January 2020 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] An open letter to Google

by Stefano Quintarelli

guarda questi https://e.foundation/smartphone-con-e-preinstallato/?lang=it On 14/01/2020 13:29, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote: > Stefano Quintarelli <stefano(a)quintarelli.it> writes: > >> Niente è più irresistibile di una idea il cui tempo sia giunto >> >> #deviceneutrality > > concordo! > > tipo questo: > https://shop.puri.sm/shop/librem-5/ (decisamente fuori budget per me) > > o altro: https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v10/ > > [...] > > Saluti, Giovanni > -- reserve your meeting with me at https://cal.quintarelli.it

Jan. 14, 2020

Re: [nexa] An open letter to Google

by Giovanni Biscuolo

Stefano Quintarelli <stefano(a)quintarelli.it> writes: > Niente è più irresistibile di una idea il cui tempo sia giunto > > #deviceneutrality concordo! tipo questo: https://shop.puri.sm/shop/librem-5/ (decisamente fuori budget per me) o altro: https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v10/ [...] Saluti, Giovanni -- Giovanni Biscuolo Xelera IT Infrastructures

Jan. 14, 2020

Re: [nexa] An open letter to Google

by Stefano Quintarelli

Niente è più irresistibile di una idea il cui tempo sia giunto #deviceneutrality On 14/01/2020 12:02, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > Credo non sia passata in lista: > https://privacyinternational.org/advocacy/3320/open-letter-google > > Giacomo > > ____ > > Dear Mr. Pichai, > > We, the undersigned, agree with you: privacy cannot be a luxury > offered only to those people who can afford it. > > And yet, Android Partners - who use the Android trademark and branding > - are manufacturing devices that contain pre-installed apps that > cannot be deleted (often known as "bloatware"), which can leave users > vulnerable to their data being collected, shared and exposed without > their knowledge or consent. > > These phones carry the "Google Play Protect" branding, but research > shows that 91% of pre-installed apps do not appear in Google Play – > Google’s app store. > > These pre-installed apps can have privileged custom permissions that > let them operate outside the Android security model. This means > permissions can be defined by the app - including access to the > microphone, camera and location - without triggering the standard > Android security prompts. Users are therefore completely in the dark > about these serious intrusions. > > We are concerned that this leaves users vulnerable to the exploitative > business practices of cheap smartphone manufacturers around the world. > > The changes we believe are needed most urgently are as follows: > > - Individuals should be able to permanently uninstall the apps > on their phones. This should include any related background > services that continue to run even if the apps are disabled. > - Pre-installed apps should adhere to the same scrutiny as > Play Store apps, especially in relation to custom permissions. > - Pre-installed apps should have some update mechanism, > preferably through Google Play and without a user account. > Google should refuse to certify a device on privacy grounds, > where manufacturers or vendors have attempted to exploit users in this way. > > We, the undersigned, believe these fair and reasonable changes would > make a huge difference to millions of people around the world who > should not have to trade their privacy and security for access to a > smartphone. > > We urge you to use your position as an influential agent in the > ecosystem to protect people and stop manufacturers from exploiting > them in a race to the bottom on the pricing of smartphones. > _______________________________________________ > 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 https://cal.quintarelli.it

Jan. 14, 2020

An open letter to Google

by Giacomo Tesio

Credo non sia passata in lista: https://privacyinternational.org/advocacy/3320/open-letter-google Giacomo ____ Dear Mr. Pichai, We, the undersigned, agree with you: privacy cannot be a luxury offered only to those people who can afford it. And yet, Android Partners - who use the Android trademark and branding - are manufacturing devices that contain pre-installed apps that cannot be deleted (often known as "bloatware"), which can leave users vulnerable to their data being collected, shared and exposed without their knowledge or consent. These phones carry the "Google Play Protect" branding, but research shows that 91% of pre-installed apps do not appear in Google Play – Google’s app store. These pre-installed apps can have privileged custom permissions that let them operate outside the Android security model. This means permissions can be defined by the app - including access to the microphone, camera and location - without triggering the standard Android security prompts. Users are therefore completely in the dark about these serious intrusions. We are concerned that this leaves users vulnerable to the exploitative business practices of cheap smartphone manufacturers around the world. The changes we believe are needed most urgently are as follows: - Individuals should be able to permanently uninstall the apps on their phones. This should include any related background services that continue to run even if the apps are disabled. - Pre-installed apps should adhere to the same scrutiny as Play Store apps, especially in relation to custom permissions. - Pre-installed apps should have some update mechanism, preferably through Google Play and without a user account. Google should refuse to certify a device on privacy grounds, where manufacturers or vendors have attempted to exploit users in this way. We, the undersigned, believe these fair and reasonable changes would make a huge difference to millions of people around the world who should not have to trade their privacy and security for access to a smartphone. We urge you to use your position as an influential agent in the ecosystem to protect people and stop manufacturers from exploiting them in a race to the bottom on the pricing of smartphones.

Jan. 14, 2020

NYTimes: Prime Leverage: How Amazon Wields Power in the Technology World

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Prime Leverage: How Amazon Wields Power in the Technology World https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/15/technology/amazon-aws-cloud-competition.… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

Jan. 14, 2020

Consultazione: 2025 Strategia per l’innovazione tecnologica e la digitalizzazione del Paese

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Consultazione aperta fino al 30 aprile: https://partecipa.gov.it/processes/innovazione-tecnologica jc (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

Jan. 13, 2020

Microsoft: Developer's Mind Control (Evangelism is War, ~2000)

by Giacomo Tesio

http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/comes-3096.pdf A distanza di anni mi è ricapitato davanti questo leak di Microsoft risalente al 2000. E' una lettura molto interessante. A pagina 118 abbiamo una slide sul controllo mentale degli sviluppatori: > # Mind Control > > - To control mental output you have to control mental input. > - Take control of the channels by which developers receive information, > - then they can only think about the things you tell them. > - Thus, you control mindshare! Insomma, Google ha perfezionato il metodo... ma non l'ha inventato. Giacomo

Jan. 13, 2020

Re: [nexa] Three years after the W3C approved a DRM standard, it's no longer possible to make a functional indie browser

by Giovanni Biscuolo

Ciao Giacomo, interessante segnalazione sottolineo come il W3C è da qualche tempo nella categoria "worst offender", e in effetti io sono decisamente offeso :-) https://www.defectivebydesign.org/guide/worst-offenders Giacomo Tesio <giacomo(a)tesio.it> writes: > Una ulteriore prospettiva sugli enormi problemi tecno-politici del web > odierno. sì ma "it's no longer possible to make a functional indie browser" è un titolo talmente fuorviante da poter essere tranquillamente definito come falso :-O semmai "it's no longer possible to make a functional indie browser with DRM capabilities" sarebbe un titolo corretto (ma questo vale per **qualsiasi** "indie" software, quasiasi cosa voglia dire) sinceramente a me come utente importa poco a chi è permesso usare o modificare **software proprietario**, se solo a pochi eletti o anche agli "indie": semplicemente essere costretti a usare software proprietatio per poter accedere a contenuti per me è inaccettabile, *quindi* io non voglio accedere a quei contenuti, esattamente come non voglio accedere a qualsiasi altro contenuti _infettati_ coi DRM il software proprietario in questione è il Content Decryption Module (CDM) della specifica Encrypted Media Extension, che nel caso di Chrome/Chromium e di Firefox è Widevine [1] in soldoni, lo "scandalo" sarebbe che gli autori del browser Metastream (e di Brave pare [2]) non hanno ottenuto la licenza per l'uso di Widevine: è una cosa _normale_ quando c'è di mezzo software proprietario non per sminuire la portata della brutta cosa perpetrata dal W3C con l'introduzione dell'estensione EME, ma per metterla al posto giusto questo IMHO significa *anche* che il mito degli standard può cominciare ad essere smontato, perché ormai è chiaro che gli standard **NON** garantiscono l'interoperabilità del software (e manco dell'hardware) ma sono usati per ottenere o difendere posizioni dominanti sul mercato... ma non andrei OT ulteriormente di browser indipendenti senza EME (e senza funzioni pesantemente invasive per la privacy dei naviganti) se ne possono fare volendo, per esempio: 1. ungoogled-chromium: https://guix.gnu.org/packages/ungoogled-chromium-78.0.3904.108-0.8f06513/ 2. next: https://guix.gnu.org/packages/next-1.4.0/ 3. icecat https://guix.gnu.org/packages/icecat-68.4.1-guix0-preview1/ tutto grazie al software libero, non agli standard ciao, Gio' [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widevine [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widevine#Criticism [...] -- Giovanni Biscuolo Xelera IT Infrastructures

Jan. 13, 2020

MIT’s Inconvenient Truth - The Boston Globe

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/01/12/opinion/mits-inconvenient-truth/ (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

Jan. 13, 2020

France's digital minister says tax on big tech is just the start | France | The Guardian

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/12/frances-digital-minister-tax-… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

Jan. 13, 2020