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

The Guardian view on Facebook and democracy: real and present danger | Editorial | Opinion | The Guardian
by Alberto Cammozzo July 6, 2020

July 6, 2020

<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/05/the-guardian-view-on-…> In every political debate since Facebook began to dominate democracy, the company has placed itself on the wrong side of history. The social media firm cannot be reformed from within because its business model profits from hosting bomb-throwing circuses of hate, humbug and hogwash. The platform harvests users’ personal data to algorithmically recommend content but can’t seem to help steering people towards vilifying one another while keeping their attention. It is not good for society, but it is good for Facebook. That apparently is fine for the company’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg, who is worth $85bn. Consider the latest ugly episode in the firm’s life. After some of the world’s biggest brands boycotted Facebook over its refusal to ban racist and violent content, the company reached for the usual bromide of reassurance that the matter was being taken seriously. Internally it was a very different story. The boycotters, Mr Zuckerberg said, would be back and his company was “not going to change our policies … because of a threat to a small percent of our revenue”. In America there is a view that capitalism fixes things. In Britain, government usually acts. The Lords select committee on democracy and digital technologies last week was correct to say it was a mistake to allow social media firms to grow unimpeded by regulation. This, the peers said, had “become acutely obvious in the current Covid-19 pandemic where online misinformation poses not only a real and present danger to our democracy but also to our lives”. Facebook cannot be allowed to remain beyond the restraints applied to the rest of society. This message has been received by the UK’s competition authority, which has proposed forcing Facebook to give consumers a choice over whether to accept targeted advertising and even suggested breaking it up. The Lords select committee was right to praise the UK government for putting forward an online harms framework, requiring social media platforms to protect users and sanctioning those that fail to do so by, for example, taking too long to remove offensive material. However, ministers have been tardy in bringing forward legislation and there’s no sign the platforms’ duty of care will shield voters from misinformation campaigns. Such a move would be in necessary conflict with Facebook’s “neutrality”. The firm’s hands-off approach means it won’t drain its swamp of racism, misogyny and conspiracy. In a speech last October, Mr Zuckerberg had controversially signalled that Facebook’s interests aligned with Donald Trump’s. The Facebook founder said it’s not right to censor politicians. Mr Trump has been notably softer on Facebook than its rivals. This bargain is unravelling. Faced with a growing backlash over Mr Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric, the social network removed a Trump ad that used a Nazi-era symbol. Facebook will also start allowing US users to opt out of seeing political ads. Yet in Britain Facebook is used to spread false political advertising. It does so knowing that the network’s algorithms spit out, in the words of its own research, “more and more divisive content in an effort to gain user attention and increase time on the platform”. There is an easy solution. The UK bans all political advertising from being broadcast on television or radio. Unless firms like Facebook change radically, it may be time to extend this prohibition to social media.

1 0

Disuguaglianze digitali (numero speciale della rivista universitaria First Monday)
by Antonio Casilli July 6, 2020

July 6, 2020

Per ben cominciare la settimana, vi segnalo questo numero "di riferimento" della rivista First Monday al quale ho contribuito assieme a un collettivo di colleghi nord- e sud-americani, europei e africani. Il numéro, in open access, è stato valorosamente capitanato da Laura Robinson. Al sommario: * [ https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10840 | Global perspectives on digital inequalities and solutions to them ] Laura Robinson, Jeremy Schulz, Noah McClain, Timothy Hale, Heloisa Pait, Massimo Ragnedda, Joseph D. Straubhaar, Aneka Khilnani, Natalia Tolentino * [ https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10842 | Digital inequalities 2.0: Legacy inequalities in the information age ] Laura Robinson, Jeremy Schulz, Grant Blank, Massimo Ragnedda, Hiroshi Ono, Bernie Hogan, Gustavo S. Mesch, Shelia R. Cotten, Susan B. Kretchmer, Timothy M. Hale, Tomasz Drabowicz, Pu Yan, Barry Wellman, Molly-Gloria Harper, Anabel Quan-Haase, Hopeton S. Dunn, Antonio A. Casilli, Paola Tubaro, Rod Carvath, Wenhong Chen, Julie B. Wiest, Matías Dodel, Michael J. Stern, Christopher Ball, Kuo-Ting Huang, Aneka Khilnani * [ https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10844 | Digital inequalities 3.0: Emergent inequalities in the information age ] Laura Robinson, Jeremy Schulz, Hopeton S. Dunn, Antonio A. Casilli, Paola Tubaro, Rod Carvath, Wenhong Chen, Julie B. Wiest, Matías Dodel, Michael J. Stern, Christopher Ball, Kuo-Ting Huang, Grant Blank, Massimo Ragnedda, Hiroshi Ono, Bernie Hogan, Gustavo S. Mesch, Shelia R. Cotten, Susan B. Kretchmer, Timothy M. Hale, Tomasz Drabowicz, Pu Yan, Barry Wellman, Molly-Gloria Harper, Anabel Quan-Haase, Aneka Khilnani * [ https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10847 | Who are the limited users of digital systems and media? An examination of U.K. evidence ] Simeon J. Yates, Elinor Carmi, Eleanor Lockley, Alicja Pawluczuk, Tom French, Stephanie Vincent * [ https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10830 | Determinants of cyber-safety behaviors in a developing economy The role of socioeconomic inequalities, digital skills and perception of cyber-threats ] Matías Dodel, Daniela Kaiser, Gustavo Mesch * [ https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10854 | Digital skills and political participation in northeast Anatolia, Turkey ] Duygu Özsoy, Eyyup Akbulut, Sait Sinan Atılgan, Glenn Muschert * [ https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10855 | Digital capital and online activities: An empirical analysis of the second level of digital divide ] Maria Laura Ruiu, Massimo Ragnedda * [ https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10839 | Building online skills in off-line realities The SolarSPELL Initiative (Solar Powered Educational Learning Library) ] Laura Hosman, Coreen Walsh, Martín Pérez Comisso, Jared Sidman * [ https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10860 | Digital inequalities: Homework gap and techno-capital in Austin, Texas ] Melissa Santillana, Joe Sraubhaar, Alexis Schrubbe, Jaewon Choi, Sharon Strover * [ https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10865 | ICT policies in Latin America: Long-term inequalities and the role of globalized policy-making ] Eduardo Villanueva-Mansilla * [ https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10866 | Connecting research to policy: Understanding macro and micro policy-makers and their processes ] Lloyd Levine * [ https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10845 | Digital inequalities in time of pandemic: COVID-19 exposure risk profiles and new forms of vulnerability ] Laura Robinson, Jeremy Schulz, Aneka Khilnani, Hiroshi Ono, Shelia R. Cotten, Noah McClain, Lloyd Levine, Wenhong Chen, Gejun Huang, Antonio A. Casilli, Paola Tubaro, Matías Dodel, Anabel Quan-Haase, Maria Laura Ruiu, Massimo Ragnedda, Deb Aikat, Natalia Tolentino -- Antonio A. Casilli Professor, Telecom Paris, Institut Polytechnique de Paris Member, Interdisciplinary Institute for Innovation (i3 UMR 9217 CNRS) Associate Member, LACI-IIAC (EHESS) Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet & Society *We respect your right to disconnect. This email send time is due to my own workflow efficiency. You are in no obligation to take action or reply to it outside your office hours.*

1 0

Defund Facial Recognition Before It's Too Late - The Atlantic
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 5, 2020

July 5, 2020

Defund Facial Recognition I’m a second-generation Black activist, and I’m tired of being spied on by the police. MALKIA DEVICH-CYRIL 12:00 PM ET https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/07/defund-facial-recogn… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Michael Veale (DP3T) sul potere di chi controlla il digitale
by Roberto Resoli July 4, 2020

July 4, 2020

Sul potere delle aziende informatiche, ormai superiore a quello degli stati. "One key lesson requires distinguishing the problem of privacy from that of platform power. It is possible to be strongly in favour of a decentralised approach, as I am (as a co-developer of the open-source DP-3T system that Apple and Google adapted), while being seriously concerned about the centralised control of computing infrastructure these firms have amassed." https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/01/apple-google-contact-… rob

3 2

Privacy is not the problem with the Apple-Google contact-tracing toolkit
by Giacomo Tesio July 4, 2020

July 4, 2020

New tools give tech giants the power to shape communities and change behaviour, all without any data leaving our phones https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/01/apple-google-contact-… In April, Apple and Google announced a partnership. They would take research into how to undertake Bluetooth-powered Covid-19 contact tracing in a privacy-preserving manner, with no central database, and make it available as a toolkit inside their operating systems for public health authority–sanctioned apps. Before they did this, all such apps had effectively been doomed to fail. At least on iPhones, they were crippled by the same baked-in Bluetooth restrictions that stop normal apps secretly tracking you. The firms’ contact-tracing toolkit has been both praised and condemned. Its “decentralised” approach, with no sensitive central database of who-saw-who, has been supported by hundreds of privacy, security and human rights scholars. The concerns are understandable. The history of passports – which were introduced as a seemingly temporary measure during the first world war, but were retained in response to fears about spreading the Spanish flu – shows that pandemics can significantly influence our social infrastructure. And so they should be designed to minimise future misuse. Through a software update, Apple and Google loosened privacy restrictions enough to allow public health authorities to run decentralised contact-tracing apps, but did not engineer new functionality to let apps send the unique Bluetooth identities of phones they encountered to a central server. Data had to remain secretly on phones: which was not a problem for decentralised systems, but left centralised apps – such as those favoured by France and the tech wing of NHS England, NHSX – continuing to struggle to use Bluetooth. Reasons for preferring centralised systems differed. NHSX wanted individuals to trigger self-isolation alerts based on self-reported symptoms, and said it needed centralised fraud analysis to weed out the inevitable hypochondriacs and trolls. The French minister for the digital sector, Cédric O, said that self-reporting was a no-no, and instead wanted to use centralisation to try to lower the risk of a particular snooping attack from a tech-savvy neighbour. (This is a risk that can never be fully removed from any Bluetooth contact-tracing system.) Tensions grew as it became clear that the firms did not intend to engineer a further global change to their operating systems to specifically accommodate these countries. In the French parliament, O stated that it was no coincidence that the UK and France were going against the grain, given that they were “the only two European states with their own nuclear deterrent”. However, it is worth noting that no country, nuclear-armed or not, even attempted to use the first tool of a sovereign nation against the firms — the ability to make binding laws. Instead, they continued the bizarre path, seen in recent years from politicians around the world, of treating these firms like sovereign nations, hoping that they recognised each other’s legitimacy and that their “officials” could come to some agreement. They did not, and the saga of the demise of NHSX’s centralised app in a mid-June U-turn is well-documented. NHSX piloted an app relying on fragile workarounds to avoid the privacy restrictions built into operating systems, despite warnings from many outside the project — myself included — that it was likely to encounter problems. In June, the government admitted that its workarounds left its system unacceptably poor at detecting either iPhones or Androids at all. What can we learn from NHSX’s encounter with these tech giants? One key lesson requires distinguishing the problem of privacy from that of platform power. It is possible to be strongly in favour of a decentralised approach, as I am (as a co-developer of the open-source DP-3T system that Apple and Google adapted), while being seriously concerned about the centralised control of computing infrastructure these firms have amassed. It’s commonly said that in the digital world, data is power. This simple view might apply to a company collecting data through an app or a website, such as a supermarket, but doesn’t faithfully capture the source of power of the firms controlling the hardware and software platforms these apps and websites run on. Using privacy technologies, such as “federated” or “edge” computing, Apple and Google can understand and intervene in the world, while truthfully saying they never saw anybody’s personal data. Data is just a means to an end, and new, cryptographic tools are emerging that let those firms’ same potentially problematic ends be reached without privacy-invasive means. These tools give those controlling and co-ordinating millions or even billions of computers the monopolistic power to analyse or shape communities or countries, or even to change individual behaviour, such as to privately target ads based on their most sensitive data — without any single individual’s data leaving their phone. It’s not just ad targeting: privacy technologies could spotlight the roads where a protest is planned, the areas or industries likely to harbour undocumented migrants, or the spots in an oppressive country most likely to be illegal LGBT clubs — not personal data, but data with serious consequences nonetheless. This approach is effectively what underpins the Apple-Google contact-tracing system. It’s great for individual privacy, but the kind of infrastructural power it enables should give us sleepless nights. Countries that expect to deal a mortal wound to tech giants by stopping them building data mountains are bulls charging at a red rag. In all the global crises, pandemics and social upheavals that may yet come, those in control of the computers, not those with the largest datasets, have the best visibility and the best – and perhaps the scariest — ability to change the world. Law should be puncturing and distributing this power, and giving it to individuals, communities and, with appropriate and improved human-rights protections, to governments. To do so, we need new digital rights. Data protection and privacy laws are easily dodged or circumvented by technical assurances of confidentiality: we need something more ambitious to escape the giants’ walled gardens. A “right to repair” would stop planned obsolescence in phones, or firms buying up competitors just to cut them off from the cloud they need to run. A “right to interoperate” would force systems from different providers, including online platforms, to talk to each other in real time, allowing people to leave a social network without leaving their friends. These interventions need strong accompanying oversight to maintain security and privacy, and stop unwanted side-effects or government abuse, such as the outlawing of end-to-end encryption to oppress dissidents and whistle-blowers. It all starts from realising that deflating digital power isn’t just about governing data: it’s the walls of the underlying systems we have to tear down

1 0

Google's AMP, the Canonical Web, and the Importance of Web Standards
by Giovanni Biscuolo July 4, 2020

July 4, 2020

Buongiorno, un altro esempio di involontaria strategia «Embrace and extinguish» del web. ...un altro piccolo ma molto significativo esempio della «fenomenologia degli standard», che storicamente a tutto sono serviti tranne che contribuire a rendere il mercato accessibile e concorrenziale. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/googles-amp-canonical-web-and-importa… «Google's AMP, the Canonical Web, and the Importance of Web Standards» Alexis Hancock; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Have you ever clicked on a link after googling something, only to find that Google didn’t take you to the actual webpage but to some weird Google-fied version of it? Instead of the web address being the source of the article, it still says “google” in the address bar on your phone? That’s what’s known as Google Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP), and now Google has announced that AMP has graduated from the OpenJS Foundation Incubation Program. [...] What Is AMP? This Google-backed, stripped down HTML framework was created with the promises of creating faster web pages for a better user experience. Cutting out slower loading content, like those developed with JavaScript. At a high level, AMP works by fast loading stripped down versions of full web pages for mobile viewing. [...] AMP pages began making an appearance by 2016. But right away, many observed that AMP encroached on the principles of the open web. The web was built on open standards, developed through consensus, that small and large actors alike can use. Which, in this case, entails keeping open web standards in the forefront and discouraging proprietary, closed standards. [...] The final URL, the one in view or the URL bar, of a cached AMP page would look something like this: https://www.google.com/amp/www.example.com/amp.doc.html This cache model does not follow the web origin concept and creates a new framework and structure to adhere to. The promise is better performances and experience for users. Yet, the approach is implementation first and web standards later. Since Google has become such an ingrained part of the modern web for so many, any technology they deploy would immediately have a large share of users and adopters. This is also paired with other arguments other product teams within Google have made to reshape the URL as we know it. This fundamentally changed the way the mobile web is served for many users. [...] If Google was simply a web performance company that would still be too much centralization of the web’s decisions. But they are not just a one-function company, they are a giant conglomerate that already controls the largest mobile OS, web browser, and search engine in the world. [...] Furthermore, the web standards process itself is far from perfect. Standards organizations are heavily dominated by members of corporate companies and the connections one may have to them offer immense social capital. Less-represented people don’t have the social capital to join or be a member. It’s a long way until a more equitable process occurs for these types of organizations; paired with the lack of diversity these kinds of groups tend to have, the costs of membership, and time commitments. These particular issues are not Google’s fault, but Google has an immense amount of power when it comes to joining these groups. When joining standards organizations, It’s not a matter of earning their way up, but deciding if they should loosen their reigns. [...] --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- «The web standards process itself is far from perfect.» è una battuta spettacolare, perfetta per un titolo di Lercio. Saluti. Giovanni. -- Giovanni Biscuolo

2 2

Inside the Invasive, Secretive “Bossware” Tracking Workers
by Giovanni Biscuolo July 4, 2020

July 4, 2020

Buongiorno, non fosse stato per la fonte (EFF) lo avrei scambiato per un articolo di Lercio [1]... poi proseguendo la lettura il mio sorriso si è trasformato in smorfia di disgusto. Pare non ci sia proprio nessun pudore, nessuna vergogna, nessuna etica che riesca ad evitare al genere umano di precipitare a simili livelli (c'è di peggio, lo so!). Ai giuristi in lista: *se* venisse fatta una cosa del genere in Italia da una azienda qualsiasi, in particolare da una multinazionale, il lavoratore potrebbe opporsi, sempre che abbia il coraggio di farlo e le competenze per scoprirlo? (Nota: la tabella "stralciata" dall'articolo e riportata più sotto viene visualizzata bene solo se si usa un font "monospaced") «Inside the Invasive, Secretive “Bossware” Tracking Workers» Bennett Cyphers, Karen Gullo; 1 Jul 2020 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/inside-invasive-secretive-bossware-tr… --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- COVID-19 has pushed millions of people to work from home, and a flock of companies offering software for tracking workers has swooped in to pitch their products to employers across the country. [...] What can they do? Bossware typically lives on a computer or smartphone and has privileges to access data about everything that happens on that device. Most bossware collects, more or less, everything that the user does. We looked at marketing materials, demos, and customer reviews to get a sense of how these tools work. There are too many individual types of monitoring to list here, but we’ll try to break down the ways these products can surveil into general categories. [...] Every product we looked at has the ability to take frequent screenshots of each worker’s device, and some provide direct, live video feeds of their screens. This raw image data is often arrayed in a timeline, so bosses can go back through a worker’s day and see what they were doing at any given point. Several products also act as a keylogger, recording every keystroke a worker makes, including unsent emails and private passwords. A couple even let administrators jump in and take over remote control of a user’s desktop. These products usually don’t distinguish between work-related activity and personal account credentials, bank data, or medical information. [...] Some bossware goes even further, reaching into the physical world around a worker’s device. Companies that offer software for mobile devices nearly always include location tracking using GPS data. At least two services—StaffCop Enterprise and CleverControl—let employers secretly activate webcams and microphones on worker devices. There are, broadly, two ways bossware can be deployed: as an app that’s visible to (and maybe even controllable by) the worker, or as a secret background process that workers can’t see. Most companies we looked at give employers the option to install their software either way. [...] Invisible monitoring The majority of companies that build visible monitoring software also make products that try to hide themselves from the people they’re monitoring. Teramind, Time Doctor, StaffCop, and others make bossware that’s designed to be as difficult to detect and remove as possible. At a technical level, these products are indistinguishable from stalkerware. In fact, some companies require employers to specifically configure antivirus software before installing their products, so that the worker’s antivirus won’t detect and block the monitoring software’s activity. [...] The table below shows the monitoring and control features available from a small sample of bossware vendors. This isn’t a comprehensive list, and may not be representative of the industry as a whole; we looked at companies that were referred to in industry guides and search results that had informative publicly-facing marketing materials. Table: Common surveillance features of bossware products Activity Screenshots or Keylogging Webcam/ Can be made monitoring screen microphone "invisible" (apps, recordings activation websites) ActivTrak confirmed confirmed confirmed CleverControl confirmed confirmed confirmed confirmed confirmed (1, 2) DeskTime confirmed confirmed confirmed Hubstaff confirmed confirmed Interguard confirmed confirmed confirmed confirmed StaffCop confirmed confirmed confirmed confirmed confirmed (1, 2) Teramind confirmed confirmed confirmed confirmed TimeDoctor confirmed confirmed confirmed Work Examiner confirmed confirmed confirmed confirmed WorkPuls confirmed confirmed confirmed [...] Some of the biggest companies in the world use bossware. Hubstaff customers include Instacart, Groupon, and Ring. Time Doctor claims 83,000 users; its customers include Allstate, Ericsson, Verizon, and Re/Max. ActivTrak is used by more than 6,500 organizations, including Arizona State University, Emory University, and the cities of Denver and Malibu. Companies like StaffCop and Teramind do not disclose information about their customers, but claim to serve clients in industries like health care, banking, fashion, manufacturing, and call centers. Customer reviews of monitoring software give more examples of how these tools are used. [...] Unfortunately, many use cases involve employers wielding excessive power over workers. Perhaps the largest class of products we looked at are designed for “productivity monitoring” or enhanced time tracking—that is, recording everything that workers do to make sure they’re working hard enough. Some companies frame their tools as potential boons for both managers and workers. Collecting information about every second of a worker’s day isn’t just good for bosses, they claim—it supposedly helps the worker, too. Other vendors, like Work Examiner and StaffCop, market themselves directly to managers who don’t trust their staff. These companies often recommend tying layoffs or bonuses to performance metrics derived from their products. [...] Some firms also market their products as punitive tools, or as ways to gather evidence for potential worker lawsuits. InterGuard advertises that its software “can be silently and remotely installed, so you can conduct covert investigations [of your workers] and bullet-proof evidence gathering without alarming the suspected wrongdoer.” This evidence, it continues, can be used to fight “wrongful termination suits.” In other words, InterGuard can provide employers with an astronomical amount of private, secretly-gathered information to try to quash workers’ legal recourse against unfair treatment. [...] Unfortunately, excessive information collection often isn’t an accident, it’s a feature. Work Examiner specifically advertises its product’s ability to capture private passwords. Another company, Teramind, reports on every piece of information typed into an email client—even if that information is subsequently deleted. Several products also parse out strings of text from private messages on social media so that employers can know the most intimate details of workers’ personal conversations. [...] Companies that have adopted bossware must consider what their goals are, and should try to accomplish them in less-intrusive ways. Bossware often incentivizes the wrong kinds of productivity—for example, forcing people to jiggle their mouse and type every few minutes instead of reading or pausing to think. Constant monitoring can stifle creativity, diminish trust, and contribute to burnout. If employers are concerned about data security, they should consider tools that are specifically tailored to real threats, and which minimize the personal data caught up in the process. [...] COVID-19 has put new stresses on us all, and it is likely to fundamentally change the ways we work as well. However, we must not let it usher in a new era of even-more-pervasive monitoring. We live more of our lives through our devices than ever before. That makes it more important than ever that we have a right to keep our digital lives private—from governments, tech companies, and our employers. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Saluti, Giovanni. [1] https://www.lercio.it/stati-generali-renzi-propone-scudo-legale-anche-per-g… -- Giovanni Biscuolo

1 0

Il caso Assange e il futuro della nostra società.
by Giovanni Biscuolo July 3, 2020

July 3, 2020

Cari nexiani, contrariamente a quanto (giustamente) in uso in lista, l'oggetto dell'email è mio, non è il titolo dell'articolo: ci tenevo a DRAMMATIZZARE il discorso. Per analogia con quanto detto da Fico ieri in merito a Regeni, quanto sta succedendo ad Assange è un calcio in faccia, con gli anfibi, alla libertà di ciascuno di noi. Non credo di esagerare dicendo che il «caso Assange» è un punto di non ritorno, dopo il quale sarà impossibile per l'occidente sostenere quello che ha sostenuto fino a tre secondi fa. «Wikileaks-Hosted "Most Wanted Leaks" Reflects the Transparency Priorities of Public Contributors» Kurt Opsahl, Wed 1 Jul 2020 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/wikileaks-hosted-most-wanted-leaks-re… --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- The government recently released a superseding indictment[1] against Wikileaks editor in chief Julian Assange, currently imprisoned and awaiting extradition in the United Kingdom. As we’ve written before, this prosecution poses a clear threat to journalism, and, whether or not Assange considers himself a journalist, the indictment targets routine journalistic practices such as working with and encouraging sources during an investigation. [...] Rather than viewing this document as a wishlist generated by Wikileaks staff or a reflection of Assange’s personal priorities, we must understand that this was a publicly-generated list developed by contributors who felt each “wanted” document offered information that would be valuable to the public. [...] The Most Wanted Leaks page shows that it has visible “edit” links, similar to what one might find on any wiki page. [...] It’s easy to understand why. The government prosecutors are trying to paint a picture of Assange as a mastermind soliciting leaks, and is charging him with violating computer crime law and the Espionage Act. It doesn’t suit their narrative to show Wikileaks as a host for a crowdsourced page where activists, scholars, and government accountability experts from across the globe could safely and anonymously offer their feedback on the transparency failures of their own governments. [...] We’ve long argued that working with sources to obtain classified documents of public importance is a well-established and integral part of investigative journalism and protected by the First Amendment. [...] Many of the documents on the Most Wanted Leaks page are of clear public interest. Some of the documents requested by editors of the page include: * Lists of domains that are censored (or on proposed or voluntary censorship lists) in China, Australia, Germany, and the U.K. * In Austria, the source code for e-Voting systems used in student elections. * Documents detailing the Vatican’s interactions with Nazi Germany. * Profit-sharing agreements between the Ugandan government and oil companies * PACER - the United States’ federal court record search database. While today it’s in the government’s interest to paint Wikileaks as a rogue band of hackers directed by Assange, the Most Wanted Leaks page epitomizes one of the most important features of Wikileaks: that as a publisher, it served the public interest. Wikileaks served activists, human rights defenders, scholars, reformers, journalists and other members of the public. With the Most Wanted Leaks page, it gave members of the public a platform to speak anonymously about documents they believed would further public understanding. It’s an astonishingly thoughtful and democratic way for the public to educate and communicate their priorities to potential whistleblowers, those in power, and other members of the public. The ways Wikileaks served and furthered the public interest doesn’t fit the prosecution’s litigation strategy. If Assange goes to court to combat the Espionage charges he is facing, he may well be prevented from discussing the public interest and impact of Wikileaks’ publication history. That’s because the Espionage Act, passed in 1917, pre-dated modern communications technology and was never designed as a tool to crack down on investigative journalists and their publishers. There’s no public interest defense to the Espionage Act, and those charged under the Espionage Act may have no chance to even explain their motivation or the impact—good or bad—of their actions. [...] Regardless of how you feel about Assange as a person, we should all be concerned about his prosecution. If found guilty, the harm won’t be just to Assange himself—it will be to every journalist and news outlet that will face legal uncertainty for working with sources to publish leaked information. And a weakened press ultimately hurts the public’s ability to access truthful and relevant information about those in power. And that is directly against the public interest. Read the new charges against Assange. [1] A superseding indictment means that the government is replacing its original charges with new, amended charges. [2] The Most Wanted Leaks document was also submitted in Chelsea Manning’s trial. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-wikileaks-most-wanted-list-admitt… --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- -- Giovanni Biscuolo

1 0

Dati interessanti
by don Luca Peyron July 3, 2020

July 3, 2020

The world has changed dramatically over the first three months of 2020, with the COVID-19 pandemic impacting almost every aspect of our lives. These changes have been clearly evident in the world’s digital behaviours too, especially as billions of people turn to connected devices to help them cope with life and work under lockdown. We’ve dedicated a significant portion of our Digital 2020 April Global Statshot Report to exploring these extraordinary trends, but this update also includes all of the usual data points that we cover in our ongoing series of Global Digital Reports too, including detailed analysis of how people around the world are using the internet, social media, mobile devices, and ecommerce. https://wearesocial.com/blog/2020/04/digital-around-the-world-in-april-2020 _________________________ 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

"Eric Schmidt: I Used to Run Google. Silicon Valley Could Lose to China."
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 3, 2020

July 3, 2020

*Eric Schmidt: I Used to Run Google. Silicon Valley Could Lose to China.* /We can’t win the technology wars without the federal government’s help./ By Eric Schmidt Dr. Schmidt is the chairman of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence and the Defense Innovation Board. He is the former chairman and C.E.O. of Google. Feb. 27, 2020 America’s companies and universities innovate like no other places on earth. We are garage start-ups, risk-taking entrepreneurs and intrepid scholars exploring new advances in science and technology. But that is only part of the story. Many of Silicon Valley’s leaders got their start with grants from the federal government — including me. My graduate work in computer science in the 1970s and ’80s was funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. [...] continua qui: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/opinion/eric-schmidt-ai-china.html

1 0