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

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