May 2020 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] Immuni - Ampliare uso dell'APP IO appena rilasciata
by Giuseppe Attardi Dec. 5, 2020

Dec. 5, 2020

Bello, così altro che privacy! Lo stato sa nome cognome di tutti coloro che la usano. -- > On 22 Apr 2020, at 13:07, nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it wrote: > > From: Edoardo Lombardo <lombardoedo(a)gmail.com <mailto:lombardoedo@gmail.com>> > To: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> > Subject: [nexa] Immuni - Ampliare uso dell'APP IO appena rilasciata > dal Governo, al posto di IMMUNI > Message-ID: > <CAFF-hbm8XmTLC7prLS0npmbLv1tvd2fRM_bSFzohiJwnBQYFPQ(a)mail.gmail.com <mailto:CAFF-hbm8XmTLC7prLS0npmbLv1tvd2fRM_bSFzohiJwnBQYFPQ@mail.gmail.com>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Cari nexiani, > Ho sottoscritto il vostro appello ai decisori, ma mi permetto di fare una > breve riflessione e una proposta pratica. > > Il Governo ha appena rilasciato la beta di IO https://io.italia.it <https://io.italia.it/> > https://www.agendadigitale.eu/cittadinanza-digitale/lapp-io-pronta-al-lanci… <https://www.agendadigitale.eu/cittadinanza-digitale/lapp-io-pronta-al-lanci…> > > Non sarebbe stato meglio ampliare l'uso di tale APP anche all'emergenza > Coronavirus, al posto di IMMUNI? > > I motivi: > - Incentiverebbe nell'immediato l'uso della piattaforma digitale della PA > tra i cittadini aumentando la cultura di una identità digitale nel rapporto > con lo Stato > - Accesso tramite SPID di 2 livello e 3 livello > - Già in beta test e distribuita > - Integrazione PA > - Integrazione già esistente con i servizi dei Comuni > - Possibilità per il Governo di contattare i cittadini direttamente sui > loro smartphone in modo sicuro e controllato > - Proprietà dello Stato attraverso una controllata > - Compliance GDPR > - Alti standard di sicurezza IT > - Supervisione Agid > - Possibilità futura di integrazione con cartelle cliniche dei cittadini e > integrazione con ospedali > > Alla luce di ciò l'uso di IMMUNI lo trovo superato e potenzialmente > pericoloso per tutti i motivi che sappiamo già. > > La soluzione tecnica (e GDPR *compliant*) c'era. > > Cosa ne pensate? > > Un saluto, > EL >

3 5

Re: [nexa] notizia falsa sul tracciamento di Google su Covid_19
by Diego Ciulli Sept. 11, 2020

Sept. 11, 2020

Buongiorno. Il motivo è che nella configurazione di Android il Bluetooth è collocato sotto le impostazioni di localizzazione. Quindi chiudere tutta la localizzazione a livello di device chiude anche il Bluetooth. Android però permette di impostare le autorizzazioni di geolocalizzazione anche a livello di App - geolocalizzazione consentita sempre/solo durante l'uso/mai. E l'API funziona ovviamente anche se sono disattivate le opzioni di geolocalizzazione per ogni App. Le App di exposure notification COVID che usano le API non possono chiedere la geolocalizzazione. > > Da: Mario Sabatino <sevenofnine(a)riseup.net> > Date: gio 28 mag 2020, 08:42 > Subject: Re: [nexa] notizia falsa sul tracciamento di Google su Covid_19 > To: Fabio Giglietto <fabio.giglietto(a)uniurb.it>, Fabio Giglietto via nexa > <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it>, Aldo Pedico <a.pedico(a)teleion.it> > Cc: Center Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > > > Non capisco perché l'api di Google e Apple chieda di attivare la > geolocalizzazione. V. Screenshot allegato. > > Mario Sabatino > > Il 28 maggio 2020 06:39:25 CEST, Fabio Giglietto via nexa < > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> ha scritto: >> >> >> https://facta.news/notizia-falsa/2020/05/25/no-lapp-immuni-non-e-gia-sugli-… >> >> Il mer 27 mag 2020, 23:37 Aldo Pedico <a.pedico(a)teleion.it> ha scritto: >> >>> *Chiedo conferma a tutti voi sulla veridicità di questa notizia espressa >>> dal giornalista, Edoardo Gagliardi, nella parte iniziale del messaggio >>> video.* >>> >>> >>> >>> *Il giornalista presenta una notifica inviata sull’account di posta >>> dello smartphone da Google, spiegando che Google, a fronte di questa >>> notifica, abbia installato un’applicazione per il tracciamento Covid_19, a >>> insaputa del proprietario dell’apparato e che questa app non sia >>> disinstallabile. Inoltre, questa app fa uso del protocollo Bluetooth e non >>> di posizione o altro.* >>> >>> >>> >>> *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92pPKqGnt8k&feature=youtu.be >>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92pPKqGnt8k&feature=youtu.be>* >>> >>> >>> >>> *Il messaggio di posta nel mio smartphone c’è ma è semplicemente una >>> notifica e non esiste nessuna applicazione.* >>> >>> >>> >>> *Mi sbaglio?* >>> >>> >>> >>> *Aldo* >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> nexa mailing list >>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >>> >> > -- > Mario Sabatino > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >

5 11

Il kernel Linux adotta il Code Of Conduct
by Francesco Mecca Sept. 9, 2020

Sept. 9, 2020

Il mondo del FOSS e piu` in generale quello dell'informatica non e` un universo a se` stante ma coesiste con il mondo della politica e ci interagisce. Il 16 settembre Linus con questa email http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1809.2/00117.html ha annunciato di prendersi una pausa dallo sviluppo del kernel. Inoltre si scusa per il suo comportamento aggressivo: "The above is basically a long-winded way to get to the somewhat painful personal admission that hey, I need to change some of my behavior, and I want to apologize to the people that my personal behavior hurt and possibly drove away from kernel development entirely. I am going to take time off and get some assistance on how to understand people's emotions and respond appropriately." Questo cambiamento, che non ha precedenti in 30 anni di benevola dittatura, rientra nel panorama molto piu` ampio dell'attuale conflitto ideologico fra le vecchie idee di selezione per merito e le piu` nuove idee di selezione per diversita`, fra il "technical coding" e il "social coding", alt-destre e la sinistra culturale. Francesco Mecca

8 52

Contact tracing: to centralise or not to centralise, that is the question | Ada Lovelace Institute
by J.C. DE MARTIN June 6, 2020

June 6, 2020

https://www.adalovelaceinstitute.org/contact-tracing-to-centralise-or-not-t… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

11 25

Facebook and the “Free Speech” Excuse | The New Yorker
by J.C. DE MARTIN May 30, 2020

May 30, 2020

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/facebook-and-the-free-speech-e… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Intervento su StopCovid
by Philippe Aigrain May 30, 2020

May 30, 2020

Sono stato invitato questa mattina sul giornale di France24 (canale pubblico internazionale) per parlare di StopCovid. Il video è qui: http://paigrain.debatpublic.net/?p=10164 C'e anche un post più dettagliato prima dell'approvazione dell'app da parte del parlamento: Stop StopCovid, http://paigrain.debatpublic.net/?p=10151 Philippe

1 0

The Culture War in Open Source is On - The challenges to open source's "noble neutrality."
by Giacomo Tesio May 30, 2020

May 30, 2020

<https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-culture-war-in-open-source-is-on> Perhaps you remember Eric S. Raymond from his memorable essay “The Cathedral and the Bazaar,” or his advice to programmers on “not reacting like a loser,” or his enthusiasm for guns. Regardless, the legendary open-source coder and commentator recently made a brief comeback to the Open Source Initiative, an organization he co-founded in 1998. On February 24, he announced on an OSI email list that “a wild co-founder appears” after being absent for many years. By February 28, after denouncing the “political ratfucking” and “vulgar Marxism” he perceived to be infecting the organization, he was removed from the list for violating the code of conduct—the existence of which he had also railed against. The previous month, also, Raymond’s OSI co-founder Bruce Perens withdrew his membership over an apparently unrelated dispute about a software license. These happenings are not unrelated, really. They are part of what has been variously called “the culture war at the heart of open source” and “the great open source shake-up.” The disputes concern the decades-old legal technology at the heart of the movement known variously as “free software” or “open source”: software licenses, particularly ones that turn proprietary code into a common good. The conflicts at hand raise questions about ethics and economics that the open source establishment believes have long been answered and can be put away for good. Oh, and as programmer Steve Klabnik notes in passing, without further explanation, “I personally think that gender plays a huge role.” Richard Stallman, originator of the first free-and-open license, resigned from the Free Software Foundation last year over comments sympathetic to the late billionaire and molester Jeffrey Epstein. The reputation of Creative Commons founder Lawrence Lessig also took a hit for defending one of Epstein’s enablers. Maybe all this set a mood, heightened the intensity. It is probably not an accident that, in a world where ~95% percent of GitHub contributors identify as male, several of the major partisans in this culture war do not. The bug that has been lurking in the open source codebase all along, for the partisans, might be best summarized as neutrality. The OSI’s Open Source Definition prohibits value judgments about such things as “fields of endeavor,” business models, and technology stacks. The Free Software Foundation puts the idea this way: “The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.” As long as the code remains free and open, users—whether individual or corporate—should not be constrained by a license in what they do or how they make money. Any such constraint, the argument goes, is a slippery slope. During his brief return to OSI’s email lists, Raymond quoted Thomas Paine: “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” Restrict others, and it will come back to haunt you. The challenges to this noble neutrality come in two forms: ethics and economics. On the first front, there is the Ethical Source Movement, the doing of Ruby developer and Model View Culture contributor Coraline Ada Ehmke, against whom Raymond’s worst recent vitriol has been directed. Ethical Source builds on the waves of tech workers rebelling against their bosses for taking contracts with the likes of the Pentagon and ICE. Ethical Source offers its own counter-definition to OSI’s, outlining a type of license that allows developers to restrict certain uses of their software. The handful of compliant licenses prohibit violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for instance, or International Labour Organization standards. The promise is some peace of mind for programmers and perhaps a more ethical world; the danger is a mess of unenforceable licenses whose prohibitions become impossible to keep track of. The second challenge is economic. This has long been a sore spot in open source, which has largely outsourced its economics to companies that might contribute employee time or grants to what projects are building. Those companies also get a lot of the financial rewards, leaving many contributors to offer their unpaid free time—an unequally available resource. New lawyerly efforts, such as Heather Meeker’s PolyForm Project and Kyle E. Mitchell’s License Zero, offer menus of licenses designed to enable certain popular business models. The code is still “source available”—anyone can read it, and use it under certain terms—but there are restrictions to prevent some company from taking it and profiting from others’ work. One PolyForm license permits only small businesses to use the software for free; big corporations have to pay. Again, though, critics fear a free-for-all of licenses that end up piling on restrictions and constraining the commons. Let me get back to that question of gender. From the perspective of the “meritocracy” ideal familiar in tech culture—and much maligned in these pages—the neutrality principle makes sense. The spree of new license-making is confounding. Forget money, forget ideology, we’ll judge you by your code! But through the lens of feminist thought, the challenges should come as no surprise. For instance, feminists have been really good at noticing the undervalued, under-noticed labor propping up everything else—because often it is women doing that stuff. Why not make sure that people creating open code are also the ones receiving financial benefits? Especially since women tend to have far less free time on their hands, getting paid matters. Meanwhile, feminists have stressed that there is really no value-neutral, objective, meritocratic vantage point. All knowledge is situated. There is no excuse for dispensing with ethical discussion and ethical standards. Why not find reasonable ways for groups to articulate and enforce the standards they hold? The more you look at open source through a feminist lens—as I’ve done at greater length elsewhere—the more those two-decade-old certainties start to crack. We need to see those cracks to build better tools. People often talk about open source as a commons, but if you go back and read Elinor Ostrom’s studies on pre-digital practices of commoning around the world, you’ll find that there are some important things missing. (She didn’t identify her work with feminism, but she is still the first woman to have won the Nobel in economics.) Ostrom recognized boundary-making as an essential practice for commoners—defining who is a member and what purpose the commons serves, whether economic, social, or otherwise. She also found that a healthy commons depends on participants having a voice in changing its rules and norms, which is a far cry from the dictatorships-for-life that tend to rule open source. If open source listened better to the legacy of commoning before it, projects wouldn’t just choose a license, they would start by adopting a governance structure and finding a place to manage funds. They would plan for economic and ethical self-determination—autonomy was another principle Ostrom emphasized—rather than outsourcing those matters to corporate whims. Anyway, it is only natural that open source contributors should want to hack the process, not just the software they write. For all that open source has achieved, there is so much more that it hasn’t. “The year of the Linux desktop” has turned from an expectation to a joke, unless you count Google’s Android and Chromebooks. The open Web has closed shut. Surveillance-powered corporate platforms have accumulated power because of, not despite, open source. And the staggering homogeneity that still persists among open source developers testifies to the talent and life experience that their projects are missing. If the early architects of open source feel threatened by a new generation demanding more, that is probably a sign of progress.

1 0

White House: "Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship"
by J.C. DE MARTIN May 30, 2020

May 30, 2020

*Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship* /Issued on: May 28, 2020/ By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people. In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators. The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see. […] Continua qui: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-…

6 5

Teologia, trasformazione digitale e covid 19
by don Luca Peyron May 30, 2020

May 30, 2020

Cari Nexiani, mi permetto di segnalare un webinar sulle questioni in oggetto che affronterà i temi a noi cari con uno sguardo diverso da quelli consueti. A parte chi vi scrive, gli altri due teologi ingaggiati sono persone di valore per cui faccio un po' di auto-altro promozione. Buona visione a chi lo desidera. dl Emergenza Digitale: uso ed abuso del digitale in tempo di Covid 19 - Il 3 giugno alle 18 sul canale youtube dell’Apostolato Digitale Arcidiocesi di Torino <https://www.facebook.com/apostolatodigitale/?__tn__=K-R&eid=ARA-Yo_uC_x6OGE…> Quale impatto ha sulla vita della Chiesa e delle comunità cristiane la trasformazione digitale che stiamo vivendo? La pandemia ha accelerato tale trasformazione in ogni comparto, dunque anche per la pastorale ecclesiale. Nella consapevolezza che si tratta di un cambiamento antropologico e non solo tecnologico, è tempo di cominciare o continuare alcune riflessioni. I due mesi e mezzo di del cosiddetto lock-down, con il divieto di celebrazioni eucaristiche con il popolo e le norme del distanziamento fisico, hanno messo alla prova la creatività digitale dei cattolici, generato buone pratiche e evidenziato limiti. Una Chiesa che si metta all’ascolto dei segni dei tempi è chiamata a integrare la ritrovata presenza fisica con quella digitale portando avanti o inaugurando nuove pratiche. Nel parleranno in un webinar organizzato dal Servizio per l’Apostolato Digitale dell’Arcidiocesi di Torino alcuni esperti moderati da Fabio Colagrande, giornalista della Radio Vaticana. Il 3 giugno alle 18 sul canale youtube dell’Apostolato digitale si confronteranno Assunta Steccanella, docente di teologia pastorale presso la Facoltà Teologica del Triveneto, Massimiliano Padula, docente di Scienze della Comunicazione sociale alla Pontificia Università Lateranense, e don Luca Peyron, docente di teologia della trasformazione digitale all’Università Cattolica di Milano. Durante il live sarà possibile intervenire con domande e richieste di chiarimenti utilizzando la chat del canale. Link alla diretta: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wcwSndv5mY <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wcwSndv5mY&fbclid=IwAR3EhnWSZSpGwZyumdrdVw…> _________________________ www.universitari.to.it via XX settembre 83, Torino tel. 011 5156239

1 0

ACLU sues facial recognition firm Clearview AI, calling it a ‘nightmare scenario’ for privacy - The Verge
by Alberto Cammozzo May 29, 2020

May 29, 2020

<https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/28/21273388/aclu-clearview-ai-lawsuit-facia…> The American Civil Liberties Union is suing controversial facial recognition firm Clearview AI for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), alleging the company illegally collected and stored data on Illinois citizens without their knowledge or consent and then sold access to its technology to law enforcement and private companies. The full complaint is available here. “Unbeknownst to the public, this company has offered up this massive faceprint database to private companies, police, federal agencies, and wealthy individuals, allowing them to secretly track and target whomever they wished using face recognition technology,” writes ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler in a blog post outlining the lawsuit. “That company is Clearview AI, and it will end privacy as we know it if it isn’t stopped.” "“That company is Clearview AI, and it will end privacy as we know it if it isn’t stopped.”" Clearview AI rose to prominence earlier this year thanks to media reports, including a high-profile investigation from The New York Times in January, that revealed its technology is highly accurate and in widespread use throughout both law enforcement agencies and private sector companies. The reason the company’s tool is effective is because Clearview scraped photographs and other data from social media sites against those platforms’ rules, resulting in a database of more than 3 billion images which are then matched against an uploaded photo using sophisticated algorithms trained by machine learning. Tech companies have sent numerous cease and desist orders to Clearview over the past five months, but it’s unclear if the company has ever complied with orders to remove data it’s siphoned from public social networks’ pages and posts. The company has responded to criticism by claiming it would never offer its tool to the public for individual use and more recently said it would stop selling its technology to private companies and focus only on law enforcement. However, numerous media reports have discovered that Clearview provided its product to investors, high-profile executives, and other individuals as part of trial periods to promote the product, and critics fear its facial recognition system is the foundation for rampant civil rights violations. “By building a mass database of billions of faceprints without our knowledge or consent, Clearview has created the nightmare scenario that we’ve long feared, and has crossed the ethical bounds that many companies have refused to even attempt. Neither the United States government nor any American company is known to have ever compiled such a massive trove of biometrics,” Wessler explains. “Adding fuel to the fire, Clearview sells access to a smartphone app that allows its customers — and even those using the app on a trial basis — to upload a photo of an unknown person and instantaneously receive a set of matching photos.” One avenue to combat Clearview’s conduct that may prove effective is BIPA, the Illinois privacy law and one of the only pieces of US legislation that protects facial recognition data from misuse. It’s the same law that earlier this year pushed Facebook to a $550 million settlement over its use of unauthorized facial recognition on photos uploaded to its social network. The ACLU says “Clearview’s actions clearly violate BIPA,” which demands a company inform citizens and gain written consent when any biometric identifier, be it a faceprint or a fingerprint, is collected and stored for any reason. [...]

1 0