May 2019 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Don’t let industry write the rules for AI

by Giacomo Tesio

Technology companies are running a campaign to bend research and regulation for their benefit; society must fight back, says Yochai Benkler. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01413-1 Industry has mobilized to shape the science, morality and laws of artificial intelligence. On 10 May, letters of intent are due to the US National Science Foundation (NSF) for a new funding programme for projects on Fairness in Artificial Intelligence, in collaboration with Amazon. In April, after the European Commission released the Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, an academic member of the expert group that produced them described their creation as industry-dominated “ethics washing”. In March, Google formed an AI ethics board, which was dissolved a week later amid controversy. In January, Facebook invested US$7.5 million in a centre on ethics and AI at the Technical University of Munich, Germany. [...] Inside an algorithmic black box, societal biases are rendered invisible and unaccountable. When designed for profit-making alone, algorithms necessarily diverge from the public interest — information asymmetries, bargaining power and externalities pervade these markets. For example, Facebook and YouTube profit from people staying on their sites and by offering advertisers technology to deliver precisely targeted messages. That could turn out to be illegal or dangerous. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development has charged Facebook with enabling discrimination in housing adverts (correlates of race and religion could be used to affect who sees a listing). YouTube’s recommendation algorithm has been implicated in stoking anti-vaccine conspiracies. I see these sorts of service as the emissions of high-tech industry: they bring profits, but the costs are borne by society. (The companies have stated that they work to ensure their products are socially responsible.) [...] When the NSF lends Amazon the legitimacy of its process for a $7.6-million programme (0.03% of Amazon’s 2018 research and development spending), it undermines the role of public research as a counterweight to industry-funded research. A university abdicates its central role when it accepts funding from a firm to study the moral, political and legal implications of practices that are core to the business model of that firm. So too do governments that delegate policy frameworks to industry-dominated panels. [...] Governments should use that leverage to demand that companies share data in properly-protected databases with access granted to appropriately insulated, publicly-funded researchers. Industry participation in policy panels should be strictly limited. Industry has the data and expertise necessary to design fairness into AI systems. It cannot be excluded from the processes by which we investigate which worries are real and which safeguards work, but it must not be allowed to direct them. Organizations working to ensure that AI is fair and beneficial must be publicly funded, subject to peer review and transparent to civil society. And society must demand increased public investment in independent research rather than hoping that industry funding will fill the gap without corrupting the process. _____ Non credo che si possa limitare l'influenza dell'industria senza escluderla completamente dal processo decisionale. Se partecipa, non può che imporre la propria forza economica e culturale per assicurarsi la massimizzazione dei profitti. Di conseguenza, le Università e gli enti di ricerca che ricevono fondi da privati andrebbero esclusi dal processo. Un'idea interessante potrebbe ispirarsi alla legge 266 del 1991: stabilire per legge che una certa quota dei proventi delle società che si occupano di Informatica vada devoluta a un ente completamente indipendente dalle aziende stesse che li usa per finanziare la ricerca delle Università e degli enti di ricerca non compromessi. Lo stesso, in realtà, si potrebbe fare con la medicina e in generale laddove la ricerca abbia rilevanza economica. Giacomo

May 2, 2019

The Do-Not-Track Act of 2019

by Giacomo Tesio

Scusate... aggiungo l'oggetto... :-( On 02/05/2019, Giacomo Tesio <giacomo(a)tesio.it> wrote: > Bell'esempio di proposta di legge dalle buone intenzioni ma > controproducente. > > Potrebbe spingere gli utenti a fidarsi maggiormente del Web, ma senza > appropriato supporto tecnico, il tracciamento rimane possibile e non > osservabile: non c'è modo di scoprire e punire i trasgressori (a meno > che non facciano diversi passi falsi facilmente evitabili). > > L'header "Do Not Track" non può funzionare perché affida la protezione > della privacy al lato sbagliato della connessione TCP: il server non > ha nessun interesse a scartare le informazioni che il browser gli > manda comunque visto che può salvarle dove nessuno le troverà mai. > > Per impedire il tracciamento bisogna intervenire sui browser. > A questi la legge dovrebbe imporre specifiche minime a garanzia degli > utenti. > La sicurezza non può essere Opt-In. > > > > https://spreadprivacy.com/do-not-track-act-2019/ > > When you turn on the setting in your browser that says “Do Not Track”, > you probably expect to no longer be tracked on most websites you > visit. Right? Well, you would be wrong. But don’t worry, you’re not > alone. > > Our recent study on the Do Not Track (DNT) browser setting indicated > that about a quarter of people have turned on this setting, and most > were unaware big sites do not respect it. That means approximately 75 > million Americans, 115 million citizens of the European Union, and > many more people worldwide are, right now, broadcasting a DNT signal. > [...] > > While DuckDuckGo actively supports the passing of strong, > comprehensive privacy laws, we also recognize that it will take time > for them to take effect worldwide. In the meantime, governments can > provide immediate relief by enacting separate, simpler Do Not Track > legislation. [...] > > That’s why we're announcing draft legislation that can serve as a > starting point for legislators in America and beyond. It’s entitled > the "Do-Not-Track Act of 2019" and, if it were to be enacted, would > require sites to respect the Do Not Track browser setting in this > manner: > > - No third-party tracking by default. [...] > - No first-party tracking outside what the user expects. [...] > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >

May 2, 2019

(no subject)

by Giacomo Tesio

Bell'esempio di proposta di legge dalle buone intenzioni ma controproducente. Potrebbe spingere gli utenti a fidarsi maggiormente del Web, ma senza appropriato supporto tecnico, il tracciamento rimane possibile e non osservabile: non c'è modo di scoprire e punire i trasgressori (a meno che non facciano diversi passi falsi facilmente evitabili). L'header "Do Not Track" non può funzionare perché affida la protezione della privacy al lato sbagliato della connessione TCP: il server non ha nessun interesse a scartare le informazioni che il browser gli manda comunque visto che può salvarle dove nessuno le troverà mai. Per impedire il tracciamento bisogna intervenire sui browser. A questi la legge dovrebbe imporre specifiche minime a garanzia degli utenti. La sicurezza non può essere Opt-In. https://spreadprivacy.com/do-not-track-act-2019/ When you turn on the setting in your browser that says “Do Not Track”, you probably expect to no longer be tracked on most websites you visit. Right? Well, you would be wrong. But don’t worry, you’re not alone. Our recent study on the Do Not Track (DNT) browser setting indicated that about a quarter of people have turned on this setting, and most were unaware big sites do not respect it. That means approximately 75 million Americans, 115 million citizens of the European Union, and many more people worldwide are, right now, broadcasting a DNT signal. [...] While DuckDuckGo actively supports the passing of strong, comprehensive privacy laws, we also recognize that it will take time for them to take effect worldwide. In the meantime, governments can provide immediate relief by enacting separate, simpler Do Not Track legislation. [...] That’s why we're announcing draft legislation that can serve as a starting point for legislators in America and beyond. It’s entitled the "Do-Not-Track Act of 2019" and, if it were to be enacted, would require sites to respect the Do Not Track browser setting in this manner: - No third-party tracking by default. [...] - No first-party tracking outside what the user expects. [...]

May 2, 2019

UK To Introduce New Law For IoT Device Security

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestowersclark/2019/05/02/uk-to-introduce-… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

May 2, 2019

FT: When manipulation is the digital business model

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://www.ft.com/content/e24dea0a-6b57-11e9-80c7-60ee53e6681d When manipulation is the digital business model Ever looked for an online cancel button and struggled to find it? ‘Dark patterns’ may be to blame © PATE May 1, 2019 7:35 am by Madhumita Murgia We’ve all had that sinking feeling when you realise you’ve signed up for something online that you never meant to. Maybe a barrage of marketing spam you accepted by failing to tick a tiny box you never saw. Or perhaps you got to the last step of the checkout process on a shopping site, only to discover extra charges. These little design tricks have a name: dark patterns. They’re the subtle ploys many digital companies use to manipulate you into doing something, such as disclosing personal or financial details. .... (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

May 2, 2019

Sabino Cassese: «La democrazia non è soltanto potere del popolo»

by don Luca Peyron

I saggi vanno ascoltati... Buona lettura dl [...] Il secondo problema evoca la disponibilità di una grande quantità di dati. Ma non va ingigantito. Uno dei modi di occultare un dato è quello di fornirne troppi. C’è, invece, la questione dell’offerta di servizi da parte delle grandi imprese che governano il mondo digitale, offerta che consente loro di captare e capitalizzare informazioni sugli utenti. Qui c’è un difetto di disciplina, che deriva dalla estensione globale di quell’offerta. [...] https://www.sicilianpost.it/sabino-cassese-la-democrazia-non-e-soltanto-pot… _________________________ www.universitari.to.it via XX settembre 83, Torino tel. 011 5156239

May 2, 2019

Le elezioni ai tempi dei social media

by Niccolò Caranti

Segnalo il policy workshop “Le elezioni ai tempi dei social media. Elezioni europee, disinformazione e micro-targeting: che fare?”, che si terrà il prossimo 14 maggio a Roma, dalle ore 14:00 alle ore 18:00, in Corso Vittorio Emanuele II, 349 (presso la Federazione Nazionale Stampa Italiana). In vista delle elezioni europee, ad un anno dalla Dichiarazione di Perugia <https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/p…> - che chiedeva nuove regole e maggiore trasparenza nella propaganda politica sui social network in particolare durante le campagne elettorali, ci interroghiamo sui passi compiuti sino ad ora, e su cosa c’è ancora da fare per salvaguardare la trasparenza del discorso pubblico e l'integrità dei processi democratici nel rispetto dei diritti fondamentali. Questo il programma: SALUTI ISTITUZIONALI Mario Raffaelli, Presidente Centro per la Cooperazione Internazionale Rappresentante della Federazione Nazionale Stampa Italiana *PRIMA SESSIONE, La disinformazione all'opera* INTRODUCE E MODERA: Fazila Mat, OBC Transeuropa / Centro per la cooperazione internazionale Fabiana Zollo, Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia Walter Quattrociocchi, Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia Nicola Bruno, Dataninja Giorgio Comai, OBC Transeuropa / Centro per la cooperazione internazionale SECONDA SESSIONE, Ripensare le regole del gioco MODERA: Tommaso Scannicchio, CILD, Coalizione Italiana Libertà e Diritti Civili Fabio Chiusi, Valigia Blu / Nexa Center for Internet & Society Riccardo Acciai, Garante per la protezione dei dati personali Daniele De Bernardin, Openpolis Antonella Napolitano, Privacy International *Conclusioni.* *L'evento è organizzato nell'ambito del progetto ESVEI, Exploring systemic vulnerabilities for external influence in Italy <https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/Progetti/ESVEI>, promosso da Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa / Centro per la Cooperazione Internazionale.* L'incontro è libero, previa registrazione online tramite questo modulo <https://www.eventbrite.it/e/biglietti-le-elezioni-ai-tempi-dei-social-media…> . A presto, Niccolò Caranti OBC Transeuropa *Centro per la Cooperazione Internazionale* vicolo San Marco 1 <https://maps.google.com/?q=vicolo+San+Marco+1+38122+Trento+(TN)+-+Italia&en…> 38122 Trento (TN) - Italia <https://maps.google.com/?q=vicolo+San+Marco+1+38122+Trento+(TN)+-+Italia&en…> www.balcanicaucaso.org www.balcanicaucaso.org/eng Tel: +39 0461 1828617

May 2, 2019

Re: [nexa] A Conspiracy To Kill IE6

by Giacomo Tesio

Una nota: nella pagina da cui è preso il grafico con le market share dei browser si può anche osservare il confronto fra i browser Microsoft e gli altri. https://www.w3counter.com/trends IE8 non assorbì l'intero mercato perso da IE6 e IE7... Guarda caso, Chrome inizia a salire di brutto proprio a maggio 2009, in corrispondenza di questa "accidentale" mossa commerciale. Lo zoccolo duro di utenti IE iniziò a capire come si installa un browser... un enorme vantaggio... per qualcuno. :-) Per altro la storia è molto realistica: alla fin fine che piaccia o no, sono sempre e solo gli sviluppatori a decidere cosa fa il software. Ma secondo me... in questo caso... :-D Giacomo On 02/05/2019, Giacomo Tesio <giacomo(a)tesio.it> wrote: > Divertente storiella di come 10 anni fa, una singola azienda ha > "convinto" un utente del web su 5 a cambiare browser... senza _quasi_ > farlo apposta. > > Ma va tutto bene eh... non vi preoccupate! ;-) > > > http://blog.chriszacharias.com/a-conspiracy-to-kill-ie6 > > IE6 users represented around 18% of our user base at that point. We > understood that we could not just drop support for it. However, > sitting in that cafeteria, having only slept about a few hours each in > the previous days, our compassion for these users had completely > eroded away. [...] > > The plan was very simple. We would put a small banner above the video > player that would only show up for IE6 users. It would read “We will > be phasing out support for your browser soon. Please upgrade to one of > these more modern browsers.” Next to the text would be links to the > current versions of the major browsers, including Chrome, Firefox, IE8 > and eventually, Opera. [...] > > The first person to come by our desks was the PR team lead. [...] > Fortunately for us, the publications had already settled on a > narrative that this was a major benefit to the Internet. [...] > Satisfied that he could get back in front of the story, the PR team > lead turned and warned us to never do anything like this without > telling him first. He did not want to let great public relations > opportunities like this slip by ever again. [...] > > Between YouTube, Google Docs, and several other Google properties > posting IE6 banners, Google had given permission to every other site > on the web to add their own. IE6 banners suddenly started appearing > everywhere. Within one month, our YouTube IE6 user base was cut in > half and over 10% of global IE6 traffic had dropped off while all > other browsers increased in corresponding amounts. The results were > better than our web development team had ever intended. >

May 2, 2019

A Conspiracy To Kill IE6

by Giacomo Tesio

Divertente storiella di come 10 anni fa, una singola azienda ha "convinto" un utente del web su 5 a cambiare browser... senza _quasi_ farlo apposta. Ma va tutto bene eh... non vi preoccupate! ;-) http://blog.chriszacharias.com/a-conspiracy-to-kill-ie6 IE6 users represented around 18% of our user base at that point. We understood that we could not just drop support for it. However, sitting in that cafeteria, having only slept about a few hours each in the previous days, our compassion for these users had completely eroded away. [...] The plan was very simple. We would put a small banner above the video player that would only show up for IE6 users. It would read “We will be phasing out support for your browser soon. Please upgrade to one of these more modern browsers.” Next to the text would be links to the current versions of the major browsers, including Chrome, Firefox, IE8 and eventually, Opera. [...] The first person to come by our desks was the PR team lead. [...] Fortunately for us, the publications had already settled on a narrative that this was a major benefit to the Internet. [...] Satisfied that he could get back in front of the story, the PR team lead turned and warned us to never do anything like this without telling him first. He did not want to let great public relations opportunities like this slip by ever again. [...] Between YouTube, Google Docs, and several other Google properties posting IE6 banners, Google had given permission to every other site on the web to add their own. IE6 banners suddenly started appearing everywhere. Within one month, our YouTube IE6 user base was cut in half and over 10% of global IE6 traffic had dropped off while all other browsers increased in corresponding amounts. The results were better than our web development team had ever intended.

May 2, 2019

Paper: “The Antitrust Case Against Facebook” by Dina Srinivasan :: SSRN

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3247362 The Antitrust Case Against Facebook Berkeley Business Law Journal Vol. 16, Issue 1, Forthcoming 83 Pages Posted: 7 Feb 2019 Last revised: 9 Feb 2019 Dina Srinivasan Yale University - Law School Date Written: September 10, 2018 Abstract The Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) social network, this era’s new communications service, plays an important role in the lives of 2+ billion people across the world. Though the market was highly competitive in the beginning, it has since consolidated in Facebook’s favor. Today, using Facebook means to accept a product linked to broad-scale commercial surveillance — a paradox in a democracy. This Paper argues that Facebook’s ability to extract this qualitative exchange from consumers is merely this titan’s form of monopoly rents. The history of early competition, Facebook’s market entry, and Facebook’s subsequent rise tells the story of Facebook’s monopoly power. However, the history which elucidates this firm’s dominance also presents a story of anticompetitive conduct. Facebook’s pattern of false statements and misleading conduct induced consumers to trust and choose Facebook, to the detriment of market competitors and consumers' own welfare. Keywords: antitrust, competition law, two-sided platforms, two-sided markets, facebook, big tech, anticompetitive, consumer welfare, privacy, democracy, commercial surveillance, surveillance, monopoly power, collusion, sherman act, antitrust (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

May 2, 2019