August 2018 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

The Unlikely Activists Who Took On Silicon Valley — and Won - The New York Times
by J.C. DE MARTIN Aug. 14, 2018

Aug. 14, 2018

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/magazine/facebook-google-privacy-data.ht… The Unlikely Activists Who Took On Silicon Valley — and Won Facebook and Google made billions mining personal data, and fought off anyone who threatened to stop them. Then came a challenge in their own backyard. Aug. 14, 2018 (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

NEW BOOK Gobernanza y Regulaciones de Internet en América Latina
by Luca Belli Aug. 14, 2018

Aug. 14, 2018

Buongiorno a tutti, Per chi fosse interessato agli sviluppi di governance e regolazione di Internet in America latina e/o cercasse qualcosa da leggere sotto l'ombrellone. Buon ferragosto! Luca Dear colleagues, I would like to draw your attention (particularly of the Spanish speakers amongst you) on the recent release of the book Gobernanza y Regulaciones de Internet en América Latina (Internet Governance and Regulations in Latin America), which is now available in open access here bit.ly/IGRlatam<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FI…> This is the first work collecting the opinions of academics, regulators, prosecutors, business representatives and civil society advocates that are shaping the evolution of Internet governance and its regulations in Latin America. The volume features 29 chapters dedicated to network infrastructure, connectivity models, privacy and cybersecurity, and emerging issues, and it also includes two prefaces by Vint Cerf (Google’s VP) and Raúl Echeberria (ISOC’s VP), and an excellent postface by Edison Lanza (OAS’ Rapporteur for freedom of expression). The book celebrates the 10th anniversary of the South School on Internet Governance (the main Internet Governance capacity-building initiative in the region) that, last year, was organised at FGV, gathering more than 250 experts and fellows. The Spanish edition of the volume was launched at LACIGF and the Portuguese version is currently being developed. We are also studying the feasibility of an English version. I will share further updates on these latter versions as soon as possible. With my best regards Luca [FGV Direito Rio] Luca Belli, PhD Senior Researcher Head of Internet Governance @ FGV<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Finternet-g…> luca.belli(a)fgv.br +55 21 3799 5763 @1lucabelli<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.c…> [http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png]

1 0

In its battle with Amazon, Walmart tries to make it easier for online shoppers to return their unwanted purchases without upsetting sellers
by Luigi Scorca Aug. 14, 2018

Aug. 14, 2018

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/08/09/walmart-vs-amazon-walmartcom-makes-it-e…

1 0

DeepLocker: How AI [anda facial recognition] Can Power a Stealthy New Breed of Malware
by Alberto Cammozzo Aug. 10, 2018

Aug. 10, 2018

Appoggiandosi a un tool open source di reidintificazione su SN (Social Mapper <https://github.com/SpiderLabs/social_mapper>) IBM research dimostra la "fattibilità" di un cryptolocker (o cyberweapon generica) mirato sulla singola persona. In effetti ne sentivamo la mancanza... <https://securityintelligence.com/deeplocker-how-ai-can-power-a-stealthy-new…> [] IBM Research developed DeepLocker to better understand how several existing AI models can be combined with current malware techniques to create a particularly challenging new breed of malware. This class of AI-powered evasive malware conceals its intent until it reaches a specific victim. It unleashes its malicious action as soon as the AI model identifies the target through indicators like facial recognition, geolocation and voice recognition. You can think of this capability as similar to a sniper attack, in contrast to the “spray and pray” approach of traditional malware. DeepLocker is designed to be stealthy. It flies under the radar, avoiding detection until the precise moment it recognizes a specific target. This AI-powered malware is particularly dangerous because, like nation-state malware, it could infect millions of systems without being detected. But, unlike nation-state malware, it is feasible in the civilian and commercial realms. [] Penso che la cosa veramente nuova sia il tool di reidentificazione aperto (con licenza GPL). Se uno strumento di questo tipo sia o no una buona cosa per la privacy è una domanda che mi sono posto nel 2012 in questo paper <http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/bitstream/handle/10915/23870/Documento_completo.p…> Comunque un ulteriore buon motivo per mascherare l'obiettivo della webcam.

1 0

Let's Encrypt Root Trusted By All Major Root Programs
by Giacomo Tesio Aug. 8, 2018

Aug. 8, 2018

> > As of the end of July 2018, the Let’s Encrypt root, ISRG Root X1 > <https://letsencrypt.org/certificates/>, is directly trusted by Microsoft > products. Our root is now trusted by all major root programs, including > Microsoft, Google, Apple, Mozilla, Oracle, and Blackberry. > [...] > While Let’s Encrypt is now directly trusted by almost all newer versions > of operating systems, browsers, and devices, there are still many older > versions in the world that do not directly trust Let’s Encrypt. Some of > those older systems will eventually be updated to trust Let’s Encrypt > directly. Some will not, and we’ll need to wait for the vast majority of > those to cycle out of the Web ecosystem. We expect this will take at least > five more years, so we plan to use a cross signature until then. > https://letsencrypt.org/2018/08/06/trusted-by-all-major-root-programs.html Riflettevo altrove che non riesco a decidere se Let's Encrypt sia una benedizione o una minaccia. Da un lato fornisce certificati gratuiti permettendo di servire contenuti sensibili (e stupidamente anche quelli non sensibili) via HTTPS. Dall'altro costituisce una concorrenza tremenda per gli operatori del settore e concentra un potere enorme in tutto il mondo. E' utile ricordare che la Linux Foundation (che sta dietro a Let's Encrypt) è un consorzio di aziende che ne persegue gli interessi condivisi, non un'associazione di volontariato a fini benefici. Con sede a San Francisco. D'altronde... a chi vuoi che importi? E gratis! Giacomo

1 1

The no-platforming of Infowars is a watershed moment for the information age
by Alberto Cammozzo Aug. 8, 2018

Aug. 8, 2018

"So if we are indeed witnessing international erasure on the basis of political opportunism rather than a specified threshold of the rules being breached, we should all have cause for concern." <https://medium.com/@silkiecarlo/the-no-platforming-of-infowars-is-a-watersh…> Always the trend-setter, Apple’s decisive action against Infowars has led to an unprecedented domino effect. After Apple delisted podcast links from the right-wing media outlet, Spotify soon followed. Facebook made a decision to ‘unpublish’ Infowars’ pages hours later, before the group’s main home, YouTube, said it had ‘terminated’ the group’s channel, watched by 2.5 million subscribers. Hundreds of well-intentioned campaigners, commentators and even journalists are celebrating the public hanging of Infowars — but this style of execution benefits no one. The major internet platforms are increasingly society’s chief arbiters of free speech. Our conversations, relationships, businesses and democracies are increasingly mediated by a handful of global, for-profit companies. Those companies are within their rights to set their own rules about who can and cannot share information on their sites — but Facebook and YouTube have become de facto global information services. Of the world’s 3 billion internet users, 2.2 billion are active Facebook users and 1.8 billion have active YouTube accounts. When tech giants hold a monopoly on free speech online, that responsibility must be taken particularly seriously. But the way in which the tech giants have dealt with Infowars doesn’t appear to be serious at all. The industry-wide no-platforming appears to be a herd-like PR exercise rather than a regulatory one. Despite the prevalence of misogynistic, race-baiting and some frankly bonkers Infowars content, the removals were not in relation to specific posts or videos and the reasons given were generalised ones. Even Discus, Linkedin, Mailchimp and Pinterest have rushed in to the industry dog-pile. It may be that Infowars exceeded a prescribed number of strikes or warnings and therefore committed its own suicide — but it is vanishingly unlikely that Apple, Spotify, Facebook and YouTube, not to mention the others, all arrived at their own independent conclusions against Infowars at the same time purely by coincidence. So if we are indeed witnessing international erasure on the basis of political opportunism rather than a specified threshold of the rules being breached, we should all have cause for concern. It is vital that the tech companies inspire public trust and confidence in their judgements. They must take their responsibility to protect users from violent and unlawful content as seriously as their duty to uphold and promote free expression. Sensitive decisions about what is and is not permissible speech or information need to be made transparently and delivered honestly, objectively and equitably. The rules must be fair, and where they are breached, there should be clear, foreseeable consequences. [] For the tech giants to collectively erase Infowars with little explanation — despite the likely availability of multiple rule breaches, some of which I had reported myself — risks the appearance of arbitrary censorship, executed in concert. Surely the very worst way to convince conspiracy theorists that there is no conspiracy is for the world’s most powerful tech companies to simultaneously silence the most popular conspiracy theorist? We cannot unconditionally trust profit-driven tech companies to censor responsibly — public trust needs to be earned and procedural safeguards need to be instituted. Just last week, it emerged that YouTube’s parent company Google is building a Chinese state-approved news app and search engine <https://twitter.com/bbw1984/status/1024953410326614016> to deliver a highly censored world view to millions of citizens on behalf of the communist dictatorship. Complicity with a totalitarian regime to oppress a population would suggest that a regulatory system deserving of public trust is missing. []

2 1

Deleting Your Online DNA Data Is Brutally Difficult
by Alberto Cammozzo Aug. 8, 2018

Aug. 8, 2018

Visto l'accordo tra 23andMe e GSK (<https://www.wired.com/story/23andme-glaxosmithkline-pharma-deal/>), questo mi pare rilevante: <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-15/deleting-your-online-dna…> In the name of journalism, I have spit into a lot of test tubes. I’ve sent samples of my saliva to Ancestry and 23andMe Inc. <https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/8142214Z:US> to find out about my heritage <https://gizmodo.com/how-dna-testing-botched-my-familys-heritage-and-probab-…>; mailed my spit to Helix for insight into my athletic ability <https://gizmodo.com/the-search-for-the-olympian-gene-1822975337>, diet and sleep patterns <https://gizmodo.com/i-tried-a-bunch-of-dna-tests-and-all-i-got-was-a-bunch-…>; and uploaded my DNA to the website of a startup that said it could craft a skin care routine <https://gizmodo.com/i-tried-a-dna-optimized-skin-care-routine-and-i-was-all…> genetically optimized to give me perfect skin. Overall, I’ve shared my genetic information with nearly a dozen companies. You might call me an oversharer. [] Recently, I started feeling uneasy about how freely my DNA**data flowed. So I decided to try to erase my DNA data footprint from all the websites and databases and laboratories in which it was stored. It turns out that isn’t so easy. When you send your DNA to consumer genetic-testing companies, the sample**typically is stripped of identifying details and sent to a third-party laboratory. There, DNA is extracted and purified from your saliva and analyzed. Then the anonymized**data is stored and the sample is stashed for future tests. Most companies’ privacy policies and terms of service assert the right to share data with business partners or law enforcement, if compelled. If you agree to take part in research, your information can be shared with groups involved in scientific studies. [...]

1 0

Amazon launches curbside pickup at Whole Foods stores
by Luigi Scorca Aug. 8, 2018

Aug. 8, 2018

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/amazon-launches-curbside-pick…

2 1

Facebook says efforts to subvert upcoming US elections resemble ‘new arms race’
by Alberto Cammozzo Aug. 8, 2018

Aug. 8, 2018

Le nuove armi sono "memi" e il vettore sono i social, dove diffondere notizie scala bene, ma controllarle e rimuoverle non scala affatto. Se i SN globali vengono ritenuti responsabili dei contenuti che veicolano, sono al capolinea. Almeno con questo modello di business. <https://intelnews.org/2018/08/01/01-2367/> Facebook has said it is involved in an “arms race” against “bad actors” as it announced on Tuesday the removal of accounts that allegedly tried to subvert the upcoming mid-term elections in the United States. The social-media giant said its security division had identified <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45018516> 32 profiles and pages that were set up for the sole purpose of disrupting, subverting or otherwise influencing the American political process. At least seven more accounts were shut down on the Instagram platform –which is also owned by Facebook– for the same reasons. In the past 14 months, the suspect accounts generated nearly 10,000 posts and were liked or followed by over 290,000 users, said Facebook. In addition to producing memes that aimed to stir existing racial, political and religious tensions in American society, the suspect accounts are also believed to have generated approximately 150 paid advertisements, spending around $11,000 for that purpose. Moreover, close to 30 public events were organized, advertised and hosted by the suspect pages throughout the US in the past 14 months. One such event was subscribed to by 4,700 users, with another 1,400 users stating that they would attend. In a preliminary report <https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/07/removing-bad-actors-on-facebook/> posted on its online newsroom, Facebook said it was too early in the investigation to identify the party or parties behind the alleged effort to influence the US mid-term elections. Its security team had detected “one instance” of a connection between this latest operation and the Russian-based Internet Research Agency (IRA), which Facebook identified as being one of the main sources behind efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential elections. But the report cautioned that the instigators of this latest attempt to influence the US political process had gone to great pains to hide their identities, affiliations and geographical coordinates. For instance, they routinely employed virtual private networks in order to disguise their internet protocol addresses. They also used third parties to purchase advertisements on Facebook and Instagram. These and many other tactics severely limited the ability of security technicians to attribute these efforts to specific countries, governments or companies, said Facebook. Using unusually strong language to describe its ongoing probe, Facebook said that the exploitation of its platform for sinister political purposes resembled “an arms race” and that constantly changing tactics were needed to combat it. In addition to removing the suspect accounts, Facebook said it was working closer with law enforcement and leading online security firms in order to analyze and eliminate threats from what it described as “bad actors”. It added that it was “investing heavily” in more people and better technology in order to eliminate those who were trying to weaponize its communication platform for sinister goals

1 0

4 Powerful Ways Artificial Intelligence is Molding E-Commerce
by Luigi Scorca Aug. 7, 2018

Aug. 7, 2018

https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiv…

1 0