December 2019 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] referto informatica pubblica 2019

by Stefano Zacchiroli

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 08:55:43AM +0100, Stefano Quintarelli wrote: > Sono quelle solo nella PA Si si, mi è chiaro, ma sia il tasso di crescita che il numero totale mi sembrano infimi. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . zack(a)upsilon.cc . upsilon.cc/zack . . o . . . o . o Computer Science Professor . CTO Software Heritage . . . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader & OSI Board Director . . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

Dec. 10, 2019

Re: [nexa] referto informatica pubblica 2019

by Stefano Quintarelli

Sono quelle solo nella PA In data 10 dicembre 2019 8:25:12 AM Stefano Zacchiroli <zack(a)upsilon.cc> ha scritto: > On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 05:58:59PM +0100, Maria Margherita Salvadori wrote: > > Referto in materia di informatica pubblica 2019 > > Spenderei una lacrima per il grafico a pag. 247 sull'evoluzione delle > caselle PEC: da 40'000 nel 2012 a 120'000 nel 2018. (Sigh.) > > -- > Stefano Zacchiroli . zack(a)upsilon.cc . upsilon.cc/zack . . o . . . o . o > Computer Science Professor . CTO Software Heritage . . . . . o . . . o o > Former Debian Project Leader & OSI Board Director . . . o o o . . . o . > « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Dec. 10, 2019

Re: [nexa] referto informatica pubblica 2019

by Stefano Zacchiroli

On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 05:58:59PM +0100, Maria Margherita Salvadori wrote: > Referto in materia di informatica pubblica 2019 Spenderei una lacrima per il grafico a pag. 247 sull'evoluzione delle caselle PEC: da 40'000 nel 2012 a 120'000 nel 2018. (Sigh.) -- Stefano Zacchiroli . zack(a)upsilon.cc . upsilon.cc/zack . . o . . . o . o Computer Science Professor . CTO Software Heritage . . . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader & OSI Board Director . . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

Dec. 10, 2019

Re: [nexa] referto informatica pubblica 2019

by Stefano Quintarelli

aspettavo che qualcuno lo postasse.. :-) </start snip> Il ricorso alle procedure negoziate senza bando è un fenomeno rilevato dalla stessa ANAC come “improprio”; l’attività istruttoria dalla stessa espletata ha consentito di riscontrare come in molti casi le stazioni appaltanti abbiano effettuato affidamenti di appalti di servizi informatici con procedura negoziata senza bando, ... in carenza dei presupposti legittimanti il ricorso alla procedura in questione. .... In particolare, le determine a contrarre sono state caratterizzate da motivazione carente e/o insufficiente in ordine alla scelta di quel particolare fornitore. In tutti i casi l’asserita unicità/infungibilità del fornitore non era stata comprovata da una preliminare indagine di mercato, tesa a dimostrare l’oggettiva esistenza di un unico soggetto in condizione di svolgere il tipo di prestazioni richieste dall’ente appaltante e conformi alle sue esigenze ... Altro fenomeno rilevato dall’ANAC è quello del cd. «lock in», ben espresso nelle linee guida n. 8, che si verifica quando l’amministrazione non può cambiare facilmente fornitore alla scadenza del periodo contrattuale, ad esempio perché non sono disponibili le informazioni essenziali sul sistema che consentirebbero a un nuovo fornitore di subentrare al precedente in modo efficiente, oppure per la presenza di elevati costi di investimento (iniziale) non recuperabili. ... Attualmente l’AgID, chiamata a svolgere questo ruolo [vigilanza], ha una dotazione organica di circa 100 dipendenti ed un budgetdi circa 140 milioni di euro (bilancio preventivo 2019 (1)), che si riduce drasticamente nelle previsioni per il 2020 e 2021 rispettivamente a circa 23 milioni e 16 milioni, elementi che evidenziano come a fronte di compiti istituzionali rilevanti, tra cui l’esercizio della governancesia livello nazionale che territoriale, e non rivisti dalla legislazione vigente si registri un sottodimensionamento delle risorse finanziare. ... L’AgID, secondo quanto previsto dall’articolo 3 del d.lgs. n. 177/2009, emana pareri obbligatori sugli schemi di contratto concernenti l’acquisizione di beni e servizi informatici e telematici. Inoltre, è possibile richiedere anche il rilascio di semplici valutazioni tecnico-economiche (c.d. pareri facoltativi). Nel corso del 2017-2018, l’AgID ha rilasciato complessivamente 43 pareri obbligatori e 12 facoltativi e sono state rese 4 consulenze. Il 75per centodei pareri è stato rilasciato a cinque amministrazioni ... In definitiva,trattandosi di pareri obbligatori rilasciati esclusivamente alle amministrazioni centrali,vengono esclusi dalla verifica preventiva di AgID tutti gli acquisti che, pur rappresentando quantitativamente la parte prevalente,non rientrano nel perimetro delle PA centrali (quelli delleamministrazioni territoriali equelli degli enti previdenziali). Peraltro, l’AgID non svolge un monitoraggio sistematico sul rispetto da parte delle amministrazioni delle indicazioni alle stesse fornite, per mancanza di risorse. Il suddetto controllo viene effettuato solo in casi puntuali, a titolo di eccezione e su progetti di particolare rilevanza ... *** La limitatezza del perimetro che è stato sottoposto a monitoraggio centralizzato, la mancanza di informazioni sulle attività di monitoraggio effettuate in autotutela sui propri contratti da parte delle amministrazioni e la circostanza che anche l’attività di vigilanza di ANAC si fermi alla fase di aggiudicazione dei contratti, peraltro coprendone solo una parte, *impongono riflessioni sull’esigenza che tale area sia più ampiamente presidiata, affidando alla stessa AgID, un ruolo maggiormente significativo*, soprattutto in termini di poteri di controllo e di verifica dei contratti sottoposti a monitoraggio, al fine di poter intervenire nei casi che presentino criticità nell’esecuzione, ma anche nella valutazione dei risultati. *** </end snip> quante volte ho sentito dire che bisognerebbe "chiudere l'agid che e' un carrozzone inutile"... (1) cosi' come avere un organico di 130 figure non equivale ad avere le persone, avere il budget non equivale a poterlo spendere [il CdI non ha alcun compenso ne' il rimborso spese per gli spostamenti, ndr]. ciao, s. On 09/12/2019 17:58, Maria Margherita Salvadori wrote: > Sul sito della Corte dei Conti > > > Delibera n. 17/SSRRCO/REF/19 > > SEZIONI RIUNITE IN SEDE DI CONTROLLO 26/11/2019 > > Referto in materia di informatica pubblica 2019 > > Qui il link al documento > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.corteconti.it/HOME/Documenti/DettaglioDocumenti?Id=ec0796f8-807… > > > Cordiali saluti, > Margherita Salvadori > > /Professore Diritto internazionale/ > /Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza/ > /Università di Torino/ > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > -- reserve your meeting with me at http://cal.quintarelli.it

Dec. 9, 2019

referto informatica pubblica 2019

by Maria Margherita Salvadori

Sul sito della Corte dei Conti Delibera n. 17/SSRRCO/REF/19 SEZIONI RIUNITE IN SEDE DI CONTROLLO 26/11/2019 Referto in materia di informatica pubblica 2019 Qui il link al documento https://www.corteconti.it/HOME/Documenti/DettaglioDocumenti?Id=ec0796f8-807… Cordiali saluti, Margherita Salvadori *Professore Diritto internazionale* *Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza* *Università di Torino*

Dec. 9, 2019

AI Dungeon 2

by Giacomo Tesio

Imagine an infinitely generated world that you could explore endlessly, continually finding entirely new content and adventures. What if you could also choose any action you can think of instead of being limited by the imagination of the developers who created the game? http://www.aidungeon.io/ To play the game locally, it is recommended that you have an nVidia GPU with 12 GB or more of memory, and CUDA installed. If you do not have such a GPU, each turn can take a couple of minutes or more for the game to compose its response. https://github.com/AIDungeon/AIDungeon Finalmente un uso appropriato dell'intelligenza artificiale. :-D Giacomo

Dec. 9, 2019

Il modello Silicon Valley è in crisi per assenza di fantasia

by Giacomo Tesio

Alla radice del problema c’è la mancanza di immaginazione. Per il venture capital il futuro è per definizione imprevedibile, è una singularity di cui non si può sapere niente. La dottrina di disruptive innovation che sta al cuore del sistema predica che le innovazioni radicali creeranno i loro mercati [...] Ma più che un fiorire di idee radicalmente nuove [...] il risultato è stato una standardizzazione dell’innovazione in forma di contributi marginali a una società di consumo novecentesca ormai senza futuro: intelligenza artificiale per selezionare le playlist via Alexa o app che ti permettono di ordinare la pizza senza chiamare la pizzeria sotto casa. Se il modello Silicon Valley si sta esaurendo è soprattutto per questo motivo, manca un’idea di che tipo di mondo costruire con le tecnologie digitali, un’idea di un futuro diversa dal presente. Inizia su https://www.ilfoglio.it/tecnologia/2019/12/06/news/il-modello-silicon-valle… Giacomo

Dec. 9, 2019

Re: [nexa] Considerazioni

by Giacomo Tesio

On 08/12/2019, Pasquale Costanzo <pasquale.costanzo(a)unige.it> wrote: > > Il 08/12/2019 10.13, Stefano Quintarelli ha scritto: >> sbaglio o cmq. buona parte delle consideraizoni sono gia' ricomprese >> nelle interpretazioni che la corte ha stabilito ? > > infatti: quasi tutte Mi scusi Professore, ma posso chiederle quali non siano ricomprese? Giacomo

Dec. 9, 2019

Reminder | 125° Mercoledì di Nexa | 11 Dicembre 2019

by Nexa Media

Gentilissimi, vi ricordiamo che mercoledì 11 dicembre, dalle ore 18.00 alle ore 20.00, si svolgerà il 125° Mercoledì di Nexa, con un incontro dal titolo: *Il progetto dell'oggetto tecnico e il progetto dello spazio terrestre* Ospiti:/Alessandro Armando/ (/Professore al Politecnico di Torino/) e /Giovanni Durbiano/ (/Professore //al Politecnico di Torino/). Maggiori informazioni sono disponibili all’indirizzo:https://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-125 <https://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-125> A conclusione dell'incontro, trattandosi dell'ultimo incontro pubblico dell'anno solare, si farà il consueto brindisi di fine anno. Vi aspettiamo numerosi! 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

Dec. 9, 2019

SURVEILLANCE GIANTS:, HOW THE BUSINESS MODEL OF GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK, THREATENS HUMAN RIGHTS

by Alberto Cammozzo

Il Rapporto Amnesty International accoglie il messaggio della Zuboff. <https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/POL3014042019ENGLISH.PDF> The internet has revolutionised our world on a scale not seen since the invention of electricity. Over half of the world’s population now relies on the web to read the news, message a loved one, find a job, or seek answers to an urgent question. It has opened social and economic opportunities at a scale and speed that few imagined fifty years ago. Recognising this shift, it is now firmly acknowledged that access to the internet is vital to enable the enjoyment of human rights. For more than 4 billion people, the internet has become central to how they communicate, learn, participate in the economy, and organise socially and politically. Yet when these billions participate in life online, most of them rely heavily on the services of just two corporations. Two companies control the primary channels that people rely on to engage with the internet. They provide services so integral that it is difficult to imagine the internet without them. Facebook is the world’s dominant social media company. If you combine users of its social platform, its messenger services, WhatsApp and Messenger, and applications such as Instagram, a third of humans on Earth use a Facebook-owned service every day. Facebook sets terms for much of human connection in the digital age. A second company, Google, occupies an even larger share of the online world. Search engines are a crucial source of information; Google accounts for around ninety percent of global search engine use. Its browser, Chrome, is the world’s dominant web browser. Its video platform, YouTube, is the world’s second largest search engine as well as the world’s largest video platform. Google’s mobile operating system, Android, underpins the vast majority of the world’s smartphones. Android’s dominance is particularly important because smartphones have replaced the desktop computer as the primary way people access and use the internet. Smartphones reveal information about us beyond our online browsing habits—such as our physical travel patterns and our location. They often contain thousands of intimate emails and text messages, photographs, contacts, and calendar entries. Google and Facebook have helped to connect the world and provided crucial services to billions. To participate meaningfully in today’s economy and society, and to realise their human rights, people rely on access to the internet—and the tools Google and Facebook offer. But despite the real value of the services they provide, Google and Facebook’s platforms come at a systemic cost. The companies’ surveillance-based business model forces people to make a Faustian bargain, whereby they are only able to enjoy their human rights online by submitting to a system predicated on human rights abuse. Firstly, an assault on the right to privacy on an unprecedented scale, and then a series of knock-on effects that pose a serious risk to a range of other rights, from freedom of expression and opinion, to freedom of thought and the right to non-discrimination. SURVEILLANCE GIANTS: HOW THE BUSINESS MODEL OF GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK THREATENS HUMAN RIGHTS Amnesty International 5This isn’t the internet people signed up for. When Google and Facebook were first starting out two decades ago, both companies had radically different business models that did not depend on ubiquitous surveillance. The gradual erosion of privacy at the hands of Google and Facebook is a direct result of the companies establishing dominant market power and control over the global “public square”. In Chapter 1, ‘the Business of Surveillance’, this report sets out how the surveillance-based business model works: Google and Facebook offer services to billions of people without asking them to pay a financial fee. Instead, citizens pay for the services with their intimate personal data. After collecting this data, Google and Facebook use it to analyse people, aggregate them into groups, and to make predictions about their interests, characteristics, and ultimately behaviour - primarily so they can use these insights to generate advertising revenue. This surveillance machinery reaches well beyond the Google search bar or the Facebook platform itself. People are tracked across the web, through the apps on their phones, and in the physical world as well, as they go about their day-to-day affairs. These two companies collect extensive data on what we search; where we go; who we talk to; what we say; what we read; and, through the analysis made possible by computing advances, have the power to infer what our moods, ethnicities, sexual orientation, political opinions, and vulnerabilities may be. Some of these categories—including characteristics protected under human rights law—are made available to others for the purpose of targeting internet users with advertisements and other information. In Chapter 2, ‘Assault on Privacy’, we set out how this ubiquitous surveillance has undermined the very essence of the right to privacy. Not only does it represent an intrusion into billions of people’s private lives that can never be necessary or proportionate, but the companies have conditioned access to their services on “consenting” to processing and sharing of their personal data for marketing and advertising, directly countering the right to decide when and how our personal data can be shared with others. Finally, the companies’ use of algorithmic systems to create and infer detailed profiles on people interferes with our ability to shape our own identities within a private sphere. Advertisers were the original beneficiaries of these insights, but once created, the companies’ data vaults served as an irresistible temptation for governments as well. This is for a simple reason: Google and Facebook achieved a degree of data extraction from their billions of users that would have been intolerable had governments carried it out directly. Both companies have stood up to states’ efforts to obtain information on their users; nevertheless, the opportunity to access such data has created a powerful disincentive for governments to regulate corporate surveillance. The abuse of privacy that is core to Facebook and Google’s surveillance-based business model is starkly demonstrated by the companies’ long history of privacy scandals. Despite the companies’ assurances over their commitment to privacy, it is difficult not to see these numerous privacy infringements as part of the normal functioning of their business, rather than aberrations. In Chapter 3, ‘Data Analytics at Scale: Human Rights Risks Beyond Privacy’, we look at how Google and Facebook’s platforms rely not only on extracting vast amounts of people’s data, but on drawing further insight and information from that data using sophisticated algorithmic systems. These systems are designed to find the best way to achieve outcomes in the companies’ interests, including finely- tuned ad targeting and delivery, and behavioural nudges that keep people engaged on the platforms. As a result, people’s data, once aggregated, boomerangs back on them in a host of unforeseen ways. These algorithmic systems have been shown to have a range of knock-on effects that pose a serious threat to people’s rights, including freedom of expression and opinion, freedom of thought, and the right to equality and non-discrimination. These risks are greatly heightened by the size and reach of Google and Facebook’s platforms, enabling human rights harm at a population scale. Moreover, SURVEILLANCE GIANTS: HOW THE BUSINESS MODEL OF GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK THREATENS HUMAN RIGHTS Amnesty International 6systems that rely on complex data analytics can be opaque even to computer scientists, let alone the billions of people whose data is being processed. The Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which data from 87 million people’s Facebook profiles were harvested and used to micro-target and manipulate people for political campaigning purposes, opened the world’s eyes to the capabilities such platforms possess to influence people at scale – and the risk that they could be abused by other actors. However, although shocking, the incident was the tip of the iceberg, stemming from the very same model of data extraction and analysis inherent to both Facebook and Google’s business. Finally, in Chapter 4, ‘Concentration of Power Obstructs Accountability’, we show how vast data reserves and powerful computational capabilities have made Google and Facebook two of the most valuable and powerful companies in the world today. Google’s market capitalization is more than twice the GDP of Ireland (both companies’ European headquarters); Facebook’s is larger by a third. The companies’ business model has helped concentrate their power, including financial clout, political influence, and the ability to shape the digital experience of billions of people, leading to an unprecedented asymmetry of knowledge between the companies and internet users – as scholar Shoshana Zuboff states “They know everything about us; we know almost nothing about them.” This concentrated power goes hand in hand with the human rights impacts of the business model and has created an accountability gap in which it is difficult for governments to hold the companies to account, or for individuals who are affected to access justice. Governments have an obligation to protect people from human rights abuses by corporations. But for the past two decades, technology companies have been largely left to self-regulate – in 2013, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt described the online world as “the world’s largest ungoverned space”. However, regulators and national authorities across various jurisdictions have begun to take a more confrontational approach to the concentrated power of Google and Facebook—investigating the companies for competition violations, issuing fines for infringing Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), or introducing new tax regimes for big technology companies. Businesses have a responsibility to respect human rights in the context of their business operations that requires them to carry out “human rights due diligence” to identify and address their human rights impacts. Google and Facebook have established policies and processes to address their impacts on privacy and freedom of expression – but evidently, given that their surveillance-based business model undermines the very essence of the right to privacy and poses a serious risk to a range of other rights, the companies are not taking a holistic approach, nor are they questioning whether their current business models themselves can be compliant with their responsibility to respect human rights. Amnesty International gave both Google and Facebook an opportunity to respond to the findings of this report in advance of publication. Facebook’s letter in response is appended in the annex below. Amnesty International had a conversation with senior Google staff, who subsequently provided information around its relevant policies and practices. Both responses are incorporated throughout the report. Ultimately, it is now evident that the era of self-regulation in the tech sector is coming to an end: further state-based regulation will be necessary, but it is vital that whatever form future regulation of the technology sector takes, governments follow a human rights-based approach. In the short-term, there is an immediate need for stronger enforcement of existing regulation. Governments must take positive steps to reduce the harms of the surveillance-based business model—to adopt digital public policies that have the objective of universal access and enjoyment of human rights at their core, to reduce or eliminate pervasive private surveillance, and to enact reforms, including structural ones, sufficient to restore confidence and trust in the internet.

Dec. 8, 2019