August 2019 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Organisation of a stakeholder dialogue on the application of Article 17 of Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market | Digital Single Market
by J.C. DE MARTIN Aug. 28, 2019

Aug. 28, 2019

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/organisation-stakeholder… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

A Skeptical View of Information Fiduciaries | Open Markets Institute
by J.C. DE MARTIN Aug. 28, 2019

Aug. 28, 2019

In the Harvard Law Review, Lina Khan and David Pozen explore ways to disrupt the emerging consensus by identifying a number of lurking tensions and ambiguities in the theory of information fiduciaries, as well as a number of reasons to doubt the theory’s capacity to resolve them satisfactorily. February 25, 2019 | by Open Markets https://openmarketsinstitute.org/academic-articles-and-papers/skeptical-vie… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

China’s Long March to Technological Supremacy
by J.C. DE MARTIN Aug. 28, 2019

Aug. 28, 2019

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2019-08-27/chinas-long-march-… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

All EFF’d Up | Yasha Levine
by J.C. DE MARTIN Aug. 27, 2019

Aug. 27, 2019

All EFF’d Up Silicon Valley’s astroturf privacy shakedown https://thebaffler.com/salvos/all-effd-up-levine (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

4 3

Chinese Agencies 'Crack Telegram': A Timely Warning For End-To-End Encryption
by Luigi Scorca Aug. 27, 2019

Aug. 27, 2019

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/08/25/chinese-agencies-crack-t… Luigi

1 0

Google, University of Chicago named in suit charging misuse of patient data | Healthcare IT News
by J.C. DE MARTIN Aug. 25, 2019

Aug. 25, 2019

The class action complaint alleges that, despite being deidentified, Google's expertise in data mining and AI makes it "uniquely able to determine the identity" of the medical records shared with it by the university. Google, University of Chicago named in suit charging misuse of patient data By Nathan Eddy July 01, 2019 04:03 PM https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/google-university-chicago-named-suit-… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Deconstructing Google’s excuses on tracking protection
by J.C. DE MARTIN Aug. 24, 2019

Aug. 24, 2019

https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2019/08/23/deconstructing-googles-excuses-on-… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Apple Isn't Disrupting Banks, It Is Helping Them
by J.C. DE MARTIN Aug. 24, 2019

Aug. 24, 2019

https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2019/08/21/apple-and-the-banks/ (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Report: A Crackdown On The Use Of Face Recognition Tech Is Brewing In The EU | Gizmodo Australia
by Alberto Cammozzo Aug. 24, 2019

Aug. 24, 2019

<https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/08/a-crackdown-on-the-use-of-face-recogniti…> [...] The EU has regulation in the works that will give citizens more power over how their facial recognition data is used, senior officials told the Financial Times. The plan will reportedly limit “the indiscriminate use of facial recognition technology” by both companies as well as public authorities. It will also give citizens the right to know when their facial recognition data is being used, according to a source who spoke with the Financial Times. According to the report, the restrictions on face recognition tech are part of a broader plan to address the use of artificial intelligence and to “foster public trust and acceptance” in this type of technology. A document obtained by the Financial Times stated that the intention is to “set a world-standard for AI regulation” with “clear, predictable and uniform rules … which adequately protect individuals.” “AI applications can pose significant risks to fundamental rights,” the document reportedly states. “Unregulated AI systems may take decisions affecting citizens without explanation, possibility of recourse or even a responsible interlocutor.” There have been a number of reports on how facial recognition tech has been inaccurate, misused, and abused, ranging from the tremendously dumb to unsettlingly disturbing and, in some cases, life-endangering. Which is oftentimes the point. The reported EU plan to target “indiscriminate” usage of facial recognition tech in public areas would extend to both public and private entities. Officials and private companies have mostly been able to continue to deploy this technology in flawed and unethical ways because there are very few explicit laws and legal requirements for transparency that would effectively limit or end their usage. The EU’s plans are reportedly still in their early stages, so it’s unclear what the exact parameters of the regulation will be. Still, sweeping legislation drafted to address technology that, unfortunately, is already being irresponsibly utilised is progress. The U.S. has yet to consider such a far-reaching plan, however, there has been some progress, with three U.S. cities instituting bans on the technology and others considering similar prohibitions. It’s also unclear if a massive surveillance system can coexist with individual rights to privacy and data. Sure, granting individuals the right to know exactly how their biometric data is being used is an important step toward transparency, but if they don’t like what they learn, what recourse will they have? And while some regulation is better than no regulation, some human rights advocates and ethical technologists might argue that simply putting limitations on a technology that can easily target vulnerable communities is not enough — that instead, we should ban it outright. Not all privacy experts believe that the technology needs to be banned everywhere forever. Appropriate uses cases may be possible. But while we’re seeing a litany of abuses, and until it’s proven that this technology causes more good than harm, it shouldn’t be used, especially by powerful government agencies and private corporations. It’s an argument the EU should consider as it decides how to ensure this invasive technology isn’t abused. Ultimately, its most ethical deployment may be no deployment at all.

1 0

Ethically Aligned Design, First Edition (EAD1e) | IEEE
by Alberto Cammozzo Aug. 24, 2019

Aug. 24, 2019

<https://ethicsinaction.ieee.org/> We released Ethically Aligned Design, Version 1 (EADv1) as a Request for Input in December of 2016 and received over two hundred pages of in-depth feedback about the draft. We subsequently released Ethically Aligned Design, Version 2 (EADv2) in December 2017 and received over three hundred pages of in-depth feedback about the draft. Since that time, over one thousand people from the realms of business, academia and policy helped write, edit, and review Ethically Aligned Design, First Edition.

1 0