February 2020 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Ricerca del MIT boccia una delle prime app per il voto digitale USA

by Federico Bo

Con il reverse engineering i ricercatori hanno demolito l'app Voatz, usata in varie elezioni, municipali, statali e federali USA: in sintesi, non è affidabile e sicura. Tra le tante criticità del voto digitalec'è la mancanza di trasparenza delle aziende che producono sistemi e app, con o senza blockchain. Oltre naturalmente al fatto che sono estremamente vulnerabili, figlie di uno sciatto (o furbo) approccio "idealistico". https://internetpolicy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/SecurityAnalysisO… -- Ing. Federico Bo /federicobo.eu <https://www.federicobo.eu/>/

Feb. 21, 2020

Re: [nexa] Washington Passes Government Facial Recognition Rules

by Stefano Quintarelli

On 21/02/2020 11:08, Alberto Cammozzo wrote: > > > On 21/02/2020 10:41, Stefano Quintarelli wrote: >> interessante >> sta imponendo limiti anche ai privati. >> >> il problema con la persona che puo' cambiare decisione e' che non lo >> fara' perche' i suoi incentivi sono a confermare la predizione del >> sistema, anche se non e' d'accordo. >> >> sono sempre piu' convinto che servira' qualche forma di prediction >> poisoning >> https://5ta.it/cm/d5f6 >> > Interessante la parte sugli incentivi e sono d'accordo: l'asimmetria > informativa genera selezione avversa (Akerlof, George A., 1970,. "The > Market for 'Lemons': Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism". > /Quarterly Journal of Economics/. The MIT Press. *84*) > > Sul poisoning sono perplesso: può funzionare, ma chi si prende la > responsabilità del poisoning, cioè di aver deliberatamente fatto > sbagliare la macchina per rendere l'umano attento? se leggi bene la mia proposta, non ci sono effetti collaterali negativi che possono emergere dal processo che delineo. e' un modo per invocare un third opinion. > > Imho, per via dell'automation paradox, "human-over-the-loop" non può > funzionare. O è dentro o è fuori. > Se è dentro decide, se è fuori non serve. se e' dentro, in alcuni use case decide come la macchina, perche' i suoi incentivi vanno in quella direzione > Se decide, i motivi per la decisione devono essere interni all'umano > perchè possa risponderne, con dispositivi di supporto alla decisione > esterni, al caso, del cui output risponde chi li produce. sarebbe bello, ma temo che sia idealistico... ciao, s. > > ciao, > A. > >> ciao, s. >> >> >> >> On 21/02/2020 10:27, Alberto Cammozzo wrote: >>> <https://www.govtech.com/policy/Washington-Passes-Government-Facial-Recognit…> >>> >>> >>> >>> (TNS) — Washington state senators Wednesday approved a bill that would >>> begin regulating the use of facial-recognition programs by local and >>> state governments. >>> >>> Sponsored by Sen. Joe Nguyen, D-White Center, Senate Bill 6280 is one of >>> a series of legislative proposals this year to counter technology that >>> is evolving fast, regulated little and all but opaque to most residents. >>> >>> Facial recognition has been a particular concern, with worries that its >>> use by law enforcement comes before the programs even can accurately >>> >>> A landmark federal study released in December found that >>> facial-recognition programs were misidentifying people of color more >>> often than white people; women more often than men; and children and >>> elderly people more often than people in other age ranges. >>> >>> The bill now goes to the House for consideration. >>> >>> Among other things, SB 6280 prohibits state and local government >>> agencies from using facial recognition for ongoing surveillance in most >>> instances. >>> >>> That surveillance would be allowed in support of law enforcement with a >>> search warrant or an agency director’s determination under some >>> conditions, such as an emergency that involves risk of death. >>> >>> The legislation requires that any decisions made based on >>> facial-recognition programs that have a legal impact be reviewed by an >>> agency worker with training on facial recognition who has authority to >>> change the decision, according to a legislative analysis. Examples of >>> such decisions include the granting or denying of financial loans, >>> housing, health care or employment opportunities. >>> >>> SB 6280 requires programs that have a legal impact to be tested by >>> governments before being deployed. It sets training standards for >>> government employees handling personal data gleaned from facial >>> recognition. >>> >>> The bill also requires governments to issue annual reports disclosing >>> how they use facial recognition and to hold community meetings on the >>> reports. >>> >>> But Nguyen’s proposal — like another bill championed by Senate lawmakers >>> to regulate how companies use personal data and facial recognition — >>> could face resistance in the House. >>> >>> There, some lawmakers have instead wanted to temporarily stop >>> governments from using facial recognition. >>> >>> Rep. Debra Entenman, D-Kent, sponsored one such proposal. House Bill >>> 2856 would prohibit facial-recognition programs by local and state >>> government until July 1, 2023. >>> >>> The bill passed a committee vote earlier this month but did not get a >>> vote of the full House by a key deadline Wednesday. >>> >>> Entenman described the debate over facial recognition as a question of >>> fundamental privacy rights, and “about having a technology that is not >>> ready to be used in the public sphere.” >>> >>> Additionally, “As an African American woman, I am of course concerned >>> about the fact that law enforcement and others believe that this >>> technology will make people safer,” she said. >>> >>> Rep. Matt Boehnke, R-Kennewick said he would like to see something >>> between Nguyen’s proposal and Entenman’s bill. >>> >>> Boehnke — who worked on digital-data issues while in the U.S. Army — >>> suggested a shorter moratorium of about a year so lawmakers to assess >>> how facial recognition is being used by governments. >>> >>> “These are critical issues,” said Boehnke, assistant ranking Republican >>> on the House Innovation, Technology & Economic Development Committee. >>> “And we need to start seeing what’s going on.” >>> >>> In a speech before the Senate passed his bill 30 to 18, Nguyen called it >>> necessary to “implement strong moral guardrails” for facial-recognition >>> programs. >>> >>> “Right now, facial-recognition technology is being used unchecked and >>> with little recourse,” Nguyen said. “And tech companies generally don’t >>> care about the moral values of the products they are creating.” >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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

Feb. 21, 2020

Re: [nexa] Washington Passes Government Facial Recognition Rules

by Alberto Cammozzo

On 21/02/2020 10:41, Stefano Quintarelli wrote: > interessante > sta imponendo limiti anche ai privati. > > il problema con la persona che puo' cambiare decisione e' che non lo > fara' perche' i suoi incentivi sono a confermare la predizione del > sistema, anche se non e' d'accordo. > > sono sempre piu' convinto che servira' qualche forma di prediction > poisoning > https://5ta.it/cm/d5f6 > Interessante la parte sugli incentivi e sono d'accordo: l'asimmetria informativa genera selezione avversa (Akerlof, George A., 1970,. "The Market for 'Lemons': Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism". /Quarterly Journal of Economics/. The MIT Press. *84*) Sul poisoning sono perplesso: può funzionare, ma chi si prende la responsabilità del poisoning, cioè di aver deliberatamente fatto sbagliare la macchina per rendere l'umano attento? Imho, per via dell'automation paradox, "human-over-the-loop" non può funzionare. O è dentro o è fuori. Se è dentro decide, se è fuori non serve. Se decide, i motivi per la decisione devono essere interni all'umano perchè possa risponderne, con dispositivi di supporto alla decisione esterni, al caso, del cui output risponde chi li produce. ciao, A. > ciao, s. > > > > On 21/02/2020 10:27, Alberto Cammozzo wrote: >> <https://www.govtech.com/policy/Washington-Passes-Government-Facial-Recognit…> >> >> >> >> (TNS) — Washington state senators Wednesday approved a bill that would >> begin regulating the use of facial-recognition programs by local and >> state governments. >> >> Sponsored by Sen. Joe Nguyen, D-White Center, Senate Bill 6280 is one of >> a series of legislative proposals this year to counter technology that >> is evolving fast, regulated little and all but opaque to most residents. >> >> Facial recognition has been a particular concern, with worries that its >> use by law enforcement comes before the programs even can accurately >> >> A landmark federal study released in December found that >> facial-recognition programs were misidentifying people of color more >> often than white people; women more often than men; and children and >> elderly people more often than people in other age ranges. >> >> The bill now goes to the House for consideration. >> >> Among other things, SB 6280 prohibits state and local government >> agencies from using facial recognition for ongoing surveillance in most >> instances. >> >> That surveillance would be allowed in support of law enforcement with a >> search warrant or an agency director’s determination under some >> conditions, such as an emergency that involves risk of death. >> >> The legislation requires that any decisions made based on >> facial-recognition programs that have a legal impact be reviewed by an >> agency worker with training on facial recognition who has authority to >> change the decision, according to a legislative analysis. Examples of >> such decisions include the granting or denying of financial loans, >> housing, health care or employment opportunities. >> >> SB 6280 requires programs that have a legal impact to be tested by >> governments before being deployed. It sets training standards for >> government employees handling personal data gleaned from facial >> recognition. >> >> The bill also requires governments to issue annual reports disclosing >> how they use facial recognition and to hold community meetings on the >> reports. >> >> But Nguyen’s proposal — like another bill championed by Senate lawmakers >> to regulate how companies use personal data and facial recognition — >> could face resistance in the House. >> >> There, some lawmakers have instead wanted to temporarily stop >> governments from using facial recognition. >> >> Rep. Debra Entenman, D-Kent, sponsored one such proposal. House Bill >> 2856 would prohibit facial-recognition programs by local and state >> government until July 1, 2023. >> >> The bill passed a committee vote earlier this month but did not get a >> vote of the full House by a key deadline Wednesday. >> >> Entenman described the debate over facial recognition as a question of >> fundamental privacy rights, and “about having a technology that is not >> ready to be used in the public sphere.” >> >> Additionally, “As an African American woman, I am of course concerned >> about the fact that law enforcement and others believe that this >> technology will make people safer,” she said. >> >> Rep. Matt Boehnke, R-Kennewick said he would like to see something >> between Nguyen’s proposal and Entenman’s bill. >> >> Boehnke — who worked on digital-data issues while in the U.S. Army — >> suggested a shorter moratorium of about a year so lawmakers to assess >> how facial recognition is being used by governments. >> >> “These are critical issues,” said Boehnke, assistant ranking Republican >> on the House Innovation, Technology & Economic Development Committee. >> “And we need to start seeing what’s going on.” >> >> In a speech before the Senate passed his bill 30 to 18, Nguyen called it >> necessary to “implement strong moral guardrails” for facial-recognition >> programs. >> >> “Right now, facial-recognition technology is being used unchecked and >> with little recourse,” Nguyen said. “And tech companies generally don’t >> care about the moral values of the products they are creating.” >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >> >

Feb. 21, 2020

La conservazione dei documenti informatici non si fa in cloud o in blockchain

by don Luca Peyron

Lucide considerazioni. Buon lettura dl https://anorc.eu/attivita/la-conservazione-dei-documenti-informatici-non-si… _________________________ www.universitari.to.it via XX settembre 83, Torino tel. 011 5156239

Feb. 21, 2020

Re: [nexa] Washington Passes Government Facial Recognition Rules

by Stefano Quintarelli

interessante sta imponendo limiti anche ai privati. il problema con la persona che puo' cambiare decisione e' che non lo fara' perche' i suoi incentivi sono a confermare la predizione del sistema, anche se non e' d'accordo. sono sempre piu' convinto che servira' qualche forma di prediction poisoning https://5ta.it/cm/d5f6 ciao, s. On 21/02/2020 10:27, Alberto Cammozzo wrote: > <https://www.govtech.com/policy/Washington-Passes-Government-Facial-Recognit…> > > > (TNS) — Washington state senators Wednesday approved a bill that would > begin regulating the use of facial-recognition programs by local and > state governments. > > Sponsored by Sen. Joe Nguyen, D-White Center, Senate Bill 6280 is one of > a series of legislative proposals this year to counter technology that > is evolving fast, regulated little and all but opaque to most residents. > > Facial recognition has been a particular concern, with worries that its > use by law enforcement comes before the programs even can accurately > > A landmark federal study released in December found that > facial-recognition programs were misidentifying people of color more > often than white people; women more often than men; and children and > elderly people more often than people in other age ranges. > > The bill now goes to the House for consideration. > > Among other things, SB 6280 prohibits state and local government > agencies from using facial recognition for ongoing surveillance in most > instances. > > That surveillance would be allowed in support of law enforcement with a > search warrant or an agency director’s determination under some > conditions, such as an emergency that involves risk of death. > > The legislation requires that any decisions made based on > facial-recognition programs that have a legal impact be reviewed by an > agency worker with training on facial recognition who has authority to > change the decision, according to a legislative analysis. Examples of > such decisions include the granting or denying of financial loans, > housing, health care or employment opportunities. > > SB 6280 requires programs that have a legal impact to be tested by > governments before being deployed. It sets training standards for > government employees handling personal data gleaned from facial recognition. > > The bill also requires governments to issue annual reports disclosing > how they use facial recognition and to hold community meetings on the > reports. > > But Nguyen’s proposal — like another bill championed by Senate lawmakers > to regulate how companies use personal data and facial recognition — > could face resistance in the House. > > There, some lawmakers have instead wanted to temporarily stop > governments from using facial recognition. > > Rep. Debra Entenman, D-Kent, sponsored one such proposal. House Bill > 2856 would prohibit facial-recognition programs by local and state > government until July 1, 2023. > > The bill passed a committee vote earlier this month but did not get a > vote of the full House by a key deadline Wednesday. > > Entenman described the debate over facial recognition as a question of > fundamental privacy rights, and “about having a technology that is not > ready to be used in the public sphere.” > > Additionally, “As an African American woman, I am of course concerned > about the fact that law enforcement and others believe that this > technology will make people safer,” she said. > > Rep. Matt Boehnke, R-Kennewick said he would like to see something > between Nguyen’s proposal and Entenman’s bill. > > Boehnke — who worked on digital-data issues while in the U.S. Army — > suggested a shorter moratorium of about a year so lawmakers to assess > how facial recognition is being used by governments. > > “These are critical issues,” said Boehnke, assistant ranking Republican > on the House Innovation, Technology & Economic Development Committee. > “And we need to start seeing what’s going on.” > > In a speech before the Senate passed his bill 30 to 18, Nguyen called it > necessary to “implement strong moral guardrails” for facial-recognition > programs. > > “Right now, facial-recognition technology is being used unchecked and > with little recourse,” Nguyen said. “And tech companies generally don’t > care about the moral values of the products they are creating.” > _______________________________________________ > 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

Feb. 21, 2020

Washington Passes Government Facial Recognition Rules

by Alberto Cammozzo

<https://www.govtech.com/policy/Washington-Passes-Government-Facial-Recognit…> (TNS) — Washington state senators Wednesday approved a bill that would begin regulating the use of facial-recognition programs by local and state governments. Sponsored by Sen. Joe Nguyen, D-White Center, Senate Bill 6280 is one of a series of legislative proposals this year to counter technology that is evolving fast, regulated little and all but opaque to most residents. Facial recognition has been a particular concern, with worries that its use by law enforcement comes before the programs even can accurately A landmark federal study released in December found that facial-recognition programs were misidentifying people of color more often than white people; women more often than men; and children and elderly people more often than people in other age ranges. The bill now goes to the House for consideration. Among other things, SB 6280 prohibits state and local government agencies from using facial recognition for ongoing surveillance in most instances. That surveillance would be allowed in support of law enforcement with a search warrant or an agency director’s determination under some conditions, such as an emergency that involves risk of death. The legislation requires that any decisions made based on facial-recognition programs that have a legal impact be reviewed by an agency worker with training on facial recognition who has authority to change the decision, according to a legislative analysis. Examples of such decisions include the granting or denying of financial loans, housing, health care or employment opportunities. SB 6280 requires programs that have a legal impact to be tested by governments before being deployed. It sets training standards for government employees handling personal data gleaned from facial recognition. The bill also requires governments to issue annual reports disclosing how they use facial recognition and to hold community meetings on the reports. But Nguyen’s proposal — like another bill championed by Senate lawmakers to regulate how companies use personal data and facial recognition — could face resistance in the House. There, some lawmakers have instead wanted to temporarily stop governments from using facial recognition. Rep. Debra Entenman, D-Kent, sponsored one such proposal. House Bill 2856 would prohibit facial-recognition programs by local and state government until July 1, 2023. The bill passed a committee vote earlier this month but did not get a vote of the full House by a key deadline Wednesday. Entenman described the debate over facial recognition as a question of fundamental privacy rights, and “about having a technology that is not ready to be used in the public sphere.” Additionally, “As an African American woman, I am of course concerned about the fact that law enforcement and others believe that this technology will make people safer,” she said. Rep. Matt Boehnke, R-Kennewick said he would like to see something between Nguyen’s proposal and Entenman’s bill. Boehnke — who worked on digital-data issues while in the U.S. Army — suggested a shorter moratorium of about a year so lawmakers to assess how facial recognition is being used by governments. “These are critical issues,” said Boehnke, assistant ranking Republican on the House Innovation, Technology & Economic Development Committee. “And we need to start seeing what’s going on.” In a speech before the Senate passed his bill 30 to 18, Nguyen called it necessary to “implement strong moral guardrails” for facial-recognition programs. “Right now, facial-recognition technology is being used unchecked and with little recourse,” Nguyen said. “And tech companies generally don’t care about the moral values of the products they are creating.”

Feb. 21, 2020

[1910.08604] Digital Democracy: Episode IV -- A New Hope, How a Corporation for Public Software Could Transform Digital Engagement for Government and Civil Society

by Alberto Cammozzo

<https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.08604> anche: <https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3342194> Though successive generations of digital technology have become increasingly powerful in the past twenty years, digital democracy has yet to realize its potential for deliberative transformation. The undemocratic exploitation of massive social media systems continued this trend, but it only worsened an existing problem of modern democracies, which were already struggling to develop deliberative infrastructure independent of digital technologies. There have been many creative conceptions of civic tech, but implementation has lagged behind innovation. This essay argues for implementing one such vision of digital democracy through the establishment of a public corporation. Modeled on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in the U.S., this entity would foster the creation of new digital technology by providing a stable source of funding to nonprofit technologists, interest groups, civic organizations, government, researchers, private companies, and the public. Funded entities would produce and maintain software infrastructure for public benefit. The concluding sections identify what circumstances might create and sustain such an entity.

Feb. 21, 2020

Coronavirus: la Gioconda con la mascherina di TVBoy ci ricorda che la vera epidemia sono gli smartphone

by don Luca Peyron

Arte di denuncia? dl https://www.greenme.it/vivere/arte-e-cultura/gioconda-mascherina-smartphone… _________________________ www.universitari.to.it via XX settembre 83, Torino tel. 011 5156239

Feb. 20, 2020

linee guida intelligenza artificiale

by Mauro Alovisio

Gent.me/mi si segnalano le linee guida della commissione Europea uscite ieri 19 febbraio 2020 su intelligenza artificiale con il primo articolo di commento https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/commission-white-paper-artificia… https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/dati-e-intelligenza-artificiale-cosi-ue-col… Cordiali saluti Mauro Alovisio

Feb. 20, 2020

Re: [nexa] "A European strategy for data "

by Roberto Resoli

Il 19/02/20 23:38, J.C. DE MARTIN ha scritto: > COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE > COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF > THE REGIONS > > A European strategy for data > > > Documento (PDF, 35 pagin) in allegato. > > juan carlos Grazie. Nella sezione "European Data Strategy" https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-… Oltre a questo documento c'è anche un riepilogo sintetico in forma grafica: "Factsheet: The European Data Strategy" rob

Feb. 20, 2020