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

Re: [nexa] Ending climate change requires the end of capitalism. Have we got the stomach for it?

by Alberto Cammozzo

Caro Giacomo, la questione di certo è complessa. Fare industria senza capitale credo sia molto difficile. Le macchine costano... Questo è il motivo per cui capitalismo e processi industriali non sono di fatto ortogonali... Inoltre il capitale è spesso di Stato anche nelle economie capitaliste. In Cina il "capitalismo" pare pilotato in una economia tecnocratica pianificata, in cui il partito controlla sia il processo produttivo che il mercato del lavoro. "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" comporta concentrare capitale potere da una parte e generate ineguaglianza dall'altra, e il partito-stato "surfa" l'onda del conflitto di classe: mi pare uno sport decisamente estremo. Finché partito e capitale non entrano in conflitto e il controllo sociale tiene, tutto torna, ma stanno caricando una molla: occorre ricordare che l'unica rivoluzione vinta davvero è quella borghese del 1789. Dal punto di vista strettamente climatico cosa renderebbe la produzione industriale capitalista più colpevole di quella pianificata? Mi viene in mente (forse è ciò a cui alludi) solo l'inefficienza della produzione "inutile" indotta non dalla domanda ma dall'offerta. Cioè spinta dal marketing e dai brevetti nel cassetto. Prodotti di infima qualità o di cui nessuno ha bisogno. Però sono cose che anche i cinesi producono, pur non essendo "capitalisti", e anzi subendone direttamente le esternalità ambientali e sociali. Per cui ancora una volta: chi inquina? Capitalismo o industria? A quanto mi pare, la differenza tra sistemi capitalisti e non sono le razionalizzazioni per accettare le esternalità ambientali e sociali, non il fatto che queste ci siano. Non è facile... Per i riferimenti: Ivan illich, La convivialità. 1973 Su Humboldt ho apprezzato molto la biografia di Andrea Wulf "L'invenzione della natura" 2017 Ciao, Alberto On April 26, 2019 3:24:15 PM UTC, Giacomo Tesio <giacomo(a)tesio.it> wrote: >On 26/04/2019, Alberto Cammozzo <ac+nexa(a)zeromx.net> wrote: >> Non dico che non sia vero e probabilmente necessario, ma siamo sicuri >> che sia sufficiente? > >Certo, superare il Capitalismo è condizione necessaria, non >sufficiente. > >Credo che però il punto dell'articolo non fosse proporre Comunismo o >Socialismo, ma semplicemente sottolineare che è urgente e necessario >un radicale ripensamento della società intera a livello globale. > >> Confonde capitalismo e produzione industriale, che sono due cose >> contigue ma diverse, se non ortogonali. >> Il capitalismo può essere sia industriale che non industriale e la >> produzione industriale può essere sia capitalista che non >capitalista. >> Visto che anche il comunismo sovietico (industriale e tecnocratico ma >> non capitalista) ha fatto la sua brava parte con il clima (per non >> parlare di quello cinese), punterei più il dito sulla produzione >> industriale che sul capitalismo... > >Discorso complesso. >Il fatto che la Cina sia ancora Comunista / Socialista è da dimostrare. >Xi Jinping dice di sì. Ma direbbe il contrario se così non fosse? > >La produzione industriale può non essere capitalista, a senza >capitalismo è necessariamente limitata dall'utilità oggettiva del >prodotto, dal suo valore d'uso. >Il Capitalismo invece permette di manipolare la domanda attraverso il >marketing, incrementando il valore di scambio del prodotto (il prezzo) >ed incentivando la produzione per massimizzare il profitto. > >Dunque credo che il modo di produrre (industriale) diventi >problematico in funzione del perché produci e dunque del cosa e del >quanto. > >Il Capitalismo poi può non essere industriale, ma tipicamente per >adattarsi ad un'ambiente: se massimizza il profitto produrrà comunque >esternalità sociali ed ecologiche semplicemente perché non rientrano >nel computo da massimizzare. > >Per cui rimango convinto che il maggiore problema dei nostri giorni >sia il Capitalismo. > >> Diverso sarebbe il discorso se consideriamo l'ineguaglianza. > >Naturalmente, ma comprendere l'importanza sociale di eguaglianza e >solidarietà richiede lungimiranza. Il Capitalismo premia le startup >che vengono vendute prima che la garanzia dei loro prodotti scada. :-D > >> Forse le critiche all'industrializzazione e alla civiltà industriale >(á >> la Ivan Illich) sono molto meno politicamente consolidate di quelle >> socialiste al capitalismo, che di per se però non hanno una base e un >> pensiero ecologista e sistemico, pur essendo questo altrettanto >antico >> (penso a von Humboldt) di quello socialista. > >Molto interessante, mi scopro ignorante su entrambi. >Cercherò di porre rimedio: hai letture da consigliare? > > >Giacomo

April 26, 2019

Statement of the FinTech Council concerning the blockchain strategy of the German government in the context of public consultations

by Giacomo

https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/EN/Downloads/2019-04-17-stat… Bitcoin is now ten years old and illustrates the potential, the successes and the problems of new blockchain technologies and DLT. It is problematic for the existing legal and economic system that this technology eludes regulatory intervention by operating on a distributed, dynamic and transnational basis. The idea of using the rules technically coded into the system as an absolute reference point instead of a legal framework appears attractive at first glance but is highly problematic. Every logical system is incomplete, as has been demonstrated using formal proofs (e.g. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem). This could also be true for DLT systems. The example of “The DAO” clearly shows that not all cases can be considered in advance and that errors exist in the system. However these systems do not provide for dealing with these cases or eliminating errors. In a way, the technical system resists a legal arrangement or correction and undermines the sovereignty of the legal system, in that users participate anonymously in a system without owner or operator. In this respect, this new technology disrupts the foundations of the existing economic and legal system. The question is whether, in the course of technological progress , the further development of operator-less blockchain technology, can create the possibilities of intervening in the technology which is necessary for the legal system, or whether the conflict between the legal system and the technical systems remains unresolved. In any case, the question arises regarding which system can prevail over the other. Morally, human sovereignty over the technical system is to be demanded; in practical terms, it remains to be seen which allegiances will form and whether humans are ready to prefer technical malfunctions to human misjudgments. At present, many societies seem to be more inclined to put their faith in technology.

April 26, 2019

Re: [nexa] Ending climate change requires the end of capitalism. Have we got the stomach for it?

by Giacomo Tesio

On 26/04/2019, Alberto Cammozzo <ac+nexa(a)zeromx.net> wrote: > Non dico che non sia vero e probabilmente necessario, ma siamo sicuri > che sia sufficiente? Certo, superare il Capitalismo è condizione necessaria, non sufficiente. Credo che però il punto dell'articolo non fosse proporre Comunismo o Socialismo, ma semplicemente sottolineare che è urgente e necessario un radicale ripensamento della società intera a livello globale. > Confonde capitalismo e produzione industriale, che sono due cose > contigue ma diverse, se non ortogonali. > Il capitalismo può essere sia industriale che non industriale e la > produzione industriale può essere sia capitalista che non capitalista. > Visto che anche il comunismo sovietico (industriale e tecnocratico ma > non capitalista) ha fatto la sua brava parte con il clima (per non > parlare di quello cinese), punterei più il dito sulla produzione > industriale che sul capitalismo... Discorso complesso. Il fatto che la Cina sia ancora Comunista / Socialista è da dimostrare. Xi Jinping dice di sì. Ma direbbe il contrario se così non fosse? La produzione industriale può non essere capitalista, a senza capitalismo è necessariamente limitata dall'utilità oggettiva del prodotto, dal suo valore d'uso. Il Capitalismo invece permette di manipolare la domanda attraverso il marketing, incrementando il valore di scambio del prodotto (il prezzo) ed incentivando la produzione per massimizzare il profitto. Dunque credo che il modo di produrre (industriale) diventi problematico in funzione del perché produci e dunque del cosa e del quanto. Il Capitalismo poi può non essere industriale, ma tipicamente per adattarsi ad un'ambiente: se massimizza il profitto produrrà comunque esternalità sociali ed ecologiche semplicemente perché non rientrano nel computo da massimizzare. Per cui rimango convinto che il maggiore problema dei nostri giorni sia il Capitalismo. > Diverso sarebbe il discorso se consideriamo l'ineguaglianza. Naturalmente, ma comprendere l'importanza sociale di eguaglianza e solidarietà richiede lungimiranza. Il Capitalismo premia le startup che vengono vendute prima che la garanzia dei loro prodotti scada. :-D > Forse le critiche all'industrializzazione e alla civiltà industriale (á > la Ivan Illich) sono molto meno politicamente consolidate di quelle > socialiste al capitalismo, che di per se però non hanno una base e un > pensiero ecologista e sistemico, pur essendo questo altrettanto antico > (penso a von Humboldt) di quello socialista. Molto interessante, mi scopro ignorante su entrambi. Cercherò di porre rimedio: hai letture da consigliare? Giacomo

April 26, 2019

Re: [nexa] Ending climate change requires the end of capitalism. Have we got the stomach for it?

by Alberto Cammozzo

Non dico che non sia vero e probabilmente necessario, ma siamo sicuri che sia sufficiente? Confonde capitalismo e produzione industriale, che sono due cose contigue ma diverse, se non ortogonali. Il capitalismo può essere sia industriale che non industriale e la produzione industriale può essere sia capitalista che non capitalista. Visto che anche il comunismo sovietico (industriale e tecnocratico ma non capitalista) ha fatto la sua brava parte con il clima (per non parlare di quello cinese), punterei più il dito sulla produzione industriale che sul capitalismo... Diverso sarebbe il discorso se consideriamo l'ineguaglianza. Forse le critiche all'industrializzazione e alla civiltà industriale (á la Ivan Illich) sono molto meno politicamente consolidate di quelle socialiste al capitalismo, che di per se però non hanno una base e un pensiero ecologista e sistemico, pur essendo questo altrettanto antico (penso a von Humboldt) di quello socialista. ciao, Alberto On 26/04/2019 15:44, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/18/ending-climate-change… > > Climate change activism is increasingly the domain of the young, such > as 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, the unlikely face of the school strike > for climate movement, which has seen many thousands of children walk > out of school to demand that their parents’ generation takes > responsibility for leaving them a planet to live on. In comparison, > the existing political establishment looks more and more like an > impediment to change. [...] > > Today’s children, as they become more politically aware, will be much > more radical than their parents, simply because there will be no other > choice for them. This emergent radicalism is already taking people by > surprise. The Green New Deal (GND), a term presently most associated > with 29-year-old US representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has > provoked a wildly unhinged backlash from the “pro free market” wing, > who argue that it’s a Trojan horse, nothing more than an attempt to > piggyback Marxism onto the back of climate legislation. > > The criticism feels ridiculous. [...] Climate change is the result of > our current economic and industrial system. GND-style proposals marry > sweeping environmental policy changes with broader socialist reforms > because the level of disruption required to keep us at a temperature > anywhere below “absolutely catastrophic” is fundamentally, on a deep > structural level, incompatible with the status quo. > > Right now we can, with a massive investment of effort by 2030, just > about keep the warming level below 1.5C. This is “bad, but manageable” > territory. Failing to put that effort in sees the world crossing more > severe temperature barriers that would lead to outcomes like ecosystem > collapse, ocean acidification, mass desertification, and coastal > cities being flooded into inhabitability. > > We will simply have to throw the kitchen sink at this. Policy tweaks > such as a carbon tax won’t do it. We need to fundamentally re-evaluate > our relationship to ownership, work and capital. [...] > > It’s the Marxism of Groucho rather than Karl: “Who are you going to > believe? The serious political professionals or your own lying eyes?” > > US Senator Dianne Feinstein’s meeting with schoolchildren petitioning > her to take action over the issue went viral because of the way she > condescended to them for, basically, asking her to leave them a planet > behind to live on. “I’ve been doing this for 30 years,” she said, “I > know what I’m doing.” The obvious response is, of course, that messing > something up for 30 years is quite long enough, thanks. Long tenure > without results is not the same thing as expertise. > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

April 26, 2019

Implications of Quantum Computing for Encryption Policy - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

by Alberto Cammozzo

<https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/04/25/implications-of-quantum-computing-…> [...] The security of encryption systems relies on the use of operations that can be done quickly by someone who knows a secret key but requires vastly more time for someone who does not know it. An encryption algorithm typically has an adjustable key size, and the algorithm is designed so that a modest increase in the key size causes a modest increase in decryption time for those who know the key, but a massive increase in decryption time for those who don’t know it. This ensures that the key size can be made large enough so that decryption becomes massively, prohibitively expensive for those who do not know the key, but remains very practical for keyholders. The security of a cryptographic algorithm depends on maintaining a very large gap between the effect of a key size increase on those that know the key versus those that do not know it. Decryption without knowing the key amounts, in practice, to a kind of brute-force search: it requires searching an extremely large space of possible secret keys, trying different keys in turn until finding one that unlocks the encrypted data. On a classical computer, the expected time required to do this is proportional to the number of possible keys that exist—the searcher must try half of the possible keys to have a fifty-fifty chance of trying the correct one. The effect of quantum computing on the security of an encryption algorithm depends on how large of an effect quantum computing will have on the time required for nonkeyholders to find the secret key. Encryption Algorithms That Quantum Will Thoroughly Compromise For some encryption algorithms, quantum computing might allow those without the key to sidestep entirely the need to do brute-force search by, for example, enabling a key extraction algorithm that can find the decryption key directly without a blind search. For instance, the popular Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) encryption algorithm relies on the assumption that factoring a large number is very difficult. In RSA, the secret key is essentially a pair of large prime numbers, P and Q. The product of multiplying P and Q is published, but it is assumed that an adversary who knows the product of P and Q cannot derive the factors P and Q from that product except by a variant of brute-force search. Factoring appears to be very time-consuming for classical computers, but a quantum computer could quickly extract the factors P and Q by using a method called Shor’s Algorithm. In a world with large quantum computers, RSA would not be secure because someone without the key who knows the publicly available product of P and Q could quickly recover the secret key. Encryption Algorithms That Can Be Kept Secure By Increasing Key Size Other encryption algorithms are not prone to being defeated so thoroughly by a method like Shor’s Algorithm. For these methods, quantum computing is not a fatal threat, because an adversary must still engage in brute-force search. But there is a quantum shortcut, called Grover’s Algorithm, that can speed up any brute-force search substantially, allowing a space of a given size to be searched in an amount of time proportional to the square root of that size. This approach would be enough to defeat many encryption methods if they are not adjusted. In this case, it is possible to compensate for the effect of quantum computing by increasing the key size, expanding the space that must be searched by brute force, so as to counteract the effect of Grover’s Algorithm. For many encryption algorithms, doubling the key size, say from 128 bits to 256 bits, has the effect of squaring the size of the key space that someone without the key would have to search. This countermeasure exactly offsets the square-root effect of Grover’s Algorithm, restoring the security level of the pre-quantum algorithm. One consequence is that data that was encrypted before the emergence of viable quantum computing—with the original smaller key size—will become susceptible to decryption when quantum computing does become available, but data encrypted with the larger quantum-safe key size will continue to be secure. (Like classical computers, quantum computers would be expected to get faster over time, necessitating the same kinds of generational increases in key size that have been necessary in the pre-quantum computing era.) [...]

April 26, 2019

Ending climate change requires the end of capitalism. Have we got the stomach for it?

by Giacomo Tesio

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/18/ending-climate-change… Climate change activism is increasingly the domain of the young, such as 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, the unlikely face of the school strike for climate movement, which has seen many thousands of children walk out of school to demand that their parents’ generation takes responsibility for leaving them a planet to live on. In comparison, the existing political establishment looks more and more like an impediment to change. [...] Today’s children, as they become more politically aware, will be much more radical than their parents, simply because there will be no other choice for them. This emergent radicalism is already taking people by surprise. The Green New Deal (GND), a term presently most associated with 29-year-old US representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has provoked a wildly unhinged backlash from the “pro free market” wing, who argue that it’s a Trojan horse, nothing more than an attempt to piggyback Marxism onto the back of climate legislation. The criticism feels ridiculous. [...] Climate change is the result of our current economic and industrial system. GND-style proposals marry sweeping environmental policy changes with broader socialist reforms because the level of disruption required to keep us at a temperature anywhere below “absolutely catastrophic” is fundamentally, on a deep structural level, incompatible with the status quo. Right now we can, with a massive investment of effort by 2030, just about keep the warming level below 1.5C. This is “bad, but manageable” territory. Failing to put that effort in sees the world crossing more severe temperature barriers that would lead to outcomes like ecosystem collapse, ocean acidification, mass desertification, and coastal cities being flooded into inhabitability. We will simply have to throw the kitchen sink at this. Policy tweaks such as a carbon tax won’t do it. We need to fundamentally re-evaluate our relationship to ownership, work and capital. [...] It’s the Marxism of Groucho rather than Karl: “Who are you going to believe? The serious political professionals or your own lying eyes?” US Senator Dianne Feinstein’s meeting with schoolchildren petitioning her to take action over the issue went viral because of the way she condescended to them for, basically, asking her to leave them a planet behind to live on. “I’ve been doing this for 30 years,” she said, “I know what I’m doing.” The obvious response is, of course, that messing something up for 30 years is quite long enough, thanks. Long tenure without results is not the same thing as expertise.

April 26, 2019

The Tech Industry’s Psychological War on Kids – Richard Freed – Medium

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://medium.com/@richardnfreed/the-tech-industrys-psychological-war-on-k… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

April 26, 2019

Bundeskartellamt - Homepage - Bundeskartellamt prohibits Facebook from combining user data from different sources

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Pressemitteilungen/20… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

April 26, 2019

Amazon's system for tracking its warehouse workers can automatically fire them - MIT Technology Review

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://www.technologyreview.com/f/613434/amazons-system-for-tracking-its-w… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

April 26, 2019

Skip the Surveillance By Opting Out of Face Recognition At Airports

by gianluca quaglia

By Jason Kelley April 24, 2019 Government agencies and airlines have ignored years of warnings from privacy groups and Senators that using face recognition technology on travelers would massively violate their privacy. Now, the passengers are in revolt as well, and they’re demanding answers. Last week, a lengthy exchange on Twitter between a traveler who was concerned about her privacy and a spokesperson for the airline JetBlue went viral, and many of the questions asked by the traveler and others were the same ones that we’ve posed to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials: Where did you get my data? How is it protected? Which airports will use this? Where in the airports will it be used? Most importantly, how do I opt-out? [...] continua qui https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/04/skip-surveillance-opting-out-face-rec…

April 26, 2019