April 2019 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

1, 000 Years of Literary Tradition in Rare Persian-Language Manuscripts Now Online at Library of Congress

by Giacomo

https://www.loc.gov/item/prn-19-036/ This collection, including 150 manuscripts with some dating back to the 13th century, also reflects the diversity of religious and confessional traditions within the Persian culture. From the 10th century to the present, Persian became the cultural language for a large region stretching from West Asia to Central and South Asia. Today, Persian is the native language spoken in Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and some regions of Central and South Asia and the Caucasus. [...] “These rare Persian-language manuscripts clearly reflect the diversity and cosmopolitan nature of the collection,” said Hirad Dinavari, reference specialist for the collection at the Library’s African and Middle Eastern Division. “Since many of the items originate in India, Central Asia, the Caucasus and regions under Ottoman rule, in addition to the native Persian speaking lands of Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan.”

April 3, 2019

The Newest AI-Enabled Weapon: ‘Deep-Faking’ Photos of the Earth

by Alberto Cammozzo

Sempre della serie "perturbamenti ambientali e nuovi spazi di attacco (o difesa)". Questa generazione di AI risulta boccalona, per cui la prossima dovrà essere paranoica. Per ogni oggetto riconosciuto dovrà chiedersi "c'è davvero o ce lo hanno messo LORO?": che vitaccia... Colonna sonora suggerita: Radiohead - Paranoid Android <https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2019/03/next-phase-ai-deep-faking-who…> [...] China is the acknowledged leader in using an emerging technique called generative adversarial networks to trick computers into seeing objects in landscapes or in satellite images that aren’t there, says Todd Myers, automation lead for the CIO-Technology Directorate at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. For example, Myers said, an adversary might fool your computer-assisted imagery analysts into reporting that a bridge crosses an important river at a given point. “So from a tactical perspective or mission planning, you train your forces to go a certain route, toward a bridge, but it’s not there. Then there’s a big surprise waiting for you,” he said. [...] Andrew Hallman, who heads the CIA’s Digital Directorate, framed the question in terms of epic conflict. “We are in an existential battle for truth in the digital domain,” Hallman said. “That’s, again, where the help of the private sector is important and these data providers. Because that’s frankly the digital conflict we’re in, in that battle space…This is one of my highest priorities.” When asked if he felt the CIA had a firm grasp of the challenge of fake information in the open-source domain, Hallman said, “I think we are starting to. We are just starting to understand the magnitude of the problem.”

April 3, 2019

Creation of the Center for Internet and Society (CIS) of the CNRS, Paris, France

by Francesca Musiani

Dear colleagues, We are delighted to officially announce the creation of the Center for Internet and Society (CIS) of the CNRS. CNRS is the Centre national de la recherche scientifique, or the French National Center for Scientific Research. It is a publicly funded research organisation, under the authority of the French Ministry of Research. The CNRS is the largest governmental research organisation in France and the largest fundamental science agency in Europe. Research at CNRS covers all the major fields of scientific research, and is organised into 10 research institutes. At the intersection of disciplines such as sociology, law, history, economics, political science, media and communication sciences, computer and engineering sciences, the CIS intends to build critical research and expertise, able to enlighten the major technical controversies and the definition of contemporary policies related to digital technology, to the internet, and more broadly to informatics. The research themes of the CIS are: - History of computing, uses, preservation, creativity; - Information, digital commons, citizen science; - Infrastructure, AI, platforms; - Data science; - State, citizenship, surveillance, profiling, censorship, propaganda, fake news. CIS now has a website, http://cis.cnrs.fr <https://webmail.cnrs.fr/owa/redir.aspx?C=ZYzyKIwPLYcnF7YK-GFVZBaWPzf3QEepcP…>, where you can find more details about its activities. We also have a Twitter account, @cis_cnrs, which will soon be active! We are also working on the construction of a CNRS research network (GDR) on the same themes, which aims to federate, with a flexible but structured system, francophone and France-based researchers on these issues. Since its inception, CIS is included in several research networks such as GigaNet <https://www.giga-net.org/ <https://webmail.cnrs.fr/owa/redir.aspx?C=KU1V6q-dN3euzrfB_kQf-zgMl49lieNKOF…>> (Global Internet Governance Academic Network) or RESAW <https://resaw.eu/ <https://webmail.cnrs.fr/owa/redir.aspx?C=_0zvygyR9g-lV-_hWPfg6Ox9YGXf7h1xQj…>> (Research Infrastructure for the Study of Archived Web Materials), and of course, the NoC <https://networkofcenters.net/ <https://webmail.cnrs.fr/owa/redir.aspx?C=8gsd5WHuiMKTM7n9c_cuYxMk0NWXGURJSH…>> (Global Network of the Internet and Society Research Centers) and its European Hub. Kind regards and see you soon, we hope, The CIS direction team, Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay Francesca Musiani Céline Vaslin -- Francesca Musiani, Ph.D. Chargée de recherche | Associate Research Professor, CNRS <http://www.cnrs.fr> Directrice adjointe | Deputy Director, Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis.cnrs.fr> [CIS], UPR 2000 Chercheuse associée | Associate Researcher, i3-CSI <http://www.csi.ensmp.fr/>, MINES ParisTech Global Fellow, Internet Governance Lab <https://internetgovernancelab.org>, American University I'm involved in: CPT <http://iamcr.org/s-wg/section/cp-t>-IAMCR | @PolicyR <http://policyreview.info/> | ISOC Franc <https://www.isoc.fr>e <https://www.isoc.fr> | CSA Lab <https://www.csa.fr/Informer/CSA-lab/Fonctionnement> | RESET <https://journals.openedition.org/reset/> On the Web <http://www.iscc.cnrs.fr/spip.php?article1960> | On Twitter <https://twitter.com/franmusiani>

April 3, 2019

European Law Journal, Special Issue da me co- curato, Internet and Human Rights

by oreste.pollicino

Cari saluti, o --- Dai il tuo 5x1000 alla Bocconi. Aiuta gli studenti meritevoli a costruire il proprio futuro. CF 80024610158. www.unibocconi.it/5x1000 Please note that the above message is addressed only to individuals filing Italian income tax returns. 5x1000 is a percentage of Italian personal income tax that taxpayers can allocate to Universities, scientific research and non profit organizations. ---

April 3, 2019

Re: [nexa] The Landlord Wants Facial Recognition in Its Rent-Stabilized Buildings. Why? - The New York Times

by Giacomo Tesio

On 31/03/2019, J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin(a)polito.it> wrote: > > https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/nyregion/rent-stabilized-buildings-facia… “We don’t want to be tracked,” said Icemae Downes, a longtime tenant. “We are not animals. This is like tagging us through our faces because they can’t implant us with a chip.” Un passo alla volta... un passo alla volta. ;-) Giacomo

April 3, 2019

The future of computing and why you should care

by Giacomo Tesio

https://puri.sm/posts/the-future-of-computing-and-why-you-should-care/ Let me start by stating: I believe we can change the future of computing for the better. However, currently something is wrong with our digital world; something basic, something is rotten at the core. I want to talk to you about what that is, how it came to be, and why we must change it. [...] # History All corporations, including all Big Tech giants, have a single goal: Maximize Shareholder Value. That’s it. That’s the only goal. But it’s not just a goal. Under eBay v. Newman, a lawsuit setting legal precedent stating: > The law makes it literally malfeasance for a corporation not to do everything it legally can to maximize its profits. So if given the choice of making $1 by exploiting people online, or opting to treat people ethically, the Corporation must exploit people online for the dollar, or the board of directors and executives could face a lawsuit from any shareholder that claims they did not maximize the value of their shares. The regulations at the foundation of Big Tech are forcing the exploitation of our digital rights. [...] If somebody approached your bedroom window from outside, put a camera up and started recording, you would immediately call the authorities and report the numerous laws broken—a case would be opened, arrests could be made, charges could be pressed, trials could ensue, criminals could go to jail; but in the digital world none of that exists—you are forced to leak far more details than a camera in your bedroom would share, and you are forced to leak that personal data from your phone all the time. Big Tech exploits you every millisecond of every day. [...] AI algorithms from Big Tech have one input variable: $Maximize_Shareholder_Value. That translates directly into - Gather everything on all of the society - Keep people digitally captive - Maximize exposure time - Polarize opinion to elicit more profit [...] Maximizing shareholder value in a society that has nearly no digital rights, guarantees exploitation of that society. Why did we let this happen? How did we let this happen? I know why. Because… It’s convenient to give up control. It is convenient for you to download a proprietary application that exploits you, agree to the legal binding terms of service you didn’t read, and blissfully believe Big Tech is helping you in the digital world. It’s inconvenient to stand up for your freedom. It seems we are offered to choose between convenience and control or inconvenience and freedom. [...] The largest challenge we will face is the marketing budgets of Big Tech, when they claim things like: “We protect your privacy” ~ Big Tech Actually, You exploit personal private data without a persons knowledge “We use encryption” ~ Big Tech Actually, It’s inside proprietary apps that you control “We are secure” ~ Big Tech Actually, You hold the master keys controlling society “You can trust us” ~ Big Tech Actually, You won’t let anybody verify anything [...] # The present Currently, Big Tech is maximizing shareholder value without values. [...] I believe there are five fundamental digital rights: 1. Right to Change Providers If a person wants to change a service provider, they can easily move to another. (Decentralized Services) 2. Right to Protect Personal Data A person owns and controls their own master keys to encrypt all data and communication, nobody else. (User-controlled Encryption) 3. Right to Verify Society has the freedom to inspect the source of all software used, and can run it as they wish, for any purpose. (Software Freedom) 4. Right to be Forgotten A service provider only stores the minimal personal data necessary to provide the service. Once the data is no longer required, it is deleted. (Minimal Data Retention) 5. Right to Access A person must not be discriminated against nor forced to agree to any terms and conditions before accessing a service. (Personal Liberty) If we can do those things, we can change the future of computing for the better. # The future As technology gets closer and closer to our brain, the moral issues of digital rights become clearer and clearer. [...] A question to consider: What Big Tech Company would you purchase your future brain implant from? This is coming. However, I believe we can change the future of computing for the better. Let’s stand together and invest, use, and recommend products and services that respect society. What future will you choose?

April 3, 2019

YouTube Executives Ignored Warnings, Let Toxic Videos Run Rampant - Bloomberg

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-02/youtube-executives-ignor… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

April 3, 2019

Re: [nexa] Google employees are lining up to trash Google’s AI ethics council

by Giacomo Tesio

On 03/04/2019, Arturo Di Corinto <arturo.dicorinto(a)uniroma1.it> wrote: > Google employees are lining up to trash Google’s AI ethics council > The independent council was meant to help Google’s public image, but the > blowback shows just how fraught—and politicized—use of AI is becoming. Molto interessante, grazie della condivisione! ;-) La Tecnologia è sempre una forza Politica dirompente, e la lettera mostra bene la consapevolezza del potere che il controllo del software rappresenta e la legittima preoccupazione rispetto a chi venga eletto^W nominato^W incaricato di tener buoni^W^W tutelare i cittadini. D'altro canto è un peccato che la dichiarazione del Professor Acquisti venga oscurata dalle (pur legittime) preoccupazioni sui curricula degli impiegati di Google ATEAC: > I'd like to share that I've declined the invitation to the > ATEAC council. While I'm devoted to research grappling > with key ethical issues of fairness, rights & inclusion in AI, > I don't believe this is the right forum for me to engage > in this important work. https://twitter.com/ssnstudy/status/1112099054551515138 Credo di poter condividere e persino confermare sperimentalmente l'analisi di del Professor Acquisti. Google non è il luogo adatto in cui parlare di Etica Informatica. Né di Informatica Etica. Giacomo

April 3, 2019

Google employees are lining up to trash Google’s AI ethics council

by Arturo Di Corinto

FYI Google employees are lining up to trash Google’s AI ethics council The independent council was meant to help Google’s public image, but the blowback shows just how fraught—and politicized—use of AI is becoming. - by Will Knight <https://www.technologyreview.com/profile/will-knight/> - April 1, 2019 https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613253/googles-ai-council-faces-blowback… -- 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

April 3, 2019

What comes after “open source”

by Giacomo

https://words.steveklabnik.com/what-comes-after-open-source Software licences regulate distribution, but cannot regulate production. (technically they can, but practically, they can’t. I get into this below.) This is also the main challenge of whatever comes after open source; they cannot rely on the legal tactics of the last generation. I don’t have solutions here. [...] When developers talk about problems they see in open source, it’s often that there are production problems. Companies don’t “give back” money or developer hours. Programmers today don’t seem to be upset that, if they’ve developed any proprietary extensions to their open source software, that those extensions are not shared back with the community. They care that the production process is impeded by additional pressure, without providing resources. If a company were to add a proprietary feature to an open source project, yet pays five employees to develop the open source part further, the FSF sees this as a tragedy. The commons has not been enriched. The new generation of open source developers sees this as a responsible company that thankfully is contributing to the development of something they use and care about. Software licenses can only restrict what people can do when they distribute the source code, and that’s it. It cannot force someone to have a bug tracker, or a code of conduct, or accept your patch. Copyleft can force an absolute minimal “contribution” back to your project, but it can’t force a good-faith one. This makes it an inadequate tool towards building something with the kinds of values that many developers care about. [...] Earlier, I said that you can’t use licenses to regulate production, and that’s technically not true. For example, say that I own a brand, like McDonalds. I own the intellectual property surrounding that brand. I can licence that intellectual property to others, contingent on them producing hamburgers (and whatever else) in a certain way, according to my specification. This doesn’t really work with the way that open source is set up. The entities are in reverse here; it’s the software developers that want to be able to dictate things, but it’s the project that sets the license terms. [...] I’m still, ultimately, left with more questions than answers. But I do think I’ve properly identified the problem: many developers conceive of software freedom as something larger than purely a license that kinds in on redistribution. This is the new frontier for those who are thinking about furthering the goals of the free software and open source movements. ____ L'articolo è a tratti superficiale e si fonda su assuzioni ed osservazioni discutibili, ma ha l'enorme merito di porre una domanda che viola un tabù: cosa viene dopo l'open source? Per quanto ammiravole sia l'onestà intellettuale in conclusione, l'assenza di risposte deriva dalla scelta delle domande sbagliate. E se ci chiedessimo invece cosa viene dopo il software libero? Come rendiamo concretamente fruibili le libertà promosse dal software libero a tutti gli abitanti di questo pianeta? Quali strumenti legali, culturali e tecnici possono mettere tutti in condizione di scrivere e modificare il proprio software? Giacomo

April 2, 2019