robotics companies have sent an open letter to the > > UN calling for it to prevent the arms race that is currently under way > for > > killer robots. > > ..._______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- -- 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

Aug. 21, 2017

Re: [nexa] DiDIY

by elio.pennisi

Fatto! Grazie. Elio Pennisi From: "M. Fioretti" mfioretti(a)nexaima.net To: "elio.pennisi" elio.pennisi(a)aruba.it Cc: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 12:19:52 +0200 Subject: Re: [nexa] DiDIY On 2017-07-23 17:33, elio.pennisi wrote: > Nella pagina indicata manca (o non sono stato bravo a trovare) l'icona > per accedere alla sottoscrizione. > Elio. chiedo scusa se per vari motivi ci ho messo quasi un mese a rspondere. In ogni caso, si fa ancora in tempo a firmare, e a invitare altri a farlo. Il link da usare è questo: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfsHi-Jtip3YZfm6qBpaa2K4oaWzE6MZhJ… Grazie, Marco Fioretti > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 09:37:41 +0200 > From: "M. Fioretti" <mfioretti(a)nexaima.net> > To: Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > Subject: [nexa] Digital DIY Manifesto > Message-ID: <680cefc9961c4b14ca7e2964cc9f8dfa(a)nexaima.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Dal DiDIY Project: > > Come e perché il fai-da-te digitale è importante per la società: un > > Manifesto che verrà inviato alla Commissione Europea, e siete tutti > invitati a firmare, e ovviamente a far girare: > > http://www.didiy.eu/blogs/please-sign-digital-diy-manifesto > > Grazie e buone ferie, > > Marco > -- > http://mfioretti.com > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > ------------------------------ > > End of nexa Digest, Vol 99, Issue 30 > ************************************ > > Elio PENNISI > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa -- http://mfioretti.com Elio PENNISI

Aug. 21, 2017

Re: [nexa] Elon Musk leads 116 experts calling for outright ban of killer robots

by Stefano Quintarelli

ben fatto.. anche qui... http://aic.camera.it/aic/scheda.html?numero=1/01620&ramo=CAMERA&leg=17 > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/20/elon-musk-killer-robots-… > > Some of the world’s leading robotics and artificial intelligence pioneers > are calling on the United Nations to ban the development and use of killer > robots. > > Tesla’s Elon Musk and Google’s Mustafa Suleyman are leading a group of 116 > specialists from across 26 countries who are calling for the ban on > autonomous weapons. > > The UN recently voted to begin formal discussions on such weapons which > include drones, tanks and automated machine guns. Ahead of this, the group > of founders of AI and robotics companies have sent an open letter to the > UN calling for it to prevent the arms race that is currently under way for > killer robots. > ..._______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >

Aug. 21, 2017

Elon Musk leads 116 experts calling for outright ban of killer robots

by Alberto Cammozzo

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/20/elon-musk-killer-robots-… Some of the world’s leading robotics and artificial intelligence pioneers are calling on the United Nations to ban the development and use of killer robots. Tesla’s Elon Musk and Google’s Mustafa Suleyman are leading a group of 116 specialists from across 26 countries who are calling for the ban on autonomous weapons. The UN recently voted to begin formal discussions on such weapons which include drones, tanks and automated machine guns. Ahead of this, the group of founders of AI and robotics companies have sent an open letter to the UN calling for it to prevent the arms race that is currently under way for killer robots. ...

Aug. 21, 2017

FastCompany: "You Are Being Exploited By The Opaque, Algorithm-Driven Economy"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

*You Are Being Exploited By The Opaque, Algorithm-Driven Economy* / //Online shoppers are like Jim Carrey’s character in the Truman Show, // //totally oblivious to the actual forces controlling their reality. / By Ben Schiller 4 August 2017 5 minute Read Is internet shopping like The Truman Show–a movie about a man who thinks himself free, but whose life is actually controlled by a TV producer? Are we online consumers like Truman Burbank, hopelessly and blissfully naive while titanic companies control our fate? Are the prices we pay online a function of a competitive market, or are our choices framed in ways we don’t quite fathom? These provocative questions are posed in a fascinating book about how platform internet companies (Amazon, Facebook, and so on) are changing the norms of economic competition. Virtual Competition: The Promise and Perils of the Algorithm-Driven Economy argues that these companies, with their immense data advantage, are effectively making their own rules in the marketplace, beating back new market entrants, and disadvantaging customers. […] Continua qui: https://www.fastcompany.com/40447841/you-are-being-exploited-by-the-opaque-…

Aug. 20, 2017

Re: [nexa] DiDIY

by M. Fioretti

On 2017-07-23 17:33, elio.pennisi wrote: > Nella pagina indicata manca (o non sono stato bravo a trovare) l'icona > per accedere alla sottoscrizione. > Elio. chiedo scusa se per vari motivi ci ho messo quasi un mese a rspondere. In ogni caso, si fa ancora in tempo a firmare, e a invitare altri a farlo. Il link da usare è questo: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfsHi-Jtip3YZfm6qBpaa2K4oaWzE6MZhJ… Grazie, Marco Fioretti > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 09:37:41 +0200 > From: "M. Fioretti" <mfioretti(a)nexaima.net> > To: Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > Subject: [nexa] Digital DIY Manifesto > Message-ID: <680cefc9961c4b14ca7e2964cc9f8dfa(a)nexaima.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Dal DiDIY Project: > > Come e perché il fai-da-te digitale è importante per la società: un > > Manifesto che verrà inviato alla Commissione Europea, e siete tutti > invitati a firmare, e ovviamente a far girare: > > http://www.didiy.eu/blogs/please-sign-digital-diy-manifesto > > Grazie e buone ferie, > > Marco > -- > http://mfioretti.com > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > ------------------------------ > > End of nexa Digest, Vol 99, Issue 30 > ************************************ > > Elio PENNISI > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa -- http://mfioretti.com

Aug. 20, 2017

Re: [nexa] London cops urged to scrap use of 'biased' facial recognition at Notting Hill Carnival

by Stefano Quintarelli

Avevo scritto questo sul riconoscimento facciale http://blog.quintarelli.it/2016/05/di-riconoscimento-facciale-terrorismo-e-… Che cerca di semplificare la spiegazione degli effetti del teorema di bayes Ciao, s. In data 18 agosto 2017 12:21:14 PM Alberto Cammozzo <ac+nexa(a)zeromx.net> ha scritto: > > Year-on-year deployment isn’t really a trial, say privacy groups > > <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/17/concerns_over_facial_recognition_a…> > > > London's Metropolitan Police have been urged to back down on plans to > once again use facial recognition software at next weekend's Notting > Hill Carnival. > > Privacy groups including Big Brother Watch, Liberty and Privacy > International have written to police commissioner Cressida Dick > <https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/sites/default/files/Joint%20letter%…> > (PDF) calling for a U-turn on the use of the tech. > > Automated facial recognition technology will snap the party-goers' > faces, and run them against a database. The aim is to alert cops to > people who are banned from the festival or are wanted by the police, > presumably so they can take immediate action. > > The tech was first tested at the festival – where relations between > police and revellers are often strained – last year > <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/26/notting_hill_carnival_police_surve…>, > but it failed to identify anyone. > > Despite this, the Met said at the time > <http://news.met.police.uk/news/statement-from-police-commander-for-notting-…> > that it had "resulted in positive learning" and is describing this > year's use as a continuation of the trial. > > It also said in a statement sent to /The Register/ that there would be a > public consultation after the trial is complete. > > But the privacy groups' letter said that they "reject the notion that > year-on-year deployment constitutes a 'trial' – for which, by the > Force's own admission, there are 'no timescales'". > > The letter also points to reports of inherent biases in the system – > research has previously shown > <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6327355/> that matching accuracies > are lower on certain cohorts of people: women, black people, and those > aged 18-30. > > "Notting Hill Carnival is an event that specifically celebrates the > British African Caribbean community," the letter states. "We reject the > proposition that it is appropriate to test biometric surveillance on > this community." > > > [...] > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Aug. 19, 2017

FT: "Digital platforms force a rethink in competition theory"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

*Digital platforms force a rethink in competition theory* /Economists need to provide regulators with tools to deal with market concentration// / Diane Coyle /professor of economics at the University of Manchester /August 17, 2017 Anxiety about the health of competition in the US economy — and elsewhere — is growing. The concern may be well founded but taking forceful action will require economists to provide some practical ways of proving and measuring the harm caused by increasing market power in the digital economy. The forces driving concentration do not affect the US alone. In all digital markets, the cost structure of high upfront costs and low additional or marginal costs means there are large economies of scale. The broad impact of digital technology has been to increase the scope of the markets many businesses can hope to reach. / /[…] Continua qui: https://www.ft.com/content/9dc80408-81e1-11e7-94e2-c5b903247afd / /

Aug. 19, 2017

London cops urged to scrap use of 'biased' facial recognition at Notting Hill Carnival

by Alberto Cammozzo

Year-on-year deployment isn’t really a trial, say privacy groups <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/17/concerns_over_facial_recognition_a…> London's Metropolitan Police have been urged to back down on plans to once again use facial recognition software at next weekend's Notting Hill Carnival. Privacy groups including Big Brother Watch, Liberty and Privacy International have written to police commissioner Cressida Dick <https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/sites/default/files/Joint%20letter%…> (PDF) calling for a U-turn on the use of the tech. Automated facial recognition technology will snap the party-goers' faces, and run them against a database. The aim is to alert cops to people who are banned from the festival or are wanted by the police, presumably so they can take immediate action. The tech was first tested at the festival – where relations between police and revellers are often strained – last year <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/26/notting_hill_carnival_police_surve…>, but it failed to identify anyone. Despite this, the Met said at the time <http://news.met.police.uk/news/statement-from-police-commander-for-notting-…> that it had "resulted in positive learning" and is describing this year's use as a continuation of the trial. It also said in a statement sent to /The Register/ that there would be a public consultation after the trial is complete. But the privacy groups' letter said that they "reject the notion that year-on-year deployment constitutes a 'trial' – for which, by the Force's own admission, there are 'no timescales'". The letter also points to reports of inherent biases in the system – research has previously shown <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6327355/> that matching accuracies are lower on certain cohorts of people: women, black people, and those aged 18-30. "Notting Hill Carnival is an event that specifically celebrates the British African Caribbean community," the letter states. "We reject the proposition that it is appropriate to test biometric surveillance on this community." [...]

Aug. 18, 2017