July 2018 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Grant strategic litigation per digital rights
by Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) - lists July 22, 2018

July 22, 2018

Ciao a tutti, il Digital Freedom Fund ha finalmente aperto a Grants per strategic litigation in ambito Digital Rights: "The Digital Freedom Fund supports strategic litigation on digital rights in Europe that contributes to advancing human rights in the digital sphere. " I temi sono: (1) advance individuals' ability to exercise their right to privacy; (2) protect and promote the free flow of information online; (3) ensure accountability, transparency and the adherence to human rights standards in the use and design of technology. Sarebbe molto bello che ci fossero progetti Italiani, sia di litigation legali vere e proprie, che di ricerca per la valutazione di fattibilità e/o di preparazione delle litigation. https://digitalfreedomfund.org/support/ Se ci sono idee interessanti (dalla data retention all'export control a particolari azioni basate sul GDPR) che qualcuno vuole portare avanti, come Centro Hermes saremmo interessati a supportare e coadiuvare queste iniziative nell'ambito Italiano. Fabio

1 0

data transfert project
by Claudio Agosti July 21, 2018

July 21, 2018

questo progetto, di Google: https://datatransferproject.dev/ è un passo verso un'apparente distribuzione del mercato? hanno rilasciando un whitepaper, sembra un adempimento alla GDRP per implementare la data-portability, e definisce, secondo me, il loro limite di interoperabilità. nel senso che gli esempi fatti parlano di "su uploado una foto posso anche portare su un'altra rete senza doverla riuploadare", e idealmente, può servire a creare parallelamente altre reti (es: devi stare su facebook come compromesso sociale, ma puoi uploadare lo stesso materiale anche su altri social network). questo caso d'uso, secondo me, dovrebbe essere *gentilmente preteso* ad ogni figura che usa i social network e porta con se una massa di utenti a stare sul social network perchè ci sono loro (istituzione, carica pubblica, influencer, giornali online...) duplichi i propri contenuti su tutte le piattaforme possibili, per non avvantaggiarne nessuna. parafrasanto "*per non vendere la tua audience ad una piattaforma spiecifica che profitterà su di loro, con te abilitatore dell'abuso*" ma: 1) I 4 attuali partecipanti hanno il medesimo business model, esempi come mastodon più indipendenti dalle logiche di data mining a scopo profilatorio, sono ancora immaturi. Quindi pretendere la ridondanza della comunicazione è utile perchè inizi ad essere parte del dibattito, ma non risolverà i problemi di libertà che ne possono derivare, almeno non nei primi anni. 2) trasportare i tuoi dati su un altro proiver non è interoperabilità. non c'è la possibiltà di fare un altro social netowrk che si integri con facebook, se non usando API che facebook da a disposizione che vengono limitate appositamente per renderlo impossibile. nel mercato telefonico, per fare un esempio, non è solo la number portability ad aver permesso l'esistenza di competizione, ma il fatto che dovessero parlarsi tra di loro. un buon weekend, Claudio che oggi parla a HOPE di analisi dell'algoritmo, e adesso aggiorno le ultime slide con questo progetto, che in qualche modo si connette alla grande lotta sui dati =) https://github.com/tracking-exposed/presentation/blob/master/HOPE-2018.pdf -- @_vecna - https://facebook.tracking.exposed PGP: https://keybase.io/vecna

2 1

Science Fiction Is Not Social Reality -- The tech industry is inspired to create our world from linear, scripted science fiction stories.
by Alberto Cammozzo July 21, 2018

July 21, 2018

<https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/43pxjd/science-fiction-is-not-so…> Science Fiction is great. It is inspirational, it is fun to read, and it gives humans incredible ideas. However, Science Fiction is not a manual for making real things in the world without oversight, accountability, and knowledge of how its outcomes will affect society. Facial Recognition technology is already with us. Amazon’s Rekognition <https://aws.amazon.com/rekognition/> makes a fairly easy toolkit developers can use, and Microsoft’s Azure can identify emotions as well as who is experiencing them <https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/cognitive-services/face/?v=18.05>. Apple “uses advanced face recognition technology to group photos by person <https://www.apple.com/ios/photos/>" in iPhoto and on phones, and offers FaceID for unlocking phones <https://www.computerworld.com/article/3235140/apple-ios/apples-face-id-the-…> with a picture. Other companies use the technology as well. Even Adobe offers Facial Recognition as part of its Photoshop Lightroom Classic CC <https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/help/face-recognition.html>. We’ve started to see the technology creep a bit at a time into various parts of our lives. So far, in the US, we might not have noticed Facial Recognition much, except as a novelty on our devices, but it is being deployed in ways that are beginning to give us pause and concern, as we learn about them, such as being deployed in K-12 schools <https://www.wired.com/story/realnetworks-facial-recognition-technology-scho…>, or aiding police departments <https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3k4dq5/amazon-rekognition-facial…> on the back-end, or being considered to augment the cameras police officers are already wearing <https://www.npr.org/2018/05/12/610632088/what-artificial-intelligence-can-d…> One central issue for Facial Recognition and other new unproven technologies is that when big companies, with access to reach millions of people decide to “road test” this type of big surveillance, its implications become very real, very fast. Last year I wrote thathumans are becoming “algorithm chow,” <https://medium.com/itp-musings/they-sow-they-reap-how-humans-are-becoming-a…> in that the data that we generate feeds the algorithms in companies such as Amazon, that in turn use our ‘data food’ to track and profile us, and use our footprint for surveillance. Last week, in an op-ed at /The Guardian/ <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/06/amazon-rekognition-fa…>, Peter Asaro, Kelly Gates, and other academic researchers wrote that Amazon is not only building a “facial recognition infrastructure,” it is also collecting “a huge amount of personal information about people, including … what they watch and read” and via Echo and Alexa, “what people say in their homes.” They describe this data practice threat as a “massive, automated surveillance apparatus” that requires an “equally vast system for oversight,” which has “not been developed.” It likely won’t be. To understand why, it is important to understand who the people that are developing these devices are, and why they are building what they are building. Their wealth, <https://money.cnn.com/2017/05/02/investing/apple-cash-quarter-trillion/inde…> resources, and reach surpass that of governments. Additionally, regulations take time to form when new technology is introduced. This is why there have been so many calls to action from scholars, ethicists, and some tech employees. We’re worried, and rightly so. My research examines human agency and choice in the context of automation, and my doctoral dissertation studied Silicon Valley makers and producers over a period of 8 years. I understand innovation, and in particular “disruptive innovators.” There are two possible reasons these people and the productions that they are making are dangerous: the literal interpretation of Science Fiction as an influence, and the misapplication of the Pareto Principle. *Science Fiction is not social reality* Tech creators and tech billionaires are influenced by Science Fiction for different reasons. Some of these have to do with the narrative of the ‘hero outsider’ who uses their knowledge and skill to fix a problem through engineering a solution or through adapting tools and technology in new ways to solve some type of problem. Other reasons have to do with creating a Utopian society that is “bettered” through time-saving devices that are automated. The doors in /Star Trek/, the just-in-time data knowledge and data access in any number of films: /Bladerunner/, /Star Wars/, /Minority Report/, etc. and books all are delivered seamlessly in Science Fiction. When things do break, there is often an engineering solution. Even when Science Fiction turns against mankind, as it did in /2001: A Space Odyssey/, the gadgets and gear are shown as sufficiently technologically inspiring, so much so that even though it was a warning film of sorts, that element becomes minimized in favor of recreating “cool technology.” Thus, one myth is that in Science Fiction, a problem is solved because the human engineers were there to apply engineering and tech solutions to solve the problem, and another myth is that automation is seamless and knowledge is easily delivered in relevant contexts to appropriate parties. The reality is that in Science Fiction, problems are solved because the writers wrote a solution; physical objects worked in perfect just-in-time automation; and data and knowledge was delivered accurately in real time because all of those solutions were described to work in ways that are not fully formed, or real. Additionally, those tech creators and tech billionaires who are influenced by Science Fiction seem to assume that because things in Science Fiction work in the society and culture of those created future-set universes, there is an expectation bias that they will work in our real life and present, without much testing or oversight. Gadgets, services, and technologies work in Science Fiction because it is fiction. They work because it is a narrative, and as such, their authors or filmmakers showed them working. They work because in fiction, it is very easy to make things work, because they aren’t real and don’t need to actually work. Realizing the unreal from fiction will not make that realization work in the same way in real life. It can’t. The context, timeframe, and people are different. Most importantly, Science Fiction is fiction. [...]

2 1

Introducing Data Transfer Project: an open source platform promoting universal data portability | Google Open Source Blog
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 21, 2018

July 21, 2018

https://opensource.googleblog.com/2018/07/introducing-data-transfer-project… Introducing Data Transfer Project: an open source platform promoting universal data portability In 2007, a small group of engineers in our Chicago office formed the Data Liberation Front, a team that believed consumers should have better tools to put their data where they want, when they want, and even move it to a different service. This idea, called “data portability,” gives people greater control of their information, and pushes us to develop great products because we know they can pack up and leave at any time. In 2011, we launched Takeout, a new way for Google users to download or transfer a copy of the data they store or create in a variety of industry-standard formats. Since then, we've continued to invest in Takeout—we now call it Download Your Data—and today, our users can download a machine-readable copy of the data they have stored in 50+ Google products, with more on the way. Now, we’re taking our commitment to portability a step further. In tandem with Microsoft, Twitter, and Facebook we’re announcing the Data Transfer Project, an open source initiative dedicated to developing tools that will enable consumers to transfer their data directly from one service to another, without needing to download and re-upload it. Download Your Data users can already do this; they can transfer their information directly to their Dropbox, Box, MS OneDrive, and Google Drive accounts today. With this project, the development of which we mentioned in our blog post about preparations for the GDPR, we’re looking forward to working with companies across the industry to bring this type of functionality to individuals across the web. [...] (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Rushkoff: “Survival of the Richest”
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 20, 2018

July 20, 2018

Survival of the Richest by douglas rushkoff The wealthy are plotting to leave us behind (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

4 5

Borse di studio Fondazione Feltrinelli
by Luigi Scorca July 20, 2018

July 20, 2018

La Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli ha lanciato un bando per due borse di studio: - “Lavoro, competenze e politiche industriali nell’era digitale”; -“Regole, pratiche, innovazioni sociali e nuove economie per un futuro sostenibile”. Le trovate qui: http://fondazionefeltrinelli.it/eventi/ Luigi

1 0

PwC: Artificial intelligence will create as many jobs as it destroys - Business Insider
by gabriele elia July 19, 2018

July 19, 2018

vexata questio Ma siamo sul filo di lana: p.es. in UK nel 2037: "In absolute terms, around 7 million existing jobs are projected to be displaced, but around 7.2 million are projected to be created, giving a net jobs boost of around 0.2 million." http://uk.businessinsider.com/pwc-artificial-intelligence-wont-destroy-all-… Artificial intelligence will create as many jobs as it destroys, according to a PwC analysis • Shona Ghosh • • Jul. 17, 2018, 8:06 AM • Billionaires including Bill Gates and Elon Musk have argued that robots will basically replace humans at work. • People are now worried about vast swathes of unemployment where a few wealthy people own the robots and the rest survive on government handouts. • But a new PwC forecast suggests artificial intelligence will create as many jobs as it destroys. • AI will disproportionately affect certain sectors negatively such as manufacturing and transport, but will create jobs in healthcare and education. ________________________________________ The likes of Elon Musk and Bill Gates have made repeated doomsday warnings about artificial intelligence becoming more skilled at humans at just about everything. So it's little surprise that people are scared about a post-AI future where a mostly jobless population subsists on universal basic income while rich people own and operate all the robots. But a new report from consultancy firm PwC joins a growing chorus of more cautious economic forecasts that suggest the future is brighter than we might think. Looking at the UK, PwC found that it's true that robots will replace some jobs, especially in sectors like transport or manufacturing. AI will "displace" 38% of transport jobs, and 30% of manufacturing jobs, according to the report. But other sectors will actually see greater job creation thanks to AI, evening out the balance. Only 12% of jobs in healthcare will be displaced by AI, while 34% will be created, PwC predicts. The upshot is that AI will create as many jobs as it destroys, when evened out across different sectors. The report said: "Our estimates suggest that AI will not lead to technological unemployment as we project that it will displace around 20% of existing UK jobs by 2037, but create a similar number. "In absolute terms, around 7 million existing jobs are projected to be displaced, but around 7.2 million are projected to be created, giving a net jobs boost of around 0.2 million." The OECD was even more conservative about job displacement in a report earlier this year. The economic organisation concluded that just 14% of jobs in its member countries were at risk of automation. Both PwC and the OECD suggested that sectors that would benefit the most from AI, or are at least risk from automation, are those that involve complex, specialised tasks and people. This includes: • Education • Scientific and technical work • Information and communication • Accommodation and food services Sectors that will do badly include those that involve repetitive, administrative tasks such as: • Finance and insurance • Retail • Construction • Public administration • Construction • Transport • Manufacturing Here are the full UK numbers from PwC showing AI job creation and displacement in different sectors: PwC [cid:344390ae-969b-4b6b-b34d-3333ef5461dd]

3 2

Open source, software libero e altre libertà - Un'introduzione alle libertà digitali
by Giovanni Battista Gallus July 19, 2018

July 19, 2018

Care amiche e amici nexiani, mi permetto di segnalare, dato che si tratta di temi strettamente attinenti a Nexa, l'ultima fatica dell'amico e Collega in Array Carlo Piana, il libro "Open source, software libero e altre libertà - Un'introduzione alle libertà digitali", con prefazione di Roberto Di Cosmo e postfazione di Simone Aliprandi. Il libro è rilasciato con licenza CC. Maggioni informazioni su http://www.copyleft-italia.it/libri/open-source-software-libero.html. Saluti cari G.Battista Gallus

1 0

The cashless society is a con – and big finance is behind it | Brett Scott | Opinion | The Guardian
by Alberto Cammozzo July 19, 2018

July 19, 2018

<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/19/cashless-society-con-…> All over the western world banks are shutting down cash machines and branches. They are trying to push you into using their digital payments and digital banking infrastructure. Just like Google wants everyone to access and navigate the broader internet via its privately controlled search portal, so financial institutions want everyone to access and navigate the broader economy through their systems. Another aim is to cut costs in order to boost profits. Branches require staff. Replacing them with standardised self-service apps allows the senior managers of financial institutions to directly control and monitor interactions with customers. [...]

1 0

EU/US Privacy Shield agreement failing – US must correct by September, say MEPs
by Alberto Cammozzo July 18, 2018

July 18, 2018

<https://www.shoeman.eu/eu-us-privacy-shield-agreement-failing-meps/> European Parliament Brussels, 12/06/2018. The Civil Liberties committee of the European Parliament (LIBE) has called on the EU Commission to suspend the EU/US Privacy Shield agreement on data exchange of personal data, since this (relatively new) agreement still fails to provide sufficient data protection for EU citizens. Privacy Shield should be suspended unless the US complies with it by 1 September 2018, said the committee’s MEPs, in a resolution passed by 29 votes to 25, with three abstentions. They added that the US authorities need to comply with the agreement terms in full. [...]

3 6