November 2019 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

ACLU: "FEDERAL COURT RULES SUSPICIONLESS SEARCHES OF TRAVELERS’ PHONES AND LAPTOPS UNCONSTITUTIONAL"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

*FEDERAL COURT RULES SUSPICIONLESS SEARCHES OF TRAVELERS’ PHONES AND LAPTOPS UNCONSTITUTIONAL* / //GOVERNMENT MUST HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION OF DIGITAL CONTRABAND BEFORE SEARCHING ELECTRONIC DEVICES AT THE U.S. BORDER/ NOVEMBER 12, 2019 BOSTON — In a major victory for privacy rights, a federal court in Boston today ruled that the government’s suspicionless searches of international travelers’ smartphones and laptops at airports and other U.S. ports of entry violate the Fourth Amendment. The ruling came in a lawsuit, Alasaad v. McAleenan, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and ACLU of Massachusetts, on behalf of 11 travelers whose smartphones and laptops were searched without individualized suspicion at U.S. ports of entry. […] Continua qui: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-rules-suspicionless-searc…

Nov. 13, 2019

Project **Nightmare** - raccolta segreta dati sanitari in USA

by Giovanni Biscuolo

Buon giorno! vi inoltro sotto un articolo appena letto su Il Fatto Quotidiano l'articolo originale del Wall Street Journal è (via Wayback Machine :-D ) https://web.archive.org/web/20191112002342/www.wsj.com/articles/google-s-se… Mi "diverte" il fatto che Ascension [1] sia una no-profit cattolica Ci sarà pure un giudice in Illinois?!? :-D Non sono sicuro che in Europa gli addetti ai lavori abbiamo adeguata sensibilità per evitare che certi giochini vengano perpetrati anche in salsa "continental welfare", d'altronte lo farebbero per il nostro bene: “improve outcomes, reducing costs, and saving lives” saluti, Giovanni. https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2019/11/12/%e2%80%8egoogle-avrebbe-raccolt… --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Google avrebbe raccolto in segreto i dati sanitari di milioni di pazienti statunitensi, scrive il Wall Street Journal Milioni di dati sanitari personali di pazienti statunitensi sarebbero finiti nelle mani di Google senza alcuna autorizzazione esplicita, nell’ambito di quello che viene chiamato Project Nighingale. A rivelarlo è il Wall Street Journal. Secondo il prestigioso quotidiano, ‎Google sta lavorando a fianco di uno dei più grandi sistemi sanitari della nazione, Ascension, per raccogliere e analizzare i risultati di laboratorio dei pazienti, le diagnosi dei medici e i registri di ospedalizzazione dei pazienti di ben 21 stati, creando così una storia sanitaria completa per ciascuno di loro, includendo anche dati come nome e data di nascita. L’obiettivo è di mettere a punto un nuovo software che usa Intelligenza Artificiale e deep learning per fornire suggerimenti sulle cure, ma per farlo Google non ha ricevuto il consenso esplicito dei pazienti o dei loro medici.‎ I dati raccolti riguardano decine di milioni di pazienti e sembrerebbe che siano accessibili ad almeno 150 dipendenti Google. Una situazione che suscita forti perplessità ma che a quanto pare non è esattamente illegale. Secondo alcuni esperti statunitensi in materia di privacy, infatti, questo tipo di raccolta dati sarebbe ammissibile ai sensi dell’Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, una legge del 1996 che consente agli ospedali di condividere i dati con le imprese senza avvisare i pazienti.‎ Al di là della legalità formale di certe azioni restano però molti dubbi sulla facilità con cui gli attuali colossi del Web possono collezionare e usare i dati di milioni di utenti inconsapevoli al fine di sviluppare nuove soluzioni commerciali, come in questo caso, per non parlare delle numerose situazioni in cui sono i dati stessi a rappresentare il prodotto da cui ricavare nuovi introiti. Non scopriamo infatti oggi che assai spesso i nostri dati, benché aggregati e non riconducibili ai singoli, siano ceduti a terze parti al fine di effettuare profilature per campagne pubblicitarie e, purtroppo, sempre più spesso anche politiche. Negli Stati Uniti le associazioni per i diritti civili come le ACLU (American Civili Liberties Union), sono da tempo sul piede di guerra e in generale il dibattito sulla possibilità di utilizzare o meno database formati da dati sensibili di cittadini inconsapevoli è assai caldo, soprattutto per quanto riguarda il riconoscimento facciale. Di recente ad esempio nell’Illinois una class action intentata nei confronti di Facebook potrebbe costare al colosso una stangata da ben 35 miliardi di dollari, proprio a causa dell’utilizzo dei dati biometrici senza previa autorizzazione esplicita, operazione che analogamente a quella di Google sui dati sanitari, è legale, ma non nello Stato dell’Illinois. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_(company) -- Giovanni Biscuolo Xelera IT Infrastructures

Nov. 13, 2019

L. 128/2019 con novità riguardanti rider/gig workers "parasubordinati" e "autonomi"

by Giuseppe Allegri

Care tutti, spero di non essere fuori tema e di non replicare e-mail eventualmente già postate, che però mi pare non ci siano state, in tema di innovazioni normative riguardanti la regolazione dei riders/gig workers/gig working, con la recente legge di conversione del 2 novembre 2019, n. 128, qui <https://temi.camera.it/leg18/provvedimento/interventi-a-tutela-del-lavoro-e…>una rapida presentazione dal sito della Camera e qui <https://www.federalismi.it/nv14/articolo-documento.cfm?Artid=40538&content=…>il testo da Federalismi.it. Quindi un primo commento problematico in itinere (perché è del 30 ottobre) da Il Sole 24 ore <https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/rider-gioco-c-e-modernita-lavoro-ACaSDKv> (anche riguardo alla questione del cottimo), su di una normativa che certo avrà i suoi tempi per entrare in vigore e però di fatto introduce degli elementi di garanzie e tutele che farebbero ben sperare nel senso di quello "statuto dei lavori" che un tempo chiamammo post-fordisti (penso anche agli scritti dei primi anni Novanta del compianto Massimo D'Antona) e che ora ora potremmo nominare come "statuto delle attività e dei lavori" al tempo dell'economia di piattaforma (digitale, logistica, comunicativa, etc.). [Sperando di non eccedere in autoreferenzialità, mi permetto di segnalare un commento ai tentativi di innovazione normativa in tema e avviati nella precedente legislatura che provai a formulare qui sul Menabò Etica Economia <https://www.eticaeconomia.it/quali-tutele-per-quali-soggetti-del-lavoro-aut…> nel giugno 2016, tra - nuovo - lavoro autonomo/intermittente e lavori di piattaforma] Insomma sembra tornare finalmente di attualità il crinale trasformazioni del lavoro e della produzione, necessario adeguamento di tutele e garanzie (e di nuovo Welfare) in senso più universalistico, innovazioni tecniche e normative ed eventuale neo-contrattazione collettiva. Potrebbe essere una sfida interessante e da seguire anche in questa sede. Vi ringrazio e mi scuso qualora abbia abusato della nostra preziosa lista comune. Un caro saluto, peppe allegri -- Giuseppe Allegri e-mail: giuseppe.allegri(a)gmail.com mobile: +39 339 3184550 academia <https://uniroma.academia.edu/GiuseppeAllegri> LinkedIn <https://it.linkedin.com/in/giuseppe-allegri-068b4714b> OperaViva <https://operavivamagazine.org/schede/peppe-allegri/> *Il reddito di base nell'era digitale * <https://www.fefeeditore.com/collana/pagine-vere/657-il-reddito-di-base-nell…>(2018), *Generazioni precarie <https://zenodo.org/record/1169827#.XNRDpqTOPIW>*, con BIN Italia <https://www.bin-italia.org/>(2018), *Questioni costituzionali al tempo del populismo e del sovranismo* <http://www.editorialescientifica.com/autori/allegri-g/questioni-costituzion…>, curato con A. Sterpa, N. Viceconte (2019)

Nov. 13, 2019

Alibaba gets into delivery services

by Luigi Scorca

https://amp-ft-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.ft.com/content/3b5e9b5c-049c-… Luigi

Nov. 12, 2019

CFP - GIGARTS 2020: Online Information Governance. 7-8 May 2020, Vienna

by Mauro SANTANIELLO

Care/i tutte/i, è stato pubblicato il Call for Papers della quarta edizione di GIG-ARTS Conference, che si terrà a Vienna il 6 e 7 Maggio 2020. ::::::::::::::::::: The Fourth European Multidisciplinary Conference on Global Internet Governance Actors, Regulations, Transactions and Strategies *(GIG-ARTS)* will be held in Vienna, 7-8 May 2020. The general theme of this edition is "*Online Information Governance - More Expression, Less Freedom?*" Abstract submission is now open. Authors are invited to submit their extended abstracts (no longer than 500 words), describing their research question(s), theoretical framework, approach and methodology, expected findings or empirical outcome. Submitted abstracts will be evaluated through a peer-review process. You can download the full call for papers here: https://bit.ly/2CCU1Lu *Key dates* Deadline for abstract submissions: 9 February 2020 Notification to authors: 19 March 2020 Programme publication: 9 April 2020 Conference dates: 7 & 8 May 2020 *Further details* Website: events.gig-arts.eu Email: events(a)gig-arts.eu Submissions: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=gigarts2020 Twitter: @GigArtsEU - Hashtag: #GIGARTS20 Mailing list for updates: http://tinyurl.com/yc7rvxm4 *Theme rationale and main topics* It is now 30 years since the invention of the World Wide Web, and over fifteen years since the development of the interactive Web or also known as Web2.0. Online information and communication have never seemed easier and more accessible to everyone, thanks to the mediation of social networks, search engines, and other kinds of platforms and technologies. With such capabilities “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”, freedom of speech and freedom of the press should have grown to such an extent that some of the utopian visions of full participatory democracy would have appeared to be within our reach. At the very least, some of the long-standing informational imbalances concerning information flow globally, diversity of content and authors, and the accessibility of accurate information would have been taken as a given framework against which societies would have been called to solve problems and to look after citizens’ well-being. Paradoxically, the levels of freedom and freedom of expression, as captured in global measuring instruments by a variety of institutions and organisations, do not show the expected or desired advancement. Rather there is evidence that freedom in societies and freedom of the press deteriorate. Ambitious goals of freedom to express one’s own identity and opinion at the global public sphere on an equal basis and free from fear of retaliation or misuse evaporate for many, such as those subjected to hate speech, those persecuted by autocratic authorities and the great majority of citizens whose personal data become de facto ownership of private companies. Misinformation, spread not only by politically extreme groups but also by “normal”, mainstream parties in the (desperate or calculated) attempt to influence voters, can undermine the quality and freedom of global debate. Information conflict thus becomes even more an object of state rivalry and diplomacy, but also the tool for the erosion of citizenship as the utmost form of participation in the commons. These phenomena are coupled with the fact that even values once considered unquestionable, such as the value of independent journalism, the value of human rights such as privacy and dignity, are being challenged. The technological capabilities allowed the world over to express and share information and opinions, to connect and form alliances. However, they have also enabled the spread of misinformation, have been undermining the human right to privacy on digital communication channels, subjected vulnerable groups to more vulnerability, and provided for economic models putting at stake the fundamental pillars of democracy. Within this context, policies governing the fate of users’ data, citizens’ freedoms and the integrity of content have fallen short of helping pave the path to the desired communication environment. Regulatory responses capturing communication and information have oscillated between forms of a ‘knee-jerk’ reaction to resist any attempt to provide for the normative standards of content and a tendency to securitise communication as a matter of national security. Importantly, critics argue that even where governance has allowed for more democratic processes in raising concerns and suggesting solutions, the gaps in connecting the dots are glaring. If governance refers to the role of ideas and principles, the role of actors and the processes of negotiation and solution, it is urgent to return, on the one hand, to the basic and fundamental rights questions and take stock of the achievements of hitherto frameworks. On the other hand, it seems crucial to interrogate what futures exactly are current policy frameworks shaping, especially in relation to a politics of care for young citizens and hence the future generations? After having addressed global internet governance as a diplomacy issue at its first edition held in Paris in 2017, how to overcome inequalities in internet governance at the second edition held in Cardiff in 2018, and the role of Europe in the global governance of the internet at its third edition held in Salerno in 2019, this year’s GIG-ARTS conference turns its attention to the governance of online information, to address the relation of citizens to the quality of content online as an often neglected area of regulation and governance of the internet. In that respect, the conference continues the conversation on internet governance turning its attention from institutions and structural factors to the role of content and misinformation as an object of governance, and to internet users as forces of change. Hence, in addition to general internet governance issues and topics, submissions are particularly welcome on the following possible areas of investigation: - The governance of fundamental freedoms online between global platforms, conflicts of jurisdictions and extraterritorial legislation - The role of European and global institutions in shaping the conditions of free expression online - Responsibility and liability of platforms and other intermediaries in content regulation - Restrictive regulation and the securitization of content - Privacy, misinformation, democracy: challenges to internet governance - Structural role of individual targeting, behavioural advertising and other economic models of online platforms on the reshaping of fundamental freedoms and democracy - From nudging to manipulation: consequences on autonomy and human dignity - Successive copyright reforms and their impact on freedom of expression, freedom of the press and democracy - Changes in and challenges to journalism practice through intentional misinformation - Governance from below: how practices and principles by civil society aim to shape the conditions of technology for the advancement of democracies and human well- being - Youth and access to information; news and misinformation in the online world; the purpose of thinking towards the future Mauro Santaniello (PhD) *Internet & Communication Policy Centre * *Department of Political and Social Studies * *Università degli Studi di Salerno * *Via Giovanni Paolo II, 132 84084 Fisciano (SA) - Italy * *E. msantaniello(a)unisa.it <msantaniello(a)unisa.it> * *W. http://docenti.unisa.it/mauro.santaniello <http://docenti.unisa.it/mauro.santaniello>* *Skype: internetpolicy * *T. twitter.com/webvoodoo <http://twitter.com/webvoodoo>*

Nov. 12, 2019

Re: [nexa] CDO Award 2019 Sei tu il Chief Digital Officer Italiano dell'anno? and questions? :-)

by Agata Lo Tauro

Dear colleagues, Better now? :-) https://edisonawards.com/ *Ve lo invio sperando di fare cosa gradita.* *All the best and take care,* agata https://it.linkedin.com › agata-lo-tauro-6723257b <https://it.linkedin.com/in/agata-lo-tauro-6723257b> “It *is not how much we do*, but how *much* love *we* put in the *doing*. It *is not how much we* give, but how *much* love is put in the giving.” Madre Teresa Il giorno mar 12 nov 2019 alle ore 10:08 Agata Lo Tauro < agatalotauro(a)gmail.com> ha scritto: > cari colleghi e colleghe, > vi inoltro il seguente link sperando di fare cosa gradita > > > https://www.digital-leaders.it/chief-digital-officer-italiano-anno-cdo-award > > > Have a great day! > All the best and take care, > agata > https://it.linkedin.com › agata-lo-tauro-6723257b > <https://it.linkedin.com/in/agata-lo-tauro-6723257b> > > PS_ Volete sapere quale accademico straniero (ma fa anche mille altre > cose) mi ha contattato per WORK_TECH 2020? Festival della NATO??? Mi ha > anche offerto sostegno per www.avsi.org??? :-) READY-STEADY-GO! :-) > *Contrastiamo la fuga dei talenti come umanamente si può? *"Gocce > Nell'Oceno" (Madre Teresa) > > “It *is not how much we do*, but how *much* love *we* put in the *doing*. > It *is not how much we* give, but how *much* love is put in the giving.” > Madre Teresa > > "Se volevo fare simpatia a tutti nascevo taglia unica" :-) >

Nov. 12, 2019

CDO Award 2019 Sei tu il Chief Digital Officer Italiano dell'anno? and questions? :-)

by Agata Lo Tauro

cari colleghi e colleghe, vi inoltro il seguente link sperando di fare cosa gradita https://www.digital-leaders.it/chief-digital-officer-italiano-anno-cdo-award Have a great day! All the best and take care, agata https://it.linkedin.com › agata-lo-tauro-6723257b <https://it.linkedin.com/in/agata-lo-tauro-6723257b> PS_ Volete sapere quale accademico straniero (ma fa anche mille altre cose) mi ha contattato per WORK_TECH 2020? Festival della NATO??? Mi ha anche offerto sostegno per www.avsi.org??? :-) READY-STEADY-GO! :-) *Contrastiamo la fuga dei talenti come umanamente si può? *"Gocce Nell'Oceno" (Madre Teresa) “It *is not how much we do*, but how *much* love *we* put in the *doing*. It *is not how much we* give, but how *much* love is put in the giving.” Madre Teresa "Se volevo fare simpatia a tutti nascevo taglia unica" :-)

Nov. 12, 2019

Open Letter to the Linux Foundation

by Giacomo Tesio

http://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2019/11/08/OpenLetterLinuxFoundation.h… To: The Linux Foundation Jim Zemlin: Executive Director Angela Brown: VP of Events Andy Updegrove: Legal Council From: Robert Martin (@unclebobmartin) (unclebob(a)cleancoder.com) Re: Code of Conduct case of Charles Max Wood. Dear Linux Foundation: I am writing to you as a concerned member of the software development community which I have enjoyed serving for the last 50 years. I am writing in public because the events I wish to describe took place in public. I fear that something has gone terribly wrong within your organization; and that it will have deep repercussions within this industry that I cherish. The timeline of events, as far as I can determine them, is as follows: The Linux Foundation received a public tweet sent to the @KubeCon twitter address. That tweet recommended that Kube Con discontinue their association with Charles Max Wood. The reasons given in this complaint were his request for an open and civil phone call, and a picture of Mr. Wood wearing a MAGA hat. The Linux Foundation publicly replied from the @linuxfoundation twitter account as follows: Hi all, We have reviewed social and videos and determined that the Event Code of Conduct was violated and his registration to the event has been revoked. Our events should and will be a safe space. First let me say that I find it highly problematic that the complaint and the decision were public. Indeed I am surprised that LF would accept a publicly submitted code of conduct complaint. I am much more than surprised that LF would ever consider publicly responding to such a complaint. Indeed, it seems to me that the public complaint, and perhaps even the public response by LF, could be seen as public harassment – which is explicitly prohibited by the LF Code of Conduct. It seems to me that Code of Conduct complaints made in public must be immediately rejected and viewed as Code of Conduct violations in and of themselves. Code of Conduct complaints should be submitted in private and remain private and confidential in order to prevent their use as a means of harassment. It also seems to me that while the process of accepting, reviewing, and adjudicating such complaints should be public, the proceedings and decision of each individual case should remain private and confidential in order to protect the parties from harm. Making them a public showcase is, simply, horrible. Was the Code of Conduct actually violated by Mr. Wood? I have watched the videos in question and read the tweets and I can find no instance where Mr Wood violated the LF Code of Conduct. I understand that LF can make any decision they like about what constitutes a Code of Conduct violation. However, when both the complaint and the response are so blatantly public, it seems to me that LF owes it to the observing community to explain their decision and describe the due process that was used to make it – including the decision to make the public response that undoubtedly caused harm to Mr. Wood. To date no such explanation has been forthcoming, despite repeated requests. The software community needs to understand how decisions like this are going to be made. Otherwise those of us who have watched this case may be forced to conclude that LF has no internal process, that no due diligence will be applied to Code of Conduct complaints and determinations, that the accused will have no rights either of appeal or privacy, that LF feels free to make its decisions based on the blowing of political winds, and will loudly announce their decisions regardless of the harm it might cause. Therefore I have the following questions: - Why was the initial complaint accepted and acknowledged in public? It was clearly political in nature, and very clearly intended to cause harm to Mr. Wood. - Is it LF policy to accept complaints that, in and of themselves, violate the LF Code of Conduct? - Why was the Code of Conduct determination announced publicly, despite the harm it would obviously cause to Mr. Wood? - Can LF specifically justify the determination that Mr. Wood violated the Code of Conduct? - Does LF have a documented process by which Code of Conduct complaints are to be submitted, reviewed, and adjudicated? - Is it LF policy to consider political affiliation, or support of certain public officials, as Code of Conduct violations? - Is it LF policy to publicly denounce registrants who have been determined to have violated the LF Code of Conduct? - Does LF have a Code of Conduct for how it conducts itself? In summary, it appears to this humble observer that The Code of Conduct process at The Linux Foundation went very badly off the rails with regard to Charles Max Wood. That LF owes Mr. Wood, and the Software Community at large, aprofound apology. That LF should keep all future Code of Conduct complaints and decisions personal and confidential. That LF should publish and follow a well defined process for accepting, reviewing, and adjudicating future Code of Conduct complaints. And that some form of reparation be provided to Mr. Wood for the public harm that was done to him by the careless and unprofessional behavior of The Linux Foundation. Yours Robert C. Martin. ______ Oh, ma guarda! Le CoC vengono usate politicamente all'interno delle comunità che le adottano! Chi l'avrebbe mai detto? :-D Giacomo -- Inviato da un terminale mobile. Perdonate brevità ed orrori grammaticali.

Nov. 12, 2019

124° Mercoledì di Nexa | 13 Novembre 2019

by Nexa Media

*REMINDER:* vi ricordiamo che mercoledì 13 novembre, dalle ore 18.00 alle ore 20.00, si svolgerà il 124° Mercoledì di Nexa, con un incontro dal titolo: *Meccanismi di cooperazione e coerenza nel GDPR: lo stato dell'arte dopo 18 mesi di applicazione* Ospiti: /Monica A. Senor/ (/Funzionario presso l’Autorità garante per la protezione dei dati personali e Fellow del Centro Nexa/) e /Massimo Durante/ (/Professore di Filosofia del Diritto e Fellow del Centro Nexa/). Maggiori informazioni sono disponibili all’indirizzo: https://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-124 Cordiali saluti, -- Anita Botta Communication Manager Nexa Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino – DAUIN Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 - 10129 Torino _web:_ https://nexa.polito.it/ _mail:_anita.botta@polito.it <mailto:anita.botta@polito.it> tel: 011 090 7219

Nov. 11, 2019

Bambini, gli smartphone modificano il cervello e riducono le capacità cognitiva

by don Luca Peyron

Un team di ricerca internazionale guidato da scienziati americani del Cincinnati Children’s Hospitaltal Medical Center ha dimostrato che smartphone, tablet e altri dispositivi digitali con schermo modificano il cervello dei bambini. Nello specifico, è stata osservata una ridotta integrità della sostanza bianca, quella che rende efficiente la comunicazione tra i neuroni. I bambini che trascorrono più tempo con questi oggetti, inoltre, manifestano minori abilità cognitive, deficit nel linguaggio e nell’alfabetizzazione. https://scienze.fanpage.it/bambini-gli-smartphone-modificano-il-cervello-e-… Buona lettura e buona domenica Dl

Nov. 10, 2019