July 2020 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Privacy. La prima intervista al nuovo Garante. Stanzione: Gdpr è garanzia democratica
by don Luca Peyron July 31, 2020

July 31, 2020

Buona lettura dl https://www.dimt.it/news/privacy-la-prima-intervista-al-nuovo-garante-stanz… _________________________ don Luca Peyron Direttore Ufficio per la Pastorale Universitaria Arcidiocesi di Torino www.universitari.to.it via XX settembre 83, Torino tel. 011 5156239

1 0

Opening Spaces for Digital Rights Activism: Multilateral Trade Negotiations - Public Citizen
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 31, 2020

July 31, 2020

Opening Spaces for Digital Rights Activism: Multilateral Trade Negotiations By BURCU KILIC AND RENATA AVILA DOWNLOAD THE FULL REPORT 2.6 MB SHARE The largest, most powerful tech companies are putting into motion a perverse initiative to dictate what internet and digital policy laws will look like around the world. And if they succeed, they will set in stone rules that would let them continue to harvest and exploit our data, limit free expression online, and violate a number of other human rights. Big tech seeks to paralyze all governments and public interest institutions from being able to put checks on their power and rein them in ever again. https://www.citizen.org/article/51451-2/ (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Opening Spaces for Digital Rights Activism: Multilateral Trade Negotiations - Public Citizen
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 31, 2020

July 31, 2020

Opening Spaces for Digital Rights Activism: Multilateral Trade Negotiations By BURCU KILIC AND RENATA AVILA DOWNLOAD THE FULL REPORT 2.6 MB The largest, most powerful tech companies are putting into motion a perverse initiative to dictate what internet and digital policy laws will look like around the world. And if they succeed, they will set in stone rules that would let them continue to harvest and exploit our data, limit free expression online, and violate a number of other human rights. Big tech seeks to paralyze all governments and public interest institutions from being able to put checks on their power and rein them in ever again. https://www.citizen.org/article/51451-2/ (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

(no subject)
by Mauro Magnani July 31, 2020

July 31, 2020

1 0

'Too much power': Congress grills top tech CEOs in combative antitrust hearing | Technology | The Guardian
by Alberto Cammozzo July 30, 2020

July 30, 2020

<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jul/29/tech-hearings-facebook-m…> The US’s top tech bosses were told they have “too much power”, are censoring political speech, spreading fake news and “killing” the engines of the American economy, at a combative congressional hearing on Wednesday. The historic hearing in Washington saw Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Sundar Pichai of Google’s parent Alphabet appear before members of the House judiciary’s antitrust subcommittee and face intense questioning from lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. The subcommittee has been investigating the companies’ dominance of the online world for over a year, collecting 1.3 million documents and conducting hundreds of hours of interviews. Already in the opening minutes, the subcommittee chairman, David Cicilline, struck a combative tone, pointing out that the companies dominate their respective spheres and accusing them of stifling competition. The complaints against the tech giants are varied but the overarching criticisms are that they have used their dominant position to quash rivals and overcharge the people and businesses reliant on their services. “Our founders would not bow before a king,” the Rhode Island Democrat said. “Nor should we bow before the emperors of the online economy.” Republican lawmakers at different times in the hearing directed the conversation away from antitrust to allegations of anti-conservative bias on the platforms, accusing the companies of silencing conservative voices and working to undo Donald Trump’s 2016 election win. Google and Facebook took intense heat for their business practices. Cicilline opened the round of questions with allegations from small businesses that Google took over their content and listing on its own pages. CEO Pichai struggled to answer when Cicilline brought up Google taking reviews from Yelp and cross-posting them to its own pages. When Yelp asked Google to stop, Google reportedly threatened to remove Yelp from its search listings entirely. Cicilline called the behavior “economically catastrophic” for other companies online. “The evidence seems very clear to me that as Google became the gateway to the internet, it began to abuse its power,” he said. Zuckerberg faced repeated questions about Facebook’s purchase of Instagram in 2012. Referencing internal documents that revealed Facebook bought Instagram to neutralize it as a competitive threat, congressman Jerry Nadler called the acquisition “ exactly the type of anticompetitive acquisition the antitrust laws were designed to prevent”. Zuckerberg defended the acquisition, arguing Facebook helped Instagram build up its infrastructure and security as it grew rapidly. Zuckerberg and Pichai also received a beating from Republicans, who repeatedly accused the companies of anti-conservative bias. Representative Jim Sensenbrenner asked Zuckerberg why conservatives are “censored” on Facebook, claiming that Donald Trump Jr was removed from the platform for sharing a video containing false information this week. Zuckerberg politely explained to the representative that it was Twitter that limited Trump’s account for posting the video. Bezos faced few questions following his opening statement, perhaps because of a technical difficulty with his video feed. Representative Pramila Jayapal pressed Bezos on whether the company used data from third-party sellers in making sales decisions. In a previous hearing, an Amazon executive denied this under oath and was contradicted by a later news report. Bezos was also asked whether the online giant favored its own products when prioritizing certain shipments during the pandemic. Bezos, the world’s richest man, leaned heavily on his life story in his opening statement, noting that his mother was “a 17-year-old high school student” and his adoptive father is a Cuban immigrant. “Amazon’s success was anything but preordained,” he said before noting that the company had invested $270bn in the US over the last decade and created hundreds of thousands of jobs. Zuckerberg, too, argued Facebook “got here the American way.” “We started with nothing and provided better products that people find valuable. As I understand our laws, companies aren’t bad just because they are big. Many large companies that fail to compete cease to exist,” he said. Cook, the Apple CEO, faced effective questioning from representative Hank Johnson of Georgia, who said the investigation had surfaced concerns that rules governing the App Store review process are not available to the app developers. “The rules are made up as you go and subject to change - and Apple expects developers to go along with the changes or leave the App Store,” Johnson said. “That’s an enormous amount of power.” Cook argued the App Store does not constitute a monopoly because it does not charge the vast majority of apps to list there. He said 84% of apps are not charged anything and Apple has not increased commissions on apps since 2008. The hearing comes at a fraught moment for the tech giants with Republican and Democrats both highly critical of their dominance. Donald Trump, who has attacked the tech companies on numerous occasions, weighed in ahead of the hearing: “If Congress doesn’t bring fairness to Big Tech, which they should have done years ago, I will do it myself with Executive Orders. In Washington, it has been ALL TALK and NO ACTION for years, and the people of our Country are sick and tired of it!” [...]

1 0

Socialism’s DIY Computer
by Giacomo Tesio July 29, 2020

July 29, 2020

The Galaksija computer was a craze in 1980s Yugoslavia, inspiring thousands of people to build versions in their own homes. The idea behind them was simple – to make technology available to everyone. [...] While most other machines would automatically run a program after loading the tape—a primitive anti-copy protection—Antonić’s commitment to open source meant that he had no desire to protect anything. After loading a program, users would have to type a “RUN” command to make it go. That extra step, though subtle, acted as a deterrent to programmers imposing any copy protection upon their work; the tape could just as easily be straightforwardly input as it could be edited or duplicated en masse. Free play was implicitly encouraged: the sharing, collaboration, manipulation, and proliferation of software was built into Galaksija’s very operation. [...] A computing enthusiast since 1979, Zoran Modli caught wind of Galaksija after the publication of Computers in Your Home. As host and DJ of Ventilator 202—a renowned New Wave radio show on Serbia’s Radio Beograd 202—Modli was something of a minor celebrity in Yugoslavia. This was the period in which the compact cassette tape had begun to usurp the 12-inch vinyl record as the listening medium of choice for audiophiles; portable pocket recorders like the Sony Walkman were in the ascendant. Sensing an opportunity in this media shift, Regasek called Modli one day in the autumn of 1983 with a pitch for a radically new Ventilator segment. Because all the day’s computers, including Galaksija, ran their programs on cassette, Regasek thought Modli might broadcast programs over the airwaves as audio during his show. The idea was that listeners could tape the programs off their receivers as they were broadcast, then load them into their personal machines. An overnight sensation, this DJing practice quickly became a staple on Modli’s show. In the ensuing months, Ventilator 202 broadcast hundreds of computer programs. During the hour, Modli would announce when the segment was approaching, signaling to his listeners that it was time for them to fetch their equipment, cue up a tape, and get ready to hit record. Fans began to write programs with the expressed intention of mailing them into the station and broadcasting them during the segment. Those programs included audio and video recordings but also magazines, concert listings, party promotions, study aids, flight simulators, and action-adventure games. In the case of games, users would “download” the programs off the radio and alter them—inserting their own levels, challenges, and characters—then send them back to Modli for retransmission. In effect, this was file transfer well before the advent of the World Wide Web, a pre-internet pirating protocol. Continua su https://tribunemag.co.uk/2020/07/make-your-own-self-managed-socialist-micro… Un pezzo di storia che potrebbe (e dovrebbe) ispirare l'Unione Europea per ovvie ragioni geopolitiche. Ne cito solo due passaggi particolarmente illuminanti che sottolineano come la tecnologia sia SEMPRE uno strumento politico (il più potente di tutti). Può essere usato per diffondere libertà o accentrare potere. Oggi come allora. Non solo è possibile: è già avvenuto. Giacomo

1 0

The Age of Mass Surveillance Will Not Last Forever
by Giacomo Tesio July 29, 2020

July 29, 2020

What I showed those journalists was proof, in the form of the government’s own classified documents, that the self-described “Five Eyes”—the state security organs of the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada—had together conspired to weaken their laws. They had forced clandestine access to the networks of their largest telecommunications and internet titans (some of whom hadn't needed much in the way of arm-twisting) in pursuit of a single goal: the transformation of the free and fragmented internet into history’s first centralized means of global mass surveillance. This violation of our fundamental privacy occurred without our knowledge or consent, or even the knowledge and consent of our courts and most lawmakers. Here’s the thing: Although the global response to this violation was furious, producing the largest intelligence scandal of the modern age, mass surveillance itself continues to work today, virtually unimpeded. Nearly everything you do, and nearly everyone you love, is being monitored and recorded by a system whose reach is unlimited, but whose safeguards are not. But while the system itself was not substantially changed—as a rule, governments are less interested in reforming their own behavior than in restricting the behavior and rights of their citizens—what did change was the public consciousness. The idea that the government was collecting the communications of those who had done nothing wrong had once been treated as a paranoid conspiracy theory (or as the subject of instructive fiction, such as the work you're about to read). Suddenly, this prospect had become all too real—the sort of universally acknowledged truth that can be so quickly waved away as obvious and unremarkable by the crooked timber of our political operators. Meanwhile, the corporations of the world digested the realization that their darkest shame—their willful complicity in crimes against the public—had not been punished. Rather, these collaborators had been actively rewarded, with either explicitly retroactive immunity or informal guarantees of perpetual impunity. They became our latest Big Brother, striving to compile perfect records of private lives for profit and power. From this emerged the contemporary corruption of our once-free internet, called surveillance capitalism. We are coming to see all too clearly that the construction of these systems was less about connection than it was about control: The proliferation of mass surveillance has tracked precisely with the destruction of public power. And yet despite this grim reading from my seven years in exile, I find more cause for hope than despair, thanks in no small part to those lasers and traffic cones in Hong Kong. My confidence springs not from how they are applied—to dazzle cameras and, with a little water, to contain and extinguish the gas grenades of a state gone wrong—but in what they express: the irrepressible human desire to be free. The problems that we face today, of dispossession by oligarchs and their monopolies, and of disenfranchisement by authoritarians and their comfortably captive political class, are far from new. The novelty is in the technological means by which these problems have been entrenched—to put it simply, the bad guys have better tools. You have heard that when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Herein lies the folly of every system of rule whose future relies more heavily on the omnipotence of its methods than the popularity of its mandate. There were times when empires were won by bronze and boats and powder. None survive. What outlasts each forgotten flag is our greatest technology, language: the empire of the mind. Continua su https://www.wired.com/story/the-age-of-mass-surveillance-will-not-last-fore… Giacomo

1 0

I benefici del software libero per la PA, il caso Francese
by Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) July 29, 2020

July 29, 2020

Segnalo questo paper, a carattere economico su ciò che è stato determinato dall’equivalente francese delle Linee Guida Acquisizione e Riuso, adeguatamente rispettate. “Impact of a change in France’s technology procurement policy that required government agencies to favor open source software (OSS) over proprietary software” https://forum.italia.it/t/i-benefici-del-software-libero-per-la-pa-il-caso-… Sarebbe molto interessante e stimolante raccogliere ulteriori esperienze ed analisi sull'OSS nella PA Francese, trasponendole a confronto con l'Italia per stimolare l'emulazione di un success case europeo. Queste basi, ulteriormente, per definire meglio i modelli econometrici di TCO obbligatori per l'analisi comparativa come da Linee Guida Acquisizione e Riuso. Fabio

1 0

Google’s Top Search Result? Surprise! It’s Google – The Markup
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 28, 2020

July 28, 2020

https://themarkup.org/google-the-giant/2020/07/28/google-search-results-pri… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Facebook agrees to pay $650 million to end facial recognition lawsuit - Vox
by Alberto Cammozzo July 28, 2020

July 28, 2020

<https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/7/23/21335806/facebook-settlement-illinois-…> Facebook has agreed to pay $650 million to settle a years-long class action lawsuit over its use of facial recognition in what continues to be a less-than-great summer for the social media company. The lawsuit is over Facebook’s photo-tagging feature, which used facial recognition software to identify faces in users’ photos. The state of Illinois, however, has a law against businesses collecting biometric data — which includes facial recognition — without first obtaining consent. Illinois argued that Facebook didn’t get that consent before enabling the new feature by default to its millions of Illinois users, and sued the company in 2015. Facebook has denied it did anything wrong, but it tried to settle the suit for $550 million in January. That offer was rejected by a judge for not being enough; as NPR reported, the $550 million figure would result in payouts of just $150 to $300 per person. Facebook could have been on the hook for $47 billion if it lost the suit and affected users got the full payout of $5,000 per person allowed by the law. “It’s $550 million,” the judge said in a June 4 hearing, according to court documents obtained by Recode. “That’s a lot. But the question is, is it really a lot?” He continued, “That is a significant reduction from the $1,000 that the Illinois legislature set as the baseline. ... The Illinois legislature set this privacy expectation and privacy right as a serious one, and they put a high price tag on it for that reason.” So Facebook has now added an additional $100 million to its proposal. According to court documents, that will net each affected user $200 to $400 each. The settlement was agreed to by both sides of the suit but has yet to be approved by a judge. As it did back in January, Facebook told Recode, “We are focused on settling as it is in the best interest of our community and our shareholders to move past this matter.” The new settlement comes as facial recognition software is more controversial than ever. IBM, Microsoft, and Amazon are all pausing or limiting law enforcement’s access to their technology in response to anti-police protests, and the New York Times recently reported on the first known false arrest based on facial recognition. At the same time, private companies are increasingly turning to facial recognition software, using it in photo-tagging services (like the aforementioned Facebook) or identity verification to unlock devices (like Apple’s iPhone). There’s also proposed bicameral legislation from Democrats that would ban the use of facial recognition technology by federal law enforcement and withhold federal funding from state and local agencies that don’t enact similar bans. It also comes as Facebook weathers a summer that probably didn’t go as well as it once hoped. The company faces an antitrust investigation from Congress (along with Amazon, Apple, and Google), and CEO Mark Zuckerberg will be testifying before the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee on July 27. In June, Facebook’s own employees protested the company’s decision not to take action on posts from President Trump that threatened to respond to protests with gunfire, saying “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” That incident led to civil rights groups calling for an ad boycott from many major companies over its perceived inability (or lack of desire) to stop hateful content that proliferates on its platform. And, a few weeks ago, Facebook released the results of a civil rights audit — which it largely failed. Facebook has tried with varying success to respond to these controversies. The company cracked down on some Trump content, for instance, by removing campaign ads that featured possible Nazi imagery. Facebook also recently announced that it would be studying racial bias in Facebook’s and Instagram’s algorithms. And, at the end of June, Zuckerberg announced that the company would be doing more to remove or label posts that incite violence, contain hate speech, or suppress voting. But many still feel that these measures are too little and too late. One possible bright spot in all of this for Facebook, actually, is that $650 million settlement. While it’s obviously a lot of money, it’s far less than the $47 billion it could have lost if the case went to trial and, if accepted by the judge this time, means the end of a costly lawsuit. Facebook’s most recent quarterly earnings report showed revenue of nearly $18 billion, almost all of it from advertising. A $650 million loss will barely register.

1 0