October 2019 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

How Silicon Valley Broke the Economy
by J.C. DE MARTIN Oct. 16, 2019

Oct. 16, 2019

https://www.thenation.com/article/silicon-valley-history-book-review/ (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Gary Marcus: "The current state of AI and Deep Learning: A reply to Yoshua Bengio"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Oct. 15, 2019

Oct. 15, 2019

https://medium.com/@GaryMarcus/the-current-state-of-ai-and-deep-learning-a-…

1 0

One in three councils using algorithms to make welfare decisions | Local government | The Guardian
by J.C. DE MARTIN Oct. 15, 2019

Oct. 15, 2019

One in three councils using algorithms to make welfare decisions Exclusive: machine-learning tools being deployed despite evidence they are unreliable How Bristol assesses citizens’ risk of harm Sarah Marsh https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/15/councils-using-algorithms-m… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Scienziate, non discriminate la filosofia. Senza Platone non c’è la matematica - Corriere.it
by don Luca Peyron Oct. 15, 2019

Oct. 15, 2019

La Scienza è donna ma è anche altro: Filosofia, ad esempio. Dall’intelligenza artificiale all’informatica, dalla genetica alla farmacologia, dalla climatologia all’astrofisica: non esiste un campo di ricerca in cui la conoscenza scientifica del micromondo non richieda un’analisi filosofica del macromondo. Molto, ma molto, interessante.... filosofia e perché no, anche teologia? Buona lettura Dl Https://www.corriere.it/scuola/universita/19_ottobre_14/scienziate-non-disc…

1 0

Use of automatic facial recognition software | Feature | Law Gazette
by Alberto Cammozzo Oct. 15, 2019

Oct. 15, 2019

Caso in UK. <https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/use-of-automatic-facial-recognit…> On 4 September Haddon-Cave LJ and Swift J in the Divisional Court had to grapple with the legal issues surrounding automatic facial recognition (AFR) when considering a South Wales Police (SWP) national pilot scheme surrounding AFR. R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (Information Commissioner and another intervening) [2019] EWHC 2341 (Admin) was apparently the first time that any court in the world had considered AFR. As the court indicated: ‘The judgment in this case is directed specifically to the way in which the technology has been used to date by SWP, in the form of a pilot project known as “AFR Locate”’. In summary, ‘AFR Locate involves the deployment of surveillance cameras to capture digital images of members of the public, which are then processed and compared with digital images of persons on watchlists compiled by SWP for the purpose of the deployment’. However, as the court noted: ‘If during a deployment of AFR Locate the software identifies a possible match between a face captured on the CCTV and an image on the watchlist, the two images are reviewed by an AFR operator [who is a police officer] to establish whether he believes that a match has in fact been made’. As the judges indicated: ‘In our view, the fact that the human eye is used to ensure that an intervention is justified, is an important safeguard.’ The claimant was Edward Bridges, a Cardiff-resident civil liberties campaigner. He was supported by Liberty. The defendant was chief constable of SWP, which is the national lead on AFR use in UK policing (assisted by government funding) and has been responsible for conducting trials of AFR technology since mid-2017. The claimant challenged the lawfulness of SWP’s use of AFR Locate generally and complained regarding two particular occasions (both part of the SWP pending trial) when AFR Locate was used in Cardiff by SWP when he was present. The claimant claims to have been present and to have been caught on camera on each of these two occasions. His overall contention was that SWP’s use of AFR Locate, on the two occasions in question and generally, is contrary both to convention rights and the requirements of data protection legislation. The claimant also contends that when deciding to implement use of AFR Locate, SWP failed to comply with the public sector equality duty (that is, the obligation on public authorities such as SWP, under section 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010, to have ‘due regard’ to certain prescribed matters when exercising their functions). It appeared that if the claimant’s data had been processed on the material occasions, his biometric data and facial image would have been immediately deleted from the AFR system. In addition, he had not been included on an SWP watchlist in its deployments of AFR to date and SWP does not hold any of his personal data (except as a result of the instant legal proceedings). The judgment (running to 69 pages) deals with all the legal issues in considerable detail and with reference to relevant authorities and is well worth studying by all those with a professional interest in this area. Space permits only a brief overview of key findings. In respect of convention rights (and in particular article 8 – right to respect for personal and family life and so on), the court noted (among other authorities) S v United Kingdom (2009) 48 EHRR 50. The European Court of Human Rights emphasised the significance of the protection of personal data as part of protecting article 8 rights and indicated that: ‘The mere storing of data relating to the private life of an individual amounts to an interference within the meaning of article 8’. In all the circumstances, the court found that the use of AFR Locate did entail infringement of the article 8(1) rights of those in the position of the claimant in this case. However, as to the legal basis for SWP’s use of AFR, the court found that the police’s common law powers were ‘amply sufficient’ in relation to the use of AFR Locate. Moreover, the police did not need new express statutory powers for this purpose. The court also considered that there was a clear and sufficient legal framework governing whether, when and how AFR Locate may be used. This comprised three elements: primary legislation; secondary legislative instruments; and SWP’s own policies. Each provides legally enforceable standards. For the purpose of the four-part proportionality test in Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700, the court was ‘satisfied that there is no systemic or clear “proportionality deficit” such that it can be said that future use of AFR Locate by the SWP would be inevitably disproportionate’. The data protection and Equality Act 2010 claims were also dismissed. As to the latter, the court considered the April 2017 equality impact assessment document to have demonstrated that due regard was had by SWP to the section 149(1) criteria. So, for the reasons detailed in the judgment, the court dismissed the claimant’s claim for judicial review on all grounds. The court was ‘satisfied both that the current legal regime is adequate to ensure the appropriate and non-arbitrary use of AFR Locate, and that SWP’s use to date of AFR Locate has been consistent with the requirements of the Human Rights Act, and the data protection legislation’.

1 0

Digital dystopia: how algorithms punish the poor | Technology | The Guardian
by J.C. DE MARTIN Oct. 15, 2019

Oct. 15, 2019

Digital dystopia: how algorithms punish the poor In an exclusive global series, the Guardian lays bare the tech revolution transforming the welfare system worldwide – while penalising the most vulnerable by Ed Pilkington in New York https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/14/automating-poverty-algor… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

La fine ed il fine
by don Luca Peyron Oct. 14, 2019

Oct. 14, 2019

Interessanti considerazione sul finire. Buona lettura Dl Https://www.repubblica.it/dossier/stazione-futuro-riccardo-luna/2019/10/14/…

1 0

73° Nexa Lunch Seminar | 23 Ottobre 2019
by Nexa Media Oct. 14, 2019

Oct. 14, 2019

Nexa Center for Internet and Society Newsletter Se non visualizzi correttamente questo messaggio clicca qui <http://nexa.polito.it/lunch-71> NEXA 73° Nexa Lunch Seminar Mercoledi 23 ottobre 2019, ore 13.00 - 14.00 Politecnico di Torino http://nexa.polito.it/lunch-73 <http://nexa.polito.it/lunch-71> People-Driven Innovation Speaker Alberto Robiati (Fondazione Human+) This event will be webcast live: https://nexa.polito.it/nexa-hangout-on-air Presentiamo i risultati degli studi che la *Fondazione Human+*, in collaborazione con centri di ricerca e università, ha condotto negli ultimi 4 anni sul tema della *"dimensione umana" dell'innovazione*. Chi sono gli innovatori? Che caratteristiche hanno? Quali sono i comportamenti innovativi? Come si generano le idee, come si sviluppano e promuovono? Quali fattori ambientali e culturali favoriscono il lavoro di chi innova? Queste sono le domande poste dai ricercatori Human+ a cui, attraverso lo studio della letteratura scientifica sul tema, e svolgendo indagini qualitative e quantitative, si è dato risposta delineando il profilo degli *"spiriti innovatori"* e articolando gli schemi d'azione attuati da chi fa accadere l'innovazione. Nel corso del seminario, particolare attenzione verrà dedicata al *rapporto tra gli innovatori e i destinatari del loro lavoro*, declinando quindi il concetto di *"people driven innovation"* anche sul ruolo che giocano, in questi processi, le persone a cui questi ultimi sono rivolti. Inoltre, tra i vari argomenti, si discuterà dell'*innovazione nel settore digitale*. /Ingresso libero - Sarà disponibile un leggero rinfresco per coloro che si saranno registrati su http://lunch73.eventbrite.com <http://lunch71.eventbrite.com> entro il 21 ottobre./ BIOGRAFIE - e informazioni supplementari [Robiati] *Alberto ROBIATI* è direttore della Fondazione Human+ e founder di ForwardTO / Studi e competenze per scenari futuri. È inoltre consulente e formatore per lo sviluppo professionale, esperto di creatività, innovazione e strategic foresight. Letture consigliate e link utili: * L. Hill et al.,/Il genio collettivo/. * C. M. Christensen et al., /The innovator's DNA/. * C. Odoardi,/Valori e innovazione/. * R. K. Saawyer, /Esplaining creativity: the science of human innovation/. Che cosa sono il Centro Nexa e i cicli di incontri “Mercoledì di Nexa” e “Nexa Lunch Seminar” <https://www.facebook.com/nexa.center/> <https://twitter.com/nexacenter> <https://www.youtube.com/user/NexaCenter> #nexalunchseminar <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23nexalunchseminar&src=typd> Il Centro Nexa su Internet & Società del Politecnico di Torino (Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica) è un centro di ricerca indipendente e interdisciplinare che studia Internet e il suo effetto sulla società. Maggiori informazioni all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/about. Durante i “*Mercoledì di Nexa*”, che si tengono *ogni 2° mercoledì del mese* alle *ore 18 in punto*, il Centro Nexa su Internet e Società apre le sue porte non solo agli esperti e a tutti coloro i quali lavorano con Internet, ma anche a semplici appassionati e cittadini. Il ciclo di incontri intende approfondire, con un linguaggio preciso ma divulgativo, i temi legati alla Rete: motori di ricerca, Creative Commons, social networks, open source/software libero, neutralità della rete, libertà di espressione, privacy, file sharing, big e open data, smart cities e molto altro. Al centro di quasi tutti gli incontri un ospite pronto a dialogare con i direttori del Centro Nexa, il Prof. Juan Carlos De Martin del Politecnico di Torino e il Prof. Marco Ricolfi dell'Università di Torino, nonché lo staff e i Fellows del Centro Nexa. Maggiori informazioni sui Mercoledì di Nexa, incluso un elenco di tutti i “Mercoledì” passati, sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi. Si segnala inoltre che dal maggio 2012 *ogni 4° mercoledì* del mese *dalle ore 13 alle ore 14* il Centro Nexa organizza anche i "*Nexa Lunch Seminar*". Una lista di tutti i “Lunch Seminar” passati è disponibile all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/lunch-seminars. See our events calendar <http://nexa.polito.it/events> if you're curious about future luncheons, discussions, lectures, and conferences not listed in this email. Our events are free and open to the public, unless otherwise noted. Responsabile Comunicazione Centro Nexa su Internet & Società: *Francesco Ruggiero*, tel: +39 011 090 7219, Mob: +39 349 1335082, francesco.ruggiero(a)polito.it <mailto:francesco.ruggiero@polito.it>. Maggiori informazioni sui Mercoledì di Nexa e i Nexa Lunch Seminar, sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/events. Weekly Events Newsletter. Sign up <http://nexa.polito.it/mailing-lists> to receive this newsletter if this email was forwarded to you. To manage your subscription preferences, please click here <https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa>. Connect & get involved: Jobs, internships, and more <http://nexa.polito.it/get-involved>.

1 0

Automating poverty
by Antonio Vetro' Oct. 14, 2019

Oct. 14, 2019

"A series exploring how our governments use AI to target the vulnerable" https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/14/automating-poverty-algor…

1 0

Software Development and the False Promise of Science
by Giacomo Tesio Oct. 14, 2019

Oct. 14, 2019

Provocatorio, divertente e... molto attinente alla realtà. https://twitchard.github.io/posts/2019-10-13-software-development-and-the-f… # The Limits of Science Why is the project to construct a science-based discipline of software development hopeless? For one, I don’t think researchers are really aiming to do this. They are quite content to continue telling insightful stories about their relatively narrow specialties – bits of our discipline, here and there. There is no grand plan to reform us. But even if there were, it would be bound to fail for methodological reasons. This is worth some discussion, so I’ll describe four of what I mean by “methodological reasons”. [...] 1. Controlled experiments are typically nothing like professional programming environments [...] 2. The unpredictable dynamics of human decision-making obscure the effects of software practices in field data. [...] 3. The outcomes that can be measured aren’t always the outcomes that matter. [...] 4. Software practices and the conditions which modify them are varied, which limits the generality and authority of any tested hypothesis [...] # Science is not the only source of knowledge Is this cause for despair? If science-based software development is off the table, what remains? Is it really true as Hillel suggests, that in the absence of science “we just don’t know” anything, and we are doomed to an era of “charisma-driven development” where the loudest opinion wins, and where superstition, ideology, and dogmatism reign supreme? Of course not. Scientific knowledge is not the only kind of knowledge, and scientific arguments are not the only type of arguments. Disciplines like history and philosophy, for instance, seem to do rather well, despite seldom subjecting their hypotheses to statistical tests. [...] Software development, like history and philosophy, can be understood without measurement. [...] And here is a secret: in the natural sciences themselves, storytelling and bare conjecture are far more important modes of persuasion than data-based empirical argument, anyway. [...] In fact, progress in science can sometimes depend on scientists to proceed “counterinductively”, and, driven by intuition, ideology, insanity, or other sentiments, deliberately accept a theory that is less consistent with the data. [...] # Science gone wrong Science – or at least a mysticized version of it – can be a threat to this sort of inquiry. Lazy thinkers and ideologues don’t use science merely as a tool for critical thinking and reasoned argument, but as a substitute. Science appears to offer easy answers. [...] You can probably get away with just reading the abstracts, even. No need to trouble yourself about the line of argument that led the researchers to their conclusions. Heaven forbid you read the “threats to validity” section – nobody takes that seriously. They’ve got p-values, confidence intervals and such. Those are essentially SLAs on the objective truth. [...] No need to demonstrate the shortcomings and inconsistencies of their ideas. We can simply dismiss them as “anti-science” and compare them to anti-vaxxers. Why appeal to rational sensibilities when you can exploit tribal instincts instead? This sentiment exists. I witnessed it play out among industry leaders in my Twitter feed, the day after I started drafting this post. It’s amplified by the fact that nuanced scientific analysis doesn’t make good clickbait, and by the fact that everything except the abstract of a research paper tends to live behind a paywall. # TL;DR Software developers are domain experts. We know what we’re doing. We have rich internal narratives, and nuanced mental models of what it is we’re about, and we can learn to get better through the simple but difficult act of telling our stories, articulating our ideas and listening to each other, like philosophers or historians do. Empirical researchers have a different perspective and can say interesting things about our field, but it is important to consider these arguments on their (necessarily limited) merits, not idealizing them as an absolute authority. Down that road lies pettiness and lazy thinking.

1 0