June 2019 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

FSFE: Tre conclusioni da trarre dal caso Google-Huawei

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://fsfe.org/news/2019/news-20190520-01.it.html (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

June 30, 2019

Engineering standards have long supported the world economy. But future challenges abound. | MIT Sloan

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/engineering-standards-have-lo… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

June 30, 2019

Harnessing artificial intelligence | European Council on Foreign Relations

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://www.ecfr.eu/publications/summary/harnessing_artificial_intelligence# SUMMARY Artificial intelligence is impossible to disregard – it is set to transform society, the economy, and politics. Europe has not yet taken all the steps it needs to benefit from these advances or to protect itself from AI’s potentially dangerous aspects. The US, China, and Russia are alert to AI’s power to change modern warfare: they grasp the geopolitics of AI and may pursue techno-nationalist agendas in recognition of this. Europe can develop sovereignty in AI by beefing up the talent, data, and hardware it draws on; and as a “regulatory superpower” it can set standards the rest of the world will have to follow. If Europe does not address these difficult questions soon it will find itself surrounded by more powerful rivals deploying AI against it. (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

June 29, 2019

Re: [nexa] EU should ban AI-powered citizen scoring and mass surveillance, say experts - The Verge

by Andrea Glorioso

E' una tattica abbastanza banale (ma non per questo meno fastidiosa, per i motivi che Stefano ha succintamente e molto chiaramente illustrato) per ottenere visibilità mediatica che altrimenti sarebbe difficile avere, soprattutto quando si fa parte di un gruppo molto grande come quello in oggetto. P.S.: per chiarezza non sto entrando nel merito della sostanza delle critiche, solo osservare qual è il fine tipico di tali commenti *ex post*. Ciao, Andrea On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 12:47 PM Stefano Quintarelli <stefano(a)quintarelli.it> wrote: > > "recommendations have also been criticized as lacking enforceability" > dice l'articolo > > "The European Union should consider the setting up an institutional > structure [autorita', agenzia, whatever n.d.r.] for Trustworthy AI to > fill an existing governance gap. It would be tasked with the following > missions: > - Contribute to developing the EU’s framework and policy for Trustworthy > AI, ensuring that AI is lawful, ethical and robust, by advising EU > institutions and supporting them in the implementation of such > framework; > - Oversee politically defined system-wide targets for AI applications > that can significantly impact individuals and society, considering > systemic effects both in terms of benefits and risks;" > > dice il report, inter alia.. (che e' lo stesso percorso del edps) > > > > sembra che ci sia un pattern di chi, partecipando alle riunioni, > - potendolo fare, non produce una dissenting opinion da allegare al > documento; > - non essendo tenuto a farlo, sottoscrive il documento > salvo poi criticarlo lo stesso giorno della pubblicazione su altro mezzo > di comunicazione. > > la volta scorsa lo aveva fatto il filosofo tedesco, questa volta la > rappresentane di access now. > mah, vai a sapere che cosa le e' frullato.. magari avra' ricevuto > pressioni all'interno della sua organizzazione (?) > > > ciao, s. > > > > On 27/06/2019 19:46, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > > > > > https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/26/18759447/eu-ai-ethical-policy-recommenda… > > > > > > EU should ban AI-powered citizen scoring and mass surveillance, say > > experts > > > > New recommendations have also been criticized as lacking enforceability > > > > * By James Vincent <https://www.theverge.com/authors/james-vincent> > > * on June 26, 2019 7:30 am > > > > > > (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > -- -- Andrea Glorioso Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro

June 29, 2019

Cambridge Analytica: il Garante privacy multa Facebook per 1 milione di euro

by Guido Noto La Diega

Il Garante per la protezione dei dati personali ha applicato a Facebook una sanzione di 1 milione di euro <https://www.garanteprivacy.it/garante/doc.jsp?ID=9121486> per gli illeciti compiuti nell’ambito del caso“Cambridge Analytica” <https://www.garanteprivacy.it/garante/doc.jsp?ID=8376626>, la società che attraverso un app per test psicologici aveva avuto accesso ai dati di 87 milioni di utenti e li aveva usati per tentare di influenzare le presidenziali americane del 2016. La sanzione, comminata sulla base del vecchio Codice Privacy, fa seguito al provvedimento del Garante <https://www.garanteprivacy.it/garante/doc.jsp?ID=9080914> del gennaio di quest’anno con il quale l’Autorità aveva vietato a Facebook di continuare a trattare i dati degli utenti italiani. Il Garante aveva infatti accertato che 57 italiani avevano scaricato l’app Thisisyourdigitallife attraverso la funzione Facebook login e che, in base alla possibilità consentita da questa funzione di condividere i dati degli “amici”, l’applicazione aveva poi acquisito i dati di ulteriori 214.077 utenti italiani, senza che questi l’avessero scaricata, fossero stati informati della cessione dei loro dati e avessero espresso il proprio consenso a questa cessione. La comunicazione da parte di FB dei dati alla app Thisisyourdigitallife era dunque avvenuta in maniera non conforme alla normativa sulla privacy. I dati non erano comunque stati trasmessi a Cambridge Analytica. A Facebook il Garante aveva già contestato nel marzo di quest’anno le violazioni della mancata informativa, della mancata acquisizione del consenso e del mancato idoneo riscontro ad una richiesta di informazioni ed esibizione di documenti. Per queste violazioni Facebook si è avvalsa della possibilità di estinguere il procedimento sanzionatorio mediante il pagamento in misura ridotta di una somma pari a 52.000 euro. Poiché, però, le violazioni su informativa e consenso erano state commesse in riferimento ad una banca dati di particolare rilevanza e dimensioni - fattispecie questa per la quale non è ammesso il pagamento in misura ridotta - il Garante ha oggi applicato anche una sanzione di 1 milione. La somma tiene conto, oltre che della imponenza del database, anche delle condizioni economiche di Facebook e del numero di utenti mondiali e italiani della società. Qua il testo dell'ordinanza ingiunzione -- Guido Guido Noto La Diega, PhD FHEA Senior Lecturer / International Research Partnerships Coordinator @NorthumbriaLaw Director @italiot | Fellow @nexacenter | Co-convenor @NinsoRig | Co-founder @DPA2018 Northumbria Law School, City Campus East, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST notoladiega(a)gmail.com <noto.la.diega(a)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.

June 29, 2019

We Don’t Need Zuckbucks

by J.C. DE MARTIN

We Don’t Need Zuckbucks NICOLE M. ASCHOFF Facebook is joining a long tradition of companies minting their own currency to cement their monopoly over the infrastructure of social and economic life. Now is the time to stop tech titans like Mark Zuckerberg in their tracks — before they amass even more power. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/06/facebook-libra-cryptocurrency-tech-indus… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

June 28, 2019

Nationalizing IXPs

by Luca TOP-IX

Visto che a volte l’idea viene in mente a qualche politico nazionale, in Uganda ci stanno lavorando seriamente…. http://blog.uixp.co.ug/2019/06/nationalization-in-uganda-looming.html Il blog riporta chiaramente tutti i pericoli di una simile iniziativa. -- Luca

June 28, 2019

What can Wikipedia tell us about human interaction?

by J.C. DE MARTIN

What can Wikipedia tell us about human interaction? https://actu.epfl.ch/news/what-can-wikipedia-tell-us-about-human-interactio… EPFL researchers have studied the dynamics of network structures using one of the world’s most-visited websites: Wikipedia. In addition to a better understanding of online networks, their work brings exciting insights into human social behavior and collective memory. (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

June 28, 2019

Re: [nexa] EU should ban AI-powered citizen scoring and mass surveillance, say experts - The Verge

by Stefano Quintarelli

"recommendations have also been criticized as lacking enforceability" dice l'articolo "The European Union should consider the setting up an institutional structure [autorita', agenzia, whatever n.d.r.] for Trustworthy AI to fill an existing governance gap. It would be tasked with the following missions: - Contribute to developing the EU’s framework and policy for Trustworthy AI, ensuring that AI is lawful, ethical and robust, by advising EU institutions and supporting them in the implementation of such framework; - Oversee politically defined system-wide targets for AI applications that can significantly impact individuals and society, considering systemic effects both in terms of benefits and risks;" dice il report, inter alia.. (che e' lo stesso percorso del edps) sembra che ci sia un pattern di chi, partecipando alle riunioni, - potendolo fare, non produce una dissenting opinion da allegare al documento; - non essendo tenuto a farlo, sottoscrive il documento salvo poi criticarlo lo stesso giorno della pubblicazione su altro mezzo di comunicazione. la volta scorsa lo aveva fatto il filosofo tedesco, questa volta la rappresentane di access now. mah, vai a sapere che cosa le e' frullato.. magari avra' ricevuto pressioni all'interno della sua organizzazione (?) ciao, s. On 27/06/2019 19:46, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > > https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/26/18759447/eu-ai-ethical-policy-recommenda… > > > EU should ban AI-powered citizen scoring and mass surveillance, say > experts > > New recommendations have also been criticized as lacking enforceability > > * By James Vincent <https://www.theverge.com/authors/james-vincent> > * on June 26, 2019 7:30 am > > > (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any)) > > _______________________________________________ > 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

June 28, 2019

Amazon Is Watching – OneZero

by Alberto Cammozzo

<https://onezero.medium.com/amazon-is-watching-d51b20f1668a> When you think of Amazon, you might think of comparison shopping from your couch, buying exactly what you want, for less than you’d pay at the store. You might think of a delivery person dropping a package at your door, right on time, and how if there’s anything amiss you can send it back for a full refund. You might think of asking Alexa to play a song or a TV show or turn on the lights, and the marvel of how it all just works (usually). You might think of a Prime members’ discount on avocados at Whole Foods, which Amazon acquired in 2017. Amazon’s reputation for serving its customers with low prices and ruthless efficiency might help to explain why, in survey after survey, the Seattle-based company ranks as America’s most valuable — nay, most loved — brand. One recent study found that Amazon is the second most-trusted institution of any kind in the United States, ahead of Google, the police, and the higher-education system, and trailing only the U.S. military. At a time when an endless string of privacy and election scandals has left Facebook’s reputation in smoldering ruins, and Google’s has been dented by YouTube’s radicalization and content moderation woes, Amazon’s is stronger than ever. But Amazon’s public image as a cheerfully dependable “everything store” belies the vast and secretive behemoth that it has become — and how the products it’s building today could erode our privacy not just online but also in the physical world. Even as rival tech companies reassess their data practices, rethink their responsibilities, and call for new regulations, Amazon is doubling down on surveillance devices, disclaiming responsibility for how its technology is used, and dismissing concerns raised by academics, the media, politicians, and its own employees. “We’re all hoping they’re not making a panopticon,” says Lindsey Barrett, staff attorney at Georgetown Law’s Institute for Public Representation. Last month, the institute, serving as counsel to a group of 19 watchdog groups, called on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Amazon for alleged violations of the federal law protecting children’s online privacy. Among other concerns, they found that Amazon’s Echo Dot Kids Edition smart speaker retained children’s voice recordings and personal data even after parents tried to delete them. Amazon blamed at least part of the problem on a software bug, which it says it has since fixed. While the outcome of that case remains to be seen, the complaint represents just the tip of the iceberg. The Amazon of today runs enormous swaths of the public internet; uses artificial intelligence to crunch data for many of the world’s largest companies and institutions, including the CIA; tracks user shopping habits to build detailed profiles for targeted advertising; and sells cloud-connected, A.I.-powered speakers and screens for our homes. It acquired a company that makes mesh Wi-Fi routers that have access to our private Internet traffic. Through Amazon’s subsidiary Ring, it is putting surveillance cameras on millions of people’s doorbells and inviting them to share the footage with their neighbors and the police on a crime-focused social network. It is selling face recognition systems to police and private companies. The Amazon of tomorrow, as sketched out in patents, contract bids, and marketing materials, could be more omnipresent still. Imagine Ring doorbell cameras so ubiquitous that you can’t walk down a street without triggering alerts to your neighbors and police. Imagine that these cameras have face recognition systems built in, and can work together as a network to identify people deemed suspicious. Imagine Ring surveillance cameras on cars and delivery drones, Ring baby monitors in nurseries, and Amazon Echo devices everywhere from schools to hotels to hospitals. Now imagine that all these Alexa-powered speakers and displays can recognize your voice and analyze your speech patterns to tell when you’re angry, sick, or considering a purchase. A 2015 patent filing reported last week by the Telegraph described a system that Amazon called “surveillance as a service,” which seems like an apt term for many of the products it’s already selling. [...]

June 27, 2019