March 2019 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] approvate le regole sul diritto di autore

by Giacomo Tesio

On 28/03/2019, Alberto Cammozzo <ac+nexa(a)zeromx.net> wrote: > Dalla newsletter EDRI di oggi: Molto interessante, grazie. > Article 13/17 requires content hosting providers to give their best > efforts to prevent the upload or re-upload of copyright-protected works > – which can only be achieved with upload filters – Falso. Basta assumere moderatori umani di diverse lingue e culture per visionare i video prima che vengano distribuiti al pubblico. Non vedo nessun obbligo ad utilizzare software per effettuare il filtro. > For filters to function properly while taking into account those > exceptions, they would need to recognise the context of the upload, that > is to say information surrounding the content including personal data of > the user uploading it. Questo è molto discutibile. La legge non è uguale per tutti? Perché devi sapere chi sono per sapere se l'ho violata? Giacomo

March 28, 2019

Re: [nexa] approvate le regole sul diritto di autore

by Alberto Cammozzo

Dalla newsletter EDRI di oggi: ======================================================================= 2. GDPR incompatibility – the blind spot of the copyright debate ======================================================================= The debate around the Copyright Directive reform has been intense. Former Article 13, which became Article 17 in the text voted by the European Parliament on 26 March, created the greatest controversy between stakeholders arguing about the so-called “value gap” in the creative sectors, upload filters, and a new platform liability regime, among others issues. However, few observers have analysed the impact of Article 13/17 on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). On 23 March, Dr. Malte Engeler, a German judge, published an article explaining why the filtering technology required by the Copyright Directive might be incompatible with European data protection rules. Article 13/17 requires content hosting providers to give their best efforts to prevent the upload or re-upload of copyright-protected works – which can only be achieved with upload filters – except if they are covered by specific copyright exceptions such as quotation, criticism or parody. For filters to function properly while taking into account those exceptions, they would need to recognise the context of the upload, that is to say information surrounding the content including personal data of the user uploading it. The question Engeler asks is under which legal basis of GDPR would platforms be able to process such personal data? According to Engeler, platforms would be considered controllers in the sense of the GDPR because they decide which technologies they will use to monitor content. When analysing a film extract uploaded without authorisation, a filter would need to know whether it was used by a film critic – which would be legal according to the copyright exceptions listed in Article 13/17 – or by a user attempting to illegally distribute the film. Detecting such differences in the use of the same piece of content would depend on “meta information about the upload” such as the user identity, the place, and the date. This information would be considered personal data, and its analysis by the algorithm would be processing under GDPR. The article goes on by examining the legal basis provided for in the GDPR (Article 6(1)), under which such processing would be allowed. Consent could not be freely given because all platforms would be required to have this processing in place, leaving no alternative to users. Making upload filters part of the terms and conditions would not respect the criteria of necessity of paragraph 1b, which allows the processing of personal data to execute a contract. Furthermore, the processing of personal data by content filters is neither necessary to protect the user’s vital interests, nor is it done for public or legitimate interests pursued by the platform – they don’t want an obligation to put filters in place. This leaves the platform with the legal basis whereby the processing is necessary for compliance with another legal obligation (para. 1c), which would be compliance with the copyright Directive. However, considering the high risk of liability, smaller platforms will likely have to implement third party filters, bought as a service from bigger companies that have invested tens of millions of euros in such technologies. As a result, few big content filtering companies will be able to process the above-mentioned personal data of the vast majority of users. The new copyright Directive would thus lead to centralised filtering mechanisms. This is problematic in regards to the principle of proportionality mentioned in the GDPR and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Such a filtering system was already discarded by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) because it failed to strike a fair balance “between the right to intellectual property, on the one hand, and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information on the other”. The legal obligation that Article 13/17 creates for platforms is incompatible with the right to protection of personal data, which makes it hard to rely on for the processing of personal data under the GDPR. Copyright Directive: Does the best effort principle comply with GDPR? (23.03.2019) https://www.telemedicus.info/article/3402-Copyright-Directive-Does-the-best… Press Release: Censorship machine takes over EU’s internet (26.03.2019) https://edri.org/censorship-machine-takes-over-eu-internet/ SABAM vs Netlog – another important ruling for fundamental rights (16.02.2012) https://edri.org/sabam_netlog_win/ All you need to know about copyright and EDRi (15.03.2019) https://edri.org/all-you-need-to-know-about-copyright-and-edri/ (Contribution by Chloé Berthélémy, EDRi) On 27/03/2019 19:22, Guido Noto La Diega wrote: > Rossana Ducato e io ci stiamo chiedendo se si possa utilizzare il GDPR > per neutralizzare l'upload filter, v. https://youtu.be/wDrTa8StNvY > > On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 18:19, Guido Noto La Diega > <noto.la.diega(a)gmail.com <mailto:noto.la.diega@gmail.com>> wrote: > > 1. Sarebbe bello se smettessimo di usare YouTube, Facebook, etc., > ma una serie di elementi suggeriscono che continueremo ad > affidarci ai grandi intermediari (ad es. per questioni di effetti > di rete). Quindi la tua soluzione non risolve il problema, a meno > che non si trovi un serio incentivo per cambiare le abitudini di > milioni di user. > 2. Mi era sembrato che suggerissi che il server privato risolvesse > tutti i problemi della direttiva copyright, mentre al piu' puo' > contribuire a risolvere il problema dell'upload filter (art. 17, > ex art. 13), ma non gli altri problemi posti dalla medesima direttiva > 3. Wikipedia ha rimossio il banner 'Ad free forever', cosa > succederebbe se per ragioni di sostenibilita' incominciasse a > usare pubblicita'? > 4. Il testo approvato e' > questo http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P8-T…, > mi pare sia lo stesso che hai condiviso tu > > On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 14:59, Giacomo Tesio <giacomo(a)tesio.it > <mailto:giacomo@tesio.it>> wrote: > > On 27/03/2019, Guido Noto La Diega <noto.la.diega(a)gmail.com > <mailto:noto.la.diega@gmail.com>> wrote: > > se vuoi continuare a usare YouTube > > Appunto. _SE_ vuoi continuare ad usare YouTube. > > Francamente, nel 2019 non vedo molte ragioni per farlo. > > E d'altro canto, usare YouTube per condividere materiale > coperto da > copyright esclusivo di terze parti è un po'... "sciocco", > diciamo. ;-) > > > Wikipedia > > Wikipedia non è esplicitamente esentata attraverso la > definizione 6 > all'articolo 2? > > > etc. non risolve il problema che queste piattaforme > > implementaranno l'upload filter. > > Al contrario, li risolve completamente e alla radice. > Così come rimuove una valanga di altri problemi (ponendone di > nuovi, > ma questa volta molto più interessanti). > > Semplicemente, NON usi tali piattaforme per partecipare al > dibattito > pubblico cibernetico che avviene attraverso internet (e/o alla > caciara). > > > > E non risolve ovviamente gli altri > > problemi relativi a data minining exception e publishers' right > > Non mi è chiaro cosa intendi. Puoi spiegarmi il tuo ragionamento? > > Per il data mining, immagino tu faccia riferimento agli > articoli 3 e 4. > Per i publisher rights immagino tu faccia riferimento > all'articolo 15. > In entrambi i casi non mi sembra si pongano problemi che possano > minare la libertà di espressione individuale che un server ad uso > domestico fornisce. > > Cosa mi sfugge? > > > Giacomo > PS: tu che sei del mestiere, è questo il testo approvato ieri > http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P8-T… > ? > > > > -- > Guido > > Guido Noto La Diega, PhD FHEA > Senior Lecturer / European Research Partnerships Coordinator @ > Northumbria Law School > Director @italiot | Fellow @nexacenter | Co-convenor @NINSOrig | > Co-founder @DPA2018 > > Northumbria Law School > City Campus East, > Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST > > noto.la.diega(a)gmail.com <mailto:noto.la.diega@gmail.com> > > +44(0)191 349 5562 > > You can access my papers on Academia.edu > <http://northumbria.academia.edu/GuidoNotoLaDiega> and on the > Social Science Research Network (SSRN > <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1794950>) > > This email and any attachment hereto are strictly confidential and > are exclusively intended for the person above identified. Without > the intended recipient’s entitlement, use, copy, and dissemination > of this email are prohibited. If you have received it in error, > please advise us immediately by telephone and return the documents > received to the above address, deleting the files. Thank you. > > Unless necessary, please do not print this email. > > > > -- > Guido > > Guido Noto La Diega, PhD FHEA > Senior Lecturer / European Research Partnerships Coordinator @ > Northumbria Law School > Director @italiot | Fellow @nexacenter | Co-convenor @NINSOrig | > Co-founder @DPA2018 > > Northumbria Law School > City Campus East, > Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST > > noto.la.diega(a)gmail.com <mailto:noto.la.diega@gmail.com> > > +44(0)191 349 5562 > > You can access my papers on Academia.edu > <http://northumbria.academia.edu/GuidoNotoLaDiega> and on the Social > Science Research Network (SSRN > <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1794950>) > > This email and any attachment hereto are strictly confidential and are > exclusively intended for the person above identified. Without the > intended recipient’s entitlement, use, copy, and dissemination of this > email are prohibited. If you have received it in error, please advise > us immediately by telephone and return the documents received to the > above address, deleting the files. Thank you. > > Unless necessary, please do not print this email. > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

March 28, 2019

Re: [nexa] Developing for Android is like being a (demonetized) YouTuber

by Giacomo Tesio

<https://gbl08ma.com/developing-for-android-is-like-being-a-demonetized-yout…> Android was once considered the better choice of mobile platform for those looking for customizability, powerful features such as true multitasking, support for less common use cases, and higher developer freedom. It was the platform of choice in research and education, because not only are the development tools free and cross-platform, Android was also a very flexible operating system that did not get in the way of experimenting with innovative concepts or messing with the hardware we own. This is changing at an increasingly faster pace. [...] Being on the Play Store is starting to feel much like producing content for YouTube, where policy changes can be sudden and announced without much time in advance. [...] [...] “Android is open source” is the joke of the year – for the fifth consecutive year. While it is true that the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) is still a thing, many of the components that make Android recognizable and usable, both from an end user and developer’s perspective, are increasingly closed source. Apps made by Google are able to do things third-party apps have trouble replicating, no doubt due to the tight-knit interaction between them and the proprietary behemoth that is Google Play Services. This is especially noticeable in the “Google” app itself, Google Assistant, and the Google launcher. [...] AOSP, on its own, is effectively controlled by Google. The existence of AOSP is important, if nothing else, to define common APIs that the different “OEM flavors” of Android must support – ensuring, with minor caveats, that we can develop for Android and not for “Samsung’s Android” or “Nokia’s Android”. But what APIs come and what APIs go is completely decided by Google, and the same is true for the overall system architecture, security model, etc. This means Google can bend AOSP to their will, stripe it of features and move things into proprietary components as much as they want. [...] Android, and therefore Google, set the standard – and the implementation – for what we can and can’t do with a smartphone, except when Apple introduces a major innovation that OEMs and Google are compelled to quickly implement in Android. These days, it seems Apple is stalling a bit in innovation in the smartphone front, so Google is taking the opportunity to “innovate” by making Android more similar to iOS, turning it into a cushioned, limited, kid-safe operating system that ties the hands of developers and proficient users. [...] We desperately need an Android alternative, but the question of who will develop, use and target said alternative remains unanswered. What I know, is that I no longer feel happy as an Android developer, I no longer feel happy as an Android user, and I’m not likely at all to recommend Android to my friends and family.

March 28, 2019

Developing for Android is like being a (demonetized) YouTuber

by Giacomo Tesio

<https://gbl08ma.com/developing-for-android-is-like-being-a-demonetized-yout…>

March 28, 2019

Aren’t AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

by Giacomo Tesio

<https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/amp-cache-copyright> Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP) are specially formatted web pages that companies like Cloudflare, Google, and Microsoft copy off publishers’ websites and make available through their own AMP Cache web servers. There is no redistribution license agreement between the AMP Caches and the publishers, so how come AMP Caches aren’t considered copyright infringement on a massive scale? Like the name suggest, albeit heavily disputed, the purpose of AMP is to speed up webpage delivery time and performance on high-latency mobile devices. Web publishers can either choose to specifically create AMP-formatted web pages in addition or instead of their regular web pages. Some publishing platform may create AMP variants alongside the regular web page without the knowledge of the author (the copyright holder). [...] # Requirements for caching safe harbor provisions Caches and caches are vaguely defined in copyright laws. However; Australian, Canadian, European Union, and USA laws agree that the caching process must be automatic and that the caches must follow industry standards for removing and updating cached materials. AMP Caches satisfies this requirement by supporting the industry standard HTTP Cache-Control header and other related caching headers. EU law also requires that the caching must only be done for the purpose of making communications more efficient; which is how Google have presented AMP all along. Copyright laws require that no modifications are made to the cached creative works. Australian and Canadian copyright laws specifically grants exceptions to this requirement for changes made by an undefined technical processes. EU and USA copyright laws have no such exceptions. AMP Caches makes a few notable optimizations and modifications to cached content. These changes performed by the AMP Caches are done to achieve high performance but it may also be stripping away their safe harbor provisions as allowed for under EU and USA copyright laws. [...] # The implied license An implied license in the context of copyright law is a license granted by a rights holder in the absence of an expressly written contract. You really need to be a copyright lawyer to make any sense of the finer details of implied licenses. Most resources on implied licenses that I found on the web consists of little more than lawyers shaking their heads at the lack of an expressly written legal agreement in their place.

March 28, 2019

The Linux Foundation is Not About Linux

by Giacomo Tesio

<http://techrights.org/2019/03/26/the-linux-foundation-is-not-about-linux/> Linux Foundation (LF) objectives/missions do not resemble what the Open Source Development Labs, Inc. (OSDL) was founded to accomplish; this puts at grave threat the very raison d’être of both GNU and Linux. [...] The Linux Foundation is big business, it’s big money. [...] What has the LF turned into since? We’re probably going to write about their courses and events separately (in the future), but in the meantime not enough people have paid attention to how the salaries exploded (what kind of “charity” pays people like a million bucks a year)? Based on ProPublica, the IRS has had nothing (public at least, as this is the latest and last) since 2016, so we assume that this “charity” now has $100,000,000 or more in turnover (annual). That’s massive. If they double the salaries, accordingly (doubling the turnover), that’s nearly a million bucks a year for a dozen or so staff members. But that’s not what matters (the money); it’s how they use that money which matters and it feels as though LF staff tries to silence/suppress people who investigate it. [...] What does the LF help with? Putting GNU inside Windows? What about GNU/Linux desktops? It seems like “adding Netflix” (DRM) is the priority now.

March 28, 2019

Re: [nexa] How malevolent machine learning could derail AI - MIT Technology Review

by Enrico Poli

Per completezza, qui c’è il video dell’intervento della ricercatrice Dawn Song a EmTech (a me sembra che la frase che apre l’articolo non rappresenti fedelmente il suo pensiero): https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613170/emtech-digital-dawn-song-adversar… (direttamente il video scaricabile: https://secure-cf-c.ooyala.com/MweDZpaDE6DE5wpg_hkjKxsmplkqmC1q/DOcJ-FxaFrR… ) A presto (e grazie per tutte le stimolanti letture), Enrico On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 02:19, Giacomo Tesio <giacomo(a)tesio.it> wrote: > Ciao Antonio! > > > Artificial intelligence won’t revolutionize anything if hackers can mess > with it. > > Ma certo! E' sempre colpa degli hacker! > Non è mica il software che è una ciofeca! > Sono gli hacker che son cattivi! > > D'altronde lo dicono sempre le mie bimbe: "Papà... è colpa tua!" :-D > > > > Adversarial machine learning involves experimentally feeding input > > into an algorithm to reveal the information it has been trained on, or > > distorting input in a way that causes the system to misbehave. > > In pratica si tratta di debug: visto che nessuno sa quale algoritmo il > software implementi (perché è stato selezionato in modo pseudo casuale > attraverso un processo statistico) non si può mai dimostrare che il > software funziona, solo che NON funziona trovando casi di input che ne > evidenzino gli errori. > > Ci credo che sono preoccupati: immagina che figuracce! > > > > “It’s a big problem,” she told the audience. “We need to come together > to fix it.” > > Two weeks later: > > "We must find a solution NOW!" > "Yeah... people could realize that machines do not learn for real!" > "We could... We could..." > "Forbid debug! Think about it: no more bugs! People will love it!" > "Well... actually... with a bit more marketing..." > > > :-D > > > > Giacomo > > > On 27/03/2019, antonio.vetro(a)polito.it <antonio.vetro(a)polito.it> wrote: > > Nuove frontiere del reverse engineering. Oltre a quanto suggerisce il > > titolo, in realtà potrebbero rivelarsi utili per testare l'affidabilità > di > > sistemi di apprendimento automatico. > > > > > https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613170/emtech-digital-dawn-song-adversar… > > > > > > AV > > > > == Sent from my wireless device == > > _______________________________________________ > > nexa mailing list > > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >

March 28, 2019

Re: [nexa] Eben Moglen Interviewed by NPR about Boeing Affair

by Arturo Di Corinto

Meravigliosa intervista di Eben Moglen. Grazie della segnalazione Il giorno sab 23 mar 2019 alle ore 01:00 Giacomo Tesio <giacomo(a)tesio.it> ha scritto: > “What we’re looking at in the case of some aerodynamic software taking > over for pilots without telling them is an example of why even if you > didn’t think this had anything to do with politics, it is still true > that systems that don’t explain themselves to human beings who > interact with them are dangerous…If we in the 21st century still > believe in human autonomy, then we need to put that value into the > software that runs our world.” > > “In the twenty-first century, there will be two kinds of autonomous > systems. There will be autonomous systems made by despotism, most > noticeably by the Chinese Communist Party’s economy and society. And > they will not explain what they are doing because that’s the whole > point: eliminating democracy, freedom of human beings, civil liberty > as ideas. The only alternative to that kind of autonomous system is > whatever we will invent. That is to say it’s a political task from the > part of humanity that believes in freedom to build these technologies > to support rather than to threaten human freedom.” > > http://softwarefreedom.org/news/2019/mar/22/npr-boeing/ > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > -- Arturo Di Corinto www.dicorinto.it ---------------------------------> AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003 Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o nel/i file/s allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio, per le finalità indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di darcene notizia via e-mail e di procedere alla distruzione del messaggio stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso, divulgarlo anche in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003

March 28, 2019

Re: [nexa] How malevolent machine learning could derail AI - MIT Technology Review

by Giacomo Tesio

Ciao Antonio! > Artificial intelligence won’t revolutionize anything if hackers can mess with it. Ma certo! E' sempre colpa degli hacker! Non è mica il software che è una ciofeca! Sono gli hacker che son cattivi! D'altronde lo dicono sempre le mie bimbe: "Papà... è colpa tua!" :-D > Adversarial machine learning involves experimentally feeding input > into an algorithm to reveal the information it has been trained on, or > distorting input in a way that causes the system to misbehave. In pratica si tratta di debug: visto che nessuno sa quale algoritmo il software implementi (perché è stato selezionato in modo pseudo casuale attraverso un processo statistico) non si può mai dimostrare che il software funziona, solo che NON funziona trovando casi di input che ne evidenzino gli errori. Ci credo che sono preoccupati: immagina che figuracce! > “It’s a big problem,” she told the audience. “We need to come together to fix it.” Two weeks later: "We must find a solution NOW!" "Yeah... people could realize that machines do not learn for real!" "We could... We could..." "Forbid debug! Think about it: no more bugs! People will love it!" "Well... actually... with a bit more marketing..." :-D Giacomo On 27/03/2019, antonio.vetro(a)polito.it <antonio.vetro(a)polito.it> wrote: > Nuove frontiere del reverse engineering. Oltre a quanto suggerisce il > titolo, in realtà potrebbero rivelarsi utili per testare l'affidabilità di > sistemi di apprendimento automatico. > > https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613170/emtech-digital-dawn-song-adversar… > > > AV > > == Sent from my wireless device == > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >

March 28, 2019

Re: [nexa] approvate le regole sul diritto di autore

by Giacomo Tesio

On 27/03/2019, Guido Noto La Diega <noto.la.diega(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Rossana Ducato e io ci stiamo chiedendo se si possa utilizzare il GDPR per > neutralizzare l'upload filter, v. https://youtu.be/wDrTa8StNvY :-D Nice hack! Ho una obiezione. Un upload filter non prende una decisione autonoma sul soggetto, ma sul contenuto da questi caricato. Inoltre (in teoria) non analizza i dati personali del soggetto, ma il contenuto del video. Infine l'articolo 22 comma 2 dice che > Paragraph 1 shall not apply if the decision: > [...] > (b) is authorised by Union or Member State law > to which the controller is subject and which also > lays down suitable measures to safeguard the > data subject's rights and freedoms and legitimate interests; Immagino che la nuova direttiva possa costituire questo tipo di autorizzazione. Non voglio difendere la direttiva, ma capire meglio la vostra analisi. Giacomo

March 28, 2019