June 2020 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] Città intelligenti, Cittadini sorvegliati.

by Roberto Resoli

Il 16/06/20 09:56, Roberto Resoli ha scritto: > https://tribunemag.co.uk/…/06/smart-cities-surveilled-citiz… Correggo il link, scusate: https://tribunemag.co.uk/2020/06/smart-cities-surveilled-citizens > traduzione italiana: > https://www.resolutions.it/next…/index.php/s/rRDqkfQ7okNe3Ab ... > rob > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

June 16, 2020

Città intelligenti, Cittadini sorvegliati.

by Roberto Resoli

https://tribunemag.co.uk/…/06/smart-cities-surveilled-citiz… traduzione italiana: https://www.resolutions.it/next…/index.php/s/rRDqkfQ7okNe3Ab «La retorica delle città intelligenti sta già reagendo alla pandemia. ABI Research, una società di consulenza tecnologica strategica, ha recentemente suggerito il rilevamento remoto della temperatura basato sull'intelligenza artificiale e l'uso del crowdsourcing dei dati degli smartphone per la localizzazione come risposta al coronavirus. Ma non si catturano solo dati, anche il territorio lo è. Lo stesso rapporto ha proposto l'uso di droni per aiutare a far rispettare le regole di distanziamento sociale. Jathan Sadowski ha fornito un lucido esame del Domain Awareness System, una joint venture tra la NYPD e Microsoft che sostiene di utilizzare "le più grandi reti di telecamere, lettori di targhe e sensori radiologici del mondo". Il sistema è costruito con fondi della Homeland Security con un mandato "antiterrorismo". Tuttavia, la sorveglianza della DAS si estende ben oltre l'ovviamente "criminale", includendo dati da fonti disparate come i feed di rilevatori di radiazioni che sono abbastanza sensibili da rilevare la recente chemioterapia nei corpi di passaggio. Inoltre, la tecnologia è abbastanza sofisticata da richiamare fino a cinque anni di metadati memorizzati e "dati ambientali" non meglio definiti dai suoi database continuamente monitorati."» rob

June 16, 2020

Amazon’s Ring has 29 new police agreements since the killing of George Floyd

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Amazon’s Ring has 29 new police agreements since the killing of George Floyd That includes the Crystal Police Department, located several miles away from the spot where Floyd was killed in Minneapolis. Emily Birnbaum https://www.protocol.com/amazons-ring-police-partnerships (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

June 15, 2020

Il Cnr sottoscrive i primi contratti per l'Open Access delle pubblicazioni

by Giacomo Tesio

Una bella notizia da https://www.cnr.it/it/news/9489 Il Cnr ha sottoscritto i primi due accordi Read & Publish (R&P) con gli editori American Institute of Physics (AIP) e Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC). A fronte di una quota annuale sostenuta dall’ente, il contratto fornisce al personale Cnr l'accesso alla lettura delle riviste accademiche e la possibilità di pubblicare articoli ad accesso aperto sulle riviste dei due editori, senza costi aggiuntivi. Gli accordi si basano su un numero di articoli Open Access che saranno pubblicati nel 2020, stimato sulla base delle pubblicazioni Cnr nel triennio precedente. Già dal 2019 l'ente ha iniziato a dialogare con tutti gli editori affinché nelle proposte contrattuali fosse incluso il costo delle pubblicazioni Open Access degli autori del Cnr, contenendo gli aggravi di spesa e in linea con analoghe iniziative internazionali. Questo primo obiettivo raggiunto si inquadra in un percorso che il Cnr sta attuando per supportare al meglio i molti autori che sempre più prediligono la pubblicazione Open Access, affinché i risultati del loro lavoro scientifico siano fruibili immediatamente e gratuitamente per tutti. Tutto ciò in osservanza della legislazione nazionale, che investe le istituzioni scientifiche del compito di diffondere ad accesso aperto i risultati della ricerca scientifica quando questa è finanziata con fondi pubblici.

June 15, 2020

Re: [nexa] After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

by Giacomo Tesio

Ah dimenticavo... lo stesso giorno in cui è stato pubblicato l'articolo Nat Friedman ha anche annunciato che GitHub sostituirà "master" con "main" come nome del branch di default. Un gran progresso, che renderà felici i "partigiani del linguaggio inclusivo" in lista. Naturalmente il branch autoritativo dei miei repository continuerà a chiamarsi "master". "master" lì sta per "masterpiece". :-D Giacomo On 15/06/2020, Giacomo Tesio <giacomo(a)tesio.it> wrote: > As Friedman spoke, dozens of employees expressed frustration and > outrage in a company Slack channel with more than 1,200 people, > according to screenshots reviewed by The Times. A number of the > posters said they viewed the company’s outward stance as clashing with > its continued operational support of a government agency that arrests > undocumented immigrants at workplaces, schools and hospitals; detains > them in harsh and sometimes life-threatening conditions; and separates > children from their families. > > After Friedman’s answer to the initial question, senior application > engineer Josh Nichols pushed back with a follow-up: “How does the > leadership team rectify GitHub’s position on Black Lives Matter with > our continued business with ICE despite their racist practices and > policies?” he asked. > > Friedman responded saying he believes investing in policy changes is a > more effective method of driving progress than denying customers and > forcing one such as ICE to switch to a competitor such as GitLab or > Gitian, according to the transcript. > > [...] > > In the fall, employees learned the company had renewed its 2016 > contract with ICE. In an open letter on Twitter, employees said > continuing to work with ICE would make the company “complicit in > widespread human rights abuses.” > > In response, Friedman announced the company would donate half a > million dollars to nonprofits helping communities adversely affected > by the Trump administration’s immigration policies. The gesture failed > to quell anger over the issue, which continued to fester and has > resulted in the departure of several employees. > > Da > https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-06-12/github-ceo-bla… > > > Giacomo >

June 15, 2020

After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

by Giacomo Tesio

As Friedman spoke, dozens of employees expressed frustration and outrage in a company Slack channel with more than 1,200 people, according to screenshots reviewed by The Times. A number of the posters said they viewed the company’s outward stance as clashing with its continued operational support of a government agency that arrests undocumented immigrants at workplaces, schools and hospitals; detains them in harsh and sometimes life-threatening conditions; and separates children from their families. After Friedman’s answer to the initial question, senior application engineer Josh Nichols pushed back with a follow-up: “How does the leadership team rectify GitHub’s position on Black Lives Matter with our continued business with ICE despite their racist practices and policies?” he asked. Friedman responded saying he believes investing in policy changes is a more effective method of driving progress than denying customers and forcing one such as ICE to switch to a competitor such as GitLab or Gitian, according to the transcript. [...] In the fall, employees learned the company had renewed its 2016 contract with ICE. In an open letter on Twitter, employees said continuing to work with ICE would make the company “complicit in widespread human rights abuses.” In response, Friedman announced the company would donate half a million dollars to nonprofits helping communities adversely affected by the Trump administration’s immigration policies. The gesture failed to quell anger over the issue, which continued to fester and has resulted in the departure of several employees. Da https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-06-12/github-ceo-bla… Giacomo

June 15, 2020

79° Nexa Lunch Seminar | 24 Giugno 2020 | Modalità Telematica

by Nexa Media

Gentilissimi, a seguito delle disposizioni adottate per far fronte all'emergenza da Covid-19, vi segnaliamo che il 79° Nexa Lunch Seminar, *"Data-Driven Economy: approccio olistico nella regolamentazione ex ante ed ex post"*, con ospite *Emanuele Fazio* (Università degli Studi di Trento), si svolgerà *mercoledì 24 giugno, dalle ore 13.00 alle ore 14.00*, in *modalità telematica*, utilizzando il software open source di conference call *Jitsi Meet*. Per chi vorrà partecipare live al seminario sarà possibile accedere alla conference call attraverso il seguente link: https://meet.nexacenter.org/LunchSeminar Nexa Center for Internet and Society Newsletter Se non visualizzi correttamente questo messaggio clicca qui <https://nexa.polito.it/lunch-79> NEXA 79° Nexa Lunch Seminar Mercoledì 24 giugno 2020, ore 13.00 - 14.00 Politecnico di Torino https://nexa.polito.it/lunch-79 Data-Driven Economy: approccio olistico nella regolamentazione ex ante ed ex post Speaker Emanuele Fazio (Università degli Studi di Trento) This event will be webcast live: https://nexa.polito.it/nexa-hangout-on-air L'INCONTRO SI SVOLGERÀ IN MODALITÀ TELEMATICA UTILIZZANDO IL SOFTWARE DI CONFERENCE CALL *JITSI MEET*. Per partecipare all'incontro: https://meet.nexacenter.org/LunchSeminar Lo sviluppo del *Data-Driven Economy* è uno degli obiettivi principali del *Digital Single Market* dell’Unione europea. Si tratta di un ecosistema digitale in cui i dati vengono raccolti e gestiti da un network di operatori al fine di ricavare valore dalle informazioni accumulate. La policy volta a stabilire uno spazio comune europeo di dati necessita *un costante bilanciamento tra interessi e diritti (apparentemente) contrastanti*, in particolare la libertà di iniziativa economica e i valori fondamentali della persona. Tale bilanciamento trova espressione nella continua ricerca di un equilibrio efficace, efficiente e sostenibile tra tre discipline giuridiche: *il diritto della concorrenza, la tutela del consumatore e il diritto alla protezione dei dati personali*. Laddove, infatti, si tratti di regolare settori e decidere casi che coinvolgono il trattamento dei dati occorre adottare un approccio olistico ai tre regimi giuridici, considerato che le caratteristiche dei dati (personali e non personali) non possono essere pienamente analizzate attraverso studi e applicazioni parallele. Duplice è l’obiettivo dell’elaborato esposto: da un lato si vuole sostenere *la necessità della cooperazione tra le Autorità amministrative indipendenti e regolatrici delle aree giuridiche menzionate*; dall’altro si vuole offrire *una disamina circa il ruolo del diritto antitrust, in particolare riguardo la possibilità che lo stesso funga da strumento di regolazione ex post, al fine di favorire servizi privacy-enhancing*. Verranno confrontate *due recentissime decisioni italiane e tedesche*, entrambe nei confronti di *Facebook Inc. (MSP)*. BIOGRAFIE - e informazioni supplementari [Fazio] *Emanuele FAZIO* è neolaureato presso la facoltà di Giurisprudenza dell’Università degli Studi di Trento, con votazione di 110/110 cum laude. A seguito di una crescente passione per il diritto amministrativo e ICT law, sorta durante gli studi presso la Faculty of Law dell’Università di Maastricht (NL), ha svolto un periodo di ricerca di 3 mesi presso il Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition di Monaco di Baviera (DE). Al momento è occupato nella stesura di un articolo scientifico, estratto dalla stessa tesi di laurea, con il Prof. Fulvio Cortese e svolge la pratica forense. *Letture consigliate e link utili:* * Drexl J., Di Porto F., Competition Law as Regulation, UK, 2015, Elgar. * Graef I., EU Competition Law, Data Protection and Online Platforms – Data as Essential Facility, International Competition Law Series, The Netherlands, 2016, Kluwer Law International BV. * Maggiolino M., I Big Data e il Diritto Antitrust, Milano, 2018, Egea. * Botta M., Wiedemann K., The Interaction of EU Competition, Consumer, and Data Protection Law in the Digital Economy: The Regulatory Dilemma in the Facebook Odyssey, 2019, 64(3) Antitrust Bulletin, reperibile su: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3462983 Ultimo accesso: 25/05/2020. * Bakhoum M., Conde Gallego B., Mackenrodt M.-O., Surblytė-Namavičienė G., Personal Data in Competition, Consumer Protection and Intellectual Property Law Towards a Holistic Approach?, Max Planck Institute Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Monaco di Baviera, 2018, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Che cosa sono il Centro Nexa e i cicli di incontri “Mercoledì di Nexa” e “Nexa Lunch Seminar” <https://www.facebook.com/nexa.center/> <https://twitter.com/nexacenter> <https://www.youtube.com/user/NexaCenter> #nexalunchseminar <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23nexalunchseminar&src=typd> Il Centro Nexa su Internet & Società del Politecnico di Torino (Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica) dal 2006 è un centro di ricerca indipendente e interdisciplinare che, in collaborazione con l'Università di Torino, studia Internet (e più in generale le Tecnologie digitali) e i suoi rapporti con la società. Maggiori informazioni all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/about. Durante i “*Mercoledì di Nexa*”, che si tengono *ogni 2° mercoledì del mese* alle *ore 18 in punto*, il Centro Nexa su Internet e Società apre le sue porte non solo agli esperti e a tutti coloro i quali lavorano con Internet, ma anche a semplici appassionati e cittadini. Il ciclo di incontri intende approfondire, con un linguaggio preciso ma accessibile, i temi legati alla Rete: motori di ricerca, Creative Commons, social networks, open source/software libero, neutralità della rete, libertà di espressione, privacy, file sharing, big e open data, smart cities e molto altro. Al centro di quasi tutti gli incontri un ospite pronto a dialogare con i direttori del Centro Nexa, il Prof. Juan Carlos De Martin del Politecnico di Torino e il Prof. Marco Ricolfi dell'Università di Torino, nonché lo staff e i Fellows del Centro Nexa. Maggiori informazioni sui Mercoledì di Nexa, incluso un elenco di tutti i “Mercoledì” passati, sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi. Si segnala inoltre che dal maggio 2012 *ogni 4° mercoledì* del mese *dalle ore 13 alle ore 14* il Centro Nexa organizza anche i "*Nexa Lunch Seminar*". Una lista di tutti i “Lunch Seminar” passati è disponibile all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/lunch-seminars. See our events calendar <http://nexa.polito.it/events> if you're curious about future luncheons, discussions, lectures, and conferences not listed in this email. Our events are free and open to the public, unless otherwise noted. Responsabile Comunicazione Centro Nexa su Internet & Società: *Anita Botta*, tel: +39 011 090 7219, Mob: +39 347 131 3903, anita.botta(a)polito.it <mailto:anita.botta@polito.it>. Maggiori informazioni sui Mercoledì di Nexa e i Nexa Lunch Seminar, sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/events. Weekly Events Newsletter. Sign up <http://nexa.polito.it/mailing-lists> to receive this newsletter if this email was forwarded to you. To manage your subscription preferences, please click here <https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa>. Connect & get involved: Jobs, internships, and more <http://nexa.polito.it/get-involved>. Cordiali saluti,   -- Anita Botta Communication Manager Nexa Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino – DAUIN Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 - 10129 Torino _web:_ https://nexa.polito.it/ _mail:_anita.botta@polito.it <mailto:anita.botta@polito.it> tel: 011 090 7219

June 15, 2020

Fwd: Re-examining the ‘Magna Carta of the Internet’

by Masera Anna

[The Markup]<https://themarkup.org/> Re-examining the ‘Magna Carta of the Internet’ By Julia Angwin<https://www.getrevue.co/profile/themarkup> • Issue #18 • View online<https://www.getrevue.co/profile/themarkup/issues/re-examining-the-magna-car…> Hello, friends, The wail of ambulance sirens—a constant just weeks ago—has been largely replaced here in New York City with the sound of police helicopters hovering over predominantly peaceful protests<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/05/nyregion/police-kettling-protests-nyc.ht…>. One reason we have reached this moment of reckoning for police brutality and systemic racism is online social networks. For all of their flaws, they have also allowed more than just white male establishment voices to be amplified. Movements like #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo began on social media. But those same platforms also allow our president to spread misinformation, conspiracy theories, and threaten violence against people exercising their First Amendment rights. This week in our Ask The Markup, reporter Sara Harrison examines the U.S. law that enables both the good and the bad of internet speech<https://themarkup.org/ask-the-markup/2020/06/11/what-does-president-trumps-…>—Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—and how it might be reformed. The law, sometimes heralded as “the ‘Magna Carta’ of the internet<https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/magna-carta-cyberspac…>,” was passed in 1996 to provide websites with incentive to delete pornography, but it has since evolved. It is now effectively a shield websites use to protect them from responsibility for all sorts of activity on their platforms, from illegal gun sales to discriminatory ads. To understand the law—and how it could be improved—I interviewed Danielle Citron, the leading legal scholar in the emerging field of cyber civil rights. Citron has worked for nearly two decades to find legal and social strategies to combat the cyber harassment and invasions of sexual privacy that women, sexual minorities, and people of color disproportionately experience online. Citron’s work is a major reason there are laws banning “‘revenge porn” in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam. And she played a big role in persuading Facebook to set up a program that allows women to preemptively stop nonconsensual sexual images of themselves from circulating on its platform. Citron is a professor of law at Boston University, a MacArthur Fellow, and author of the book Hate Crimes in Cyberspace<https://www.amazon.com/Crimes-Cyberspace-Danielle-Keats-Citron-dp-067436829…>. Citron has a distinct point of view that does not represent the views of The Markup. The interview is below, lightly edited for brevity. [Danielle Citron] Danielle Citron Angwin: You have written that Section 230 needs updating. How has it fallen behind the times? Citron: The law made sense in the world of bulletin boards. It was the first time that people could reach other people they didn’t know and lived far away from. Some took the opportunity to say crazy defamatory things, post porn, and the like. The sites wanted to monitor destructive content but didn’t want to be liable for defamation as they might be if their moderation was treated like the editing of a publisher. So the question for lawmakers was how to incentivize these platforms to filter dirty words, porn, and abuse. But this statute was passed at a time when we didn’t have revenge porn sites. We didn’t have sites whose raison d’être was criminality. We didn’t have the business model of data collecting, tracking, and advertising. We didn’t have sites trafficking in illegal gun sales and nonconsensual porn. There are sites whose business model is abuse, and those sites enjoy that immunity. If the people engaging in illegality are not the website operators, then the website gets to make all the money without any liability. Section 230 creates a great disadvantage to women and minorities who are disproportionately targeted by all kinds of online mischief, and it allows sites to make money off their suffering. The law needs updating. It needs reform. It is not any longer incentivizing responsible practices by platforms. Angwin: You have proposed that Section 230 could be updated so that immunity is only available to websites that take “reasonable steps to prevent or address unlawful third-party content that it knows about.<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3218521>” How would that work? Citron: First of all, the reason I like “reasonableness” is that courts handle it well. Reasonableness is a legal standard that courts employ in tort law, statutory law, and criminal procedure. What would constitute reasonable at social media platforms is having content-moderation policies, having channels of accountability, and having fairly responsive reporting practices. Twitter’s policy, for instance, bans threats, but when it comes to public officials, it assesses whether it’s in the public interest to keep it up. The reasonableness policy wouldn’t look at whether Twitter took down a particular tweet. But it would look at whether their policies vis à vis threats and public officials are reasonable. Reasonableness allows room for evolution. I always think of nonconsensual porn images as an example. Victims wanted the ability to contact Facebook and say, “I’m really worried that my partner will post something.” Facebook responded [with a program that allows women to send in photos they were worried about and proactively ban them from the platform<https://about.fb.com/news/2019/03/detecting-non-consensual-intimate-images/>]. Facebook got grief for that, but it is a great example of how what is reasonable today can change over time. But it’s worth noting that I hate the idea that Facebook is not going to address falsehoods<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/technology/facebook-political-ads-lies.h…> in political ads and it is allowing the microtargeting of political ads without any transparency or accountability. I told them that if they keep on with that policy, they are endangering democracy. Failing to provide transparency and accountability around ads that cause clear harm (whether misdirecting voters on election day, inciting violence, or spreading harmful defamation) is unreasonable. Allowing illegality that causes clear harm to fester and thrive without any channels of accountability is unreasonable. Angwin: What do you think of President Trump’s executive order<https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-…> asking the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission to examine whether social media platforms are complying with Section 230 and their own terms of service? Citron: The order is not really an order in the sense of applicable law. It tells us the executive branch’s flawed interpretation of Section 230, which I imagine they are hoping courts will take seriously. Courts can and will ignore its advice. It is only an order to the extent that it instructs the FTC and the FCC to bring cases against platforms that are acting deceptively because they are betraying their terms of service. That’s a waste of their time. I think it’s just a dog of an argument. They may bring these lawsuits and courts will strike them down on 230 grounds as they have in other contexts. And if the president would take away the immunity from deceptive practices, that would mean companies will refuse to do any moderation at all. They will abandon having terms of service. So companies just wouldn’t moderate. We would be overrun with spam, hate speech, nude photos, and rape and death threats, and the platforms couldn’t do anything but wait until lawsuits were brought. If we are going to fix 230, let’s not squander the opportunity with terrible ideas. [https://s3.amazonaws.com/revue/items/images/006/111/383/mail/bd8cb03054f3fe…] Thanks as always for reading, and stay safe. Best, Julia Angwin Editor-in-Chief The Markup [Julia Angwin] <https://www.getrevue.co/profile/themarkup> By Julia Angwin<https://www.getrevue.co/profile/themarkup> The Markup Newsletter [https://www.getrevue.co/assets/email/share_twitter_2-c23bb19c3c2dbb4d69a4a5…] Tweet <https://www.twitter.com/share?url=https://www.getrevue.co/profile/themarkup…> [https://www.getrevue.co/assets/email/share_facebook_2-ed8f4e8cbe9cd64529b8d…] Share<http://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://www.getrevue.co/profile…> If you don't want these updates anymore, please unsubscribe here<https://www.getrevue.co/profile/themarkup/unsubscribe/2erIxhpocU2bRZIS_0zZxA>. If you were forwarded this newsletter and you like it, you can subscribe here<https://www.getrevue.co/profile/themarkup>. Powered by Revue<https://www.getrevue.co/> The Markup - 45 W 36th Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10018 USA ________________________________ Il presente messaggio (inclusi gli allegati) contiene informazioni riservate esclusivamente al destinatario/ai destinatari indicato/i nel messaggio, ed è protetto dalla legge. La diffusione, distribuzione e/o la copia del contenuto del presente messaggio da parte di qualsiasi soggetto diverso dal destinatario è severamente vietata ai sensi dell’art. 616 c.p. e delle vigenti normative in materia di protezione dei dati personali. Se non siete i destinatari del presente messaggio, vi preghiamo di distruggerlo e di darcene immediata comunicazione inviando un messaggio di ritorno all’indirizzo e-mail del mittente. This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended only for the recipient(s) named above, and is protected by law. Any disclosure, distribution and/or copying of this message by any subject different from the named recipient(s) is strictly prohibited according to art. 616 c.p. and to the applicable data protection laws. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and inform us immediately about the deletion by sending a message to the sender’s e-mail address. ________________________________

June 13, 2020

Zoom admits cutting off activists' accounts in obedience to China | World news | The Guardian

by Alberto Cammozzo

<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/12/zoom-admits-cutting-off-activ…> Zoom has admitted it suspended the accounts of human rights activists at the behest of the Chinese government and suggested it will block any further meetings that Beijing complains are illegal. On Thursday the video conferencing platform was accused of disrupting or shutting down the accounts of three activists who held online events relating to the Tiananmen Square massacre anniversary or discussing the crisis in Hong Kong. None were given an explanation by Zoom. Following media reports, late on Thursday Zoom said it had been contacted by the Chinese government in May and early June about four Zoom meetings to commemorate the Tiananmen Square massacre that were being publicised on social media. “The Chinese government informed us that this activity is illegal in China and demanded that Zoom terminate the meetings and host accounts,” it said. “We did not provide any user information or meeting content to the Chinese government. We do not have a backdoor that allows someone to enter a meeting without being visible.” The statement raises questions about Zoom bowing to Chinese pressure. Unlike many Western social media platforms, it is not blocked in China. The company did not explain under what law the meetings – which were hosted outside mainland China – were deemed to be illegal. Zoom said it had no ability to block participants from particular countries and so it ended three of the meetings and suspended or terminated the associated host accounts. Zoom said it took no action for one meeting because metadata showed it had no participants from mainland China, however two of the others had a “significant number of mainland China participants”. [...]

June 13, 2020

Re: [nexa] Another facial recognition firm sees money in biometric mining | Biometric Update

by Giovanni Biscuolo

Ciao Giacomo, Giacomo Tesio <giacomo(a)tesio.it> writes: [...] > Si potrebbe vietare i business model basati sul traffico e sull'accumulo di > informazioni di terze parti, come il marketing personalizzato. Ecco qui già intravedo una via d'uscita, anche per il "biometric mining", che già solo la parola provoca sdegno. Probabilmente sarebbe anche il caso che coloro che si occupano di "marketing" in questo modo si rendessero conto di quanto risultano fattualmente molesti nel tentare di convincere oltre ogni ragionevole decenza intellettuale che tu, precisamente tu, hai bisogno di quel preciso prodotto. Arrendetevi: concentratevi sulla qualità dei vostri prodotti e servizi invece che sul «nudge marketing». La pubblicità sarà anche l'anima del commercio ma la pubblicità che ti riconosce e ti profila è l'anima di cosa? Ecco: la pubblicità che ti riconosce dovrebbe essere **vietata**, con un paio di articoli ben fatti supereremmo di slancio il 70% del GDPR (numero sparato a caso). Come piacevole conseguenza collaterale probabilmente i business model basati sul traffico e sull'accumulo di informazioni di terze parti sarebbero in perdita perché inutilizzabili, quindi probabilmente sparirebbero. Rimane il fatto che se l'accumulo di informazioni di terze parti non consenzienti diventasse *impossibile* by design per mezzo di adeguati mezzi tecnologici, buona parte della faccenda *forse* si protrebbe risolvere senza vietare nulla. Ciao. Gio' [...] -- Giovanni Biscuolo

June 13, 2020