September 2020 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Linked Open Data e P.A., binario morto?

by Antonio Iacono

Matteo Fortini si definisce un "civic hacker" ma è pure un assessore della sua città e vede quindi la P.A. anche dall'interno. In questo articolo [1] parla della sua esperienza con gli Open Data, vorrei qui riportare le sue conclusioni: "Quando la PA si rivolge all'esterno spesso viene percepita come “gelosa” dei propri dati. Anche fra gli esperti si commenta spesso sulla mancata apertura di questo o quel dataset, attribuendo implicitamente la colpa a una sorta di mala fede degli enti, che non vogliono privarsi di un bene essenziale. Ho capito che in generale le amministrazioni in realtà non sono padrone dei loro dati, che sono chiusi in archivi creati e gestiti dai software dei loro fornitori del momento, nei confronti dei quali hanno ridottissimi margini contrattuali, a maggior ragione nel caso in cui si vogliano ottenere risultati non necessari per ottemperare a qualche legge e pertanto interessanti potenzialmente per tutti i clienti. Aprire i dati non richiede solo buona volontà: richiede tempo, persone dedicate, e anche denaro. Tutto moltiplicato per gli adempimenti burocratici. È fondamentale, inoltre, avere una domanda di dati che venga dall'esterno. L’intenzione di aprire uno o più dataset si bloccherà molto più facilmente nelle pieghe di tantissimi adempimenti più urgenti, se non ci sarà qualcuno che abbia richiesto una loro pubblicazione per qualche motivo. Per questo, occorre anche diffondere la cultura dei dati aperti e in senso generale della filosofia che vi sta alla base: spesso gruppi di cittadini, associazioni, partiti, enti privati realizzano opere di ricerca producendo dati interessantissimi, che vengono purtroppo soltanto citati in occasione di qualche pubblicazione o conferenza stampa, restando ad ammuffire perché dimenticati in un hard disk, e non hanno neppure l’idea di richiedere dati alla pubblica amministrazione per fare ragionamenti." Nel 2006 Tim Berners-Lee ha coniato il termine Linked Data e successivamente ha suggerito una classificazione da 1 a 5 stelle per gli Open Data [2]. A fine 2012 la Commissione di Coordinamento SPC, formata da persone provenienti da varie amministrazioni ha presentato le "Linee guida per l'interoperabilità semantica attraverso i linked open data" [3]. Dal 2013 ad oggi? Chiudo sempre con le parole di Matteo Fortini: "Il nostro mondo è sempre più caratterizzato dalla pubblicazione di dati e contenuti online, spesso con licenze aperte. Purtroppo a quest’abbondanza non corrisponde in generale altrettanto impegno - politico, economico, tecnologico - perché questi contenuti siano disponibili sempre e per sempre. Basta un cambio di governo, una crisi economica, un aggiornamento normativo, un problema amministrativo o tecnico perché siano indisponibili anche per lunghi periodi. Pensiamo che la società civile debba riconoscere l’inestimabile valore dei dati aperti pubblicati e si debba adoperare perché non rischino in alcun modo di essere perduti o, con conseguenze simili, diventare non disponibili. Come accadde per i monaci benedettini in epoca medievale, è tempo di porsi il problema di mettere al sicuro tutti questi dati dall’impatto di qualsiasi catastrofe che li possa colpire, perché rimangano patrimonio pubblico." Antonio [1] https://medium.com/@mfortini/odd17-imola-gli-open-data-dentro-e-fuori-la-pa… [2] https://5stardata.info/en/ [3] https://www.agid.gov.it/sites/default/files/repository_files/documentazione…

Sept. 26, 2020

The corruption of defi in 2020

by Giacomo Tesio

I decided to publish this anonymously so that the message would not be dismissed as virtue signaling. Anyone who communicates this message would be rejected by the decentralized finance (“defi”) community. There is an unspoken agreement between defi insiders and the bad actors that they protect. The insiders do not challenge malfeasance, and for their leniency they are rewarded with privileged information. If an outsider draws attention to the corruption, the insiders dutifully defend the bad actors by saying it only looks bad from the outside. The rationalization goes like this — it’s really hard to understand how legitimate everything is unless you contribute to the space. Non-contributors who feel victimized by insiders should blame themselves. They volunteered for abuse. It is a permissionless system. This is the twisted song and dance that drove defi profit-making in late 2020. Offer something to the space, and draw closer to the center. See something suspect? Keep quiet to draw further in, or raise a fuss and be phased out. A community that rewards bad actors and punishes good ones will soon find itself full of people who are openly hostile to discussions of virtue. New recruits will fit a certain mold, and the oldest members will look away and acquiesce to the turpitude. Stunningly, in an industry full of technical analysts, no one seems concerned about the long-term trajectory of this arrangement. Continua con diversi esempi su https://medium.com/@crypto_angel/the-corruption-of-defi-in-2020-bbcdadccf201 (anche su https://archive.is/w4wYT ) La definizione corretta di blockchain è "large-scale math-washed scam-factory" Lo è da sempre e lo sarà fino allo scoppio definitivo della bolla. Questo articolo di autodenuncia da un insider è solo l'ennesimo sintomo del lento collasso in corso. Giacomo

Sept. 25, 2020

manifestazione in difesa della formazione - Roma, 26 set, Pza del Popolo, 15-19

by Enrico Nardelli

Mi permetto di segnalare quanto sotto. Spero non sia in contrasto con le regole della lista, nel qual caso mi scuso in anticipo. Ciao, Enrico -------- Messaggio Inoltrato -------- Oggetto: manifestazione e comunicazioni Data: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 14:57:17 +0200 Mittente: Disintossichiamoci - Sapere per il futuro <valpinto(a)unina.it> A: sapereperilfuturo(a)gmail.com Care/i, torniamo a scrivervi per segnalarvi la nostra decisione di partecipare alla manifestazione "statica" che si terrà a Roma il 26 settembre dalle 15 alle 19 a Piazza del Popolo. Si tratta di una manifestazione di vari movimenti e sigle sindacali e del mondo universitario che intende testimoniare la centralità della formazione a tutti i livelli per lo sviluppo civile e sociale del nostro Paese e, in particolare, vuole ribadire l'inadeguatezza delle attuali politiche universitarie fondate su modelli di governance competitivi e di valutazione premiale che mortificano la libertà di ricerca e accentuano le disuguaglianze territoriali. Si è detto nei mesi scorsi che niente sarebbe stato più come prima, ma di fatto il modello di università che abbiamo criticato nel documento "Disintossichiamoci - Sapere per il futuro" permane tuttora inalterato se non rafforzato. La VQR viene sostanzialmente confermata, la quota premiale del finanziamento universitario continua a crescere, nulla si è fatto per mettere in discussione il sistema dei dipartimenti di eccellenza. Inoltre, la ripresa affrettata e indiscriminata della didattica in modalità mista (in presenza e online) pone all’università ulteriori problemi tanto in prospettiva - dal momento che abbiamo ragione di credere non si tratti di una modalità transitoria limitata all’emergenza (per questo aspetto generale rimandiamo al nostro documentohttps://www.roars.it/online/didattica-blended-una-tappa-verso-luniversita-delle-piattaforme/) - quanto nell’immediato. Da una parte, costituisce un rischio per la salute pubblica (rischio che si sarebbe potuto evitare con un altro semestre di didattica di emergenza senza compromettere il funzionamento complessivo delle attività universitarie), dall'altra inficia la qualità dell'insegnamento dal momento che obbliga a pasticciati setting didattici che di fatto non sono né in presenza né a distanza. Di più, il fatto che non si sia provveduto, come avevamo auspicato nella nostra lettera del 27 marzo 2020 (https://www.roars.it/online/vqr-teledidattica-e-open-access-lettera-aperta-…) a incentivare l'uso di piattaforme non proprietarie per svolgere la didattica a distanza ci mette ancora di fronte a gravi questioni come la tutela della privacy e la telesorveglianza. A riguardo, segnaliamo che una recente sentenza della Corte di Giustizia dell'Unione Europea (16 luglio 2020 - causa C-311/18, Maximilian Schrems vs Facebook) ha ribadito che il trasferimento dei dati personali dei cittadini europei negli Stati Uniti può avvenire solo nel rispetto delle garanzie previste dal General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) europeo, e ha stabilito che tali garanzie non sono attualmente assicurate dalla normativa statunitense. Ciò significa praticamente che l'uso di piattaforme come Meet di Google e Teams di Microsoft mette a rischio la privacy dei dati sensibili dei docenti e degli studenti che se ne servono. Sulla base della citata sentenza della Corte di Giustizia europea vi invitiamo a inoltrare reclamo al Garante per la protezione dei dati personali. E' possibile farlo senza oneri. Di seguito l'esempio di reclamo sul sito di noyb, l'associazione di Maximilian Schrems, in italiano: https://noyb.eu/files/C29/complaint-33.pdf. Qui potete trovare la procedura suggerita per gli utenti: https://noyb.eu/en/next-steps-users-faqs. Ci stiamo adoperando anche per fornire un modulo di reclamo semi-compilato adattato alla situazione universitaria italiana. Un caro saluto, Federico Bertoni, Davide Borrelli, Maria Chiara Pievatolo, Valeria Pinto ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -- EN ===================================================================== Prof. Enrico Nardelli Dipartimento di Matematica - Universita' di Roma "Tor Vergata" Via della Ricerca Scientifica snc - 00133 Roma tel: +39 06 7259.4204 fax: +39 06 7259.4699 mobile: +39 335 590.2331 e-mail: nardelli(a)mat.uniroma2.it home page: http://www.mat.uniroma2.it/~nardelli blog: http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/blog/enardelli/ http://link-and-think.blogspot.it/ ===================================================================== --

Sept. 25, 2020

TIME SENSITIVE: Sign-On Letter To Object To Object To Attack on Encryption at the European Commission

by Enrico Nardelli

Carissimi, vi segnalo quanto sotto, che mi arriva dall'ACM. Ciao, Enrico --------------------- The email request below for sign-on to the attached proposed "civil society" group letter to EC leaders has been organized by the DC- and Brussels-based Center for Democracy & Technology <https://cdt.org/who-we-are/>, with which USTPC has collaborated publicly in the past (most recently earlier this month on an intellectual property matter <https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/public-policy/security-research…>). The /general/ subject of the letter is the importance of maintaining the integrity of end-to-end encryption. The /specific/ context addressed by the letter is whether and when encrypted conversations should be scannable by law enforcement seeking to find and interdict "CSAM," or "child sexual abuse materials." The letter addresses these issues, in substantial measure, from a technical perspective. *Date:* September 25, 2020 at 7:48:45 AM EDT *To:* National Security Surveillance Coalition <surveillance-coalition(a)googlegroups.com> *Subject:* *[surveillance-coalition] Sign-On Letter To Object To Object To Attack on Encryption at the European Commission* Colleagues: CDT is concerned with the approach being taken in this experts report <https://t.co/9A2NoGKCv3?amp=1> to the European Commission on detecting CSAM in communications protected by end-to-end encryption. The options the report short-lists for Commission consideration would all undermine encryption, and we explain how in the attached sign-on letter. Among other things, short-listed options for the Commission mis-characterize communications to which exceptional access has been provided to law enforcement as having been protected by end-to-end encryption. We are inviting civil society organizations to join Article 19, Bits of Freedom, CDT, European Digital Rights (EDRi), Global Partners Digital, Hermes Center, Internet Society, IT-Pol and Prostasia Foundation in subscribing to the letter. The letter is timely and is time-sensitive. The report, as well as the issue of law enforcement access to encrypted communications in the child sexual abuse context, are on the agenda <https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/45682/cm03665-en20.pdf> for a meeting of the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council <https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/configurations/jha/>on October 8-9. We would like to disseminate the letter before that meeting. Accordingly, the */deadline for signing on is close of business Eastern time on Thursday, 1 October. /*To sign onto the letter, please */send the name of your organization as you would like it to appear in the list of signatories to me at gnojeim(a)cdt.org <mailto:gnojieim@cdt.org>./* (If you respond this week and receive an out-of-office message, ignore it!) *Who:Civil Society Organizations* *What:Subscribe to the attached sign-on letter objecting to experts’ report to European Commission* *When: No later than 1 October at 5:00 pm Eastern* *How:RSVP to Greg Nojeim, gnojeim(a)cdt.org <mailto:gnojeim@cdt.org>, with the name your organization as you would like it listed on the letter* Best, Greg Nojeim, CDT -- EN ===================================================================== Prof. Enrico Nardelli Dipartimento di Matematica - Universita' di Roma "Tor Vergata" Via della Ricerca Scientifica snc - 00133 Roma tel: +39 06 7259.4204 fax: +39 06 7259.4699 mobile: +39 335 590.2331 e-mail: nardelli(a)mat.uniroma2.it home page: http://www.mat.uniroma2.it/~nardelli blog: http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/blog/enardelli/ http://link-and-think.blogspot.it/ ===================================================================== --

Sept. 25, 2020

Amazon completes its panopticon with Ring drone that flies around your house

by Giacomo Tesio

Amazon-owned Ring is producing a new home security camera that can fly around your house and film you. No, we’re not kidding, that’s actually what it’s built to do. And you'll have to pay $249.99 for the privilege. The Always Home Cam, which Amazon announced today at its virtual hardware show, is an autonomous drone. It rests in a cute white docking system until you’re ready for it to buzz to life and can return there to charge once its job is done. If you feel the hairs on the back of your neck stand to attention at the thought of an Amazon-powered drone following you around the house, you’re not alone. Amazon knows this and included features to make you feel less weird about it. But we still feel weird about it. And we can't help worrying about the potential for misuse and abuse, not just by Ring, Amazon, hackers, or law enforcement, but by abusive and controlling partners intent on tracking other people's every move in the one place they ought to feel safe: their own homes. [...] The Always Home Cam is fully autonomous. You can teach it the layout of your house and let it do its own thing if you want, or you can take control and fly it to a specific area of your house. Can’t remember whether or not you turned the burner off before you left? Fly your Always Home Cam to the kitchen and check if anything’s burned down. [...] Still, though, the idea of purchasing a camera that can fly around and surveil our abodes gives us the creeps, and it coming from Amazon only worsens matters. The feeling is only compounded by Ring’s history of less-than-stellar user privacy — the company’s devices have been hacked on more than one occasion, its users’ passwords have been leaked on the dark web, and we’ve seen some damning reports about third-party tracking abilities through the devices, too. The privacy negligence reached such a level last year that the federal government sued Ring over it. Tratto da https://www.inputmag.com/tech/amazon-wants-to-put-a-ring-always-home-cam-dr… Giacomo

Sept. 25, 2020

Digital Commons | 28th Sept. 2020, h. 16.30, online | Semester Inaugural Talk and Workshop of the Faculty of Design and Art of the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano

by alvise

Faculty of Design and Art | Free University of Bozen-Bolzano *Semester Inaugural Talk and Workshop* Monday the 28th of September 2020 h. 16.30 (CET), online (see below for url) *Digital Commons* Speakers: *Riccardo Balli (DJ Balli)* | *SonicBelligeranza and Accademia Italian DJ* *Bianca Herlo* | *Weizenbaum Institut, Universität der Künste, Berlin* *Savatore Iaconesi* | *artisponesource.net <http://artisponesource.net> and ISIA, Firenze* *Maurizio Teli* | *Aalborg Universitet* Chair: German Duarte Penaranda, Alvise Mattozzi and Jennifer Schubert Zoom Meeting: Topic: Semester Inaugural Talk Time: Sep 28, 2020 04:00 PM Amsterdam, Berlin, Rome, Stockholm, Vienna Join Zoom Meeting https://scientificnet.zoom.us/j/97942452949?pwd=N3E1VXhMZ2g2dmtHcUcxYUpUSTl… Meeting ID: 979 4245 2949 Passcode: 067027

Sept. 25, 2020

Social-media platforms are destroying evidence of war crimes

by Federico Guerrini

"Human Rights Watch, a pressure group, recently revisited the social-media evidence it had cited in its public reports between 2007 and 2020 (though most were published in the past five years). It found that 11% of it had vanished. Others have run into similar problems. The Syrian Archive, a non-profit group that records and analyses evidence of atrocities in Syria, estimates that 21% of the nearly 1.75m YouTube videos it had catalogued up to June 2020 are no longer available. Almost 12% of the 1m or so tweets it logged have also disappeared." https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/09/26/social-media-pl… -- http://www.forbes.com/sites/federicoguerrini/

Sept. 25, 2020

Testimony of Tim Kendall (Director of Monetization at Facebook)

by Giacomo Tesio

Riporto di seguito la testimonianza di Tim Kendalall alla commissione per l'energia ed il Commercio, tratta da https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/f… Suggerirei di sostituire mentalmente "algorithms" con "companies". Giacomo Thank you, Chairpersons Pallone and Schakowsky, for inviting me to speak today. When I started working in technology, my hope was to build products that brought people together in new and productive ways. I wanted to improve the world we all lived in. Instead, the social media services that I and others have built over the past 15 years have served to tear people apart with alarming speed and intensity. At the very least, we have eroded our collective understanding—at worst, I fear we are pushing ourselves to the brink of a civil war.I feel ashamed by this outcome. And I am deeply concerned. And to that end, I am compelled to talk to you about what we can do to limit further damage—and maybe even undo some of it. My path in technology started at Facebook where I was the first Director of Monetization. I thought my job was to figure out the business model for the company, and presumably one that sought to balance the needs of its stakeholders -- its advertisers, its users and its employees. Instead, we sought to mine as much attention as humanly possible and turn into historically unprecedented profits. To do this, we didn’t simply create something useful and fun. We took a page from Big Tobacco’s playbook, working to make our offering addictive at the outset. Tobacco companies initially just sought to make nicotine more potent. But eventually that wasn’t enough to grow the business as fast as they wanted. And so they added sugar and menthol to cigarettes so you could hold the smoke in your lungs for longer periods. At Facebook, we added status updates, photo tagging, and likes, which made status and reputation primary and laid the groundwork for a teenage mental health crisis. Allowing for misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news to flourish were like Big Tobacco’s bronchodilators, which allowed the cigarette smoke to cover more surface area of the lungs. But that incendiary content alone wasn’t enough. To continue to grow the user base and in particular, the amount of time and attention users would surrender to Facebook, they needed more. Tobacco companies added ammonia to cigarettes to increase the speed with which nicotine traveled to the brain. Extreme, incendiary content—think shocking images, graphic videos, and headlines that incite outrage—sowed tribalism and division. And this result has been unprecedented engagement -- and profits. Facebook’s ability to deliver this incendiary content to the right person, at the right time, in the exact right way... that is their ammonia. Social media preys on the most primal parts of your brain. The algorithm maximizes your attention by hitting you repeatedly with content that triggers your strongest emotions— it aims to provoke, shock, and enrage. When you see something you agree with, you feel compelled to defend it. When you see something you don’t agree with, you feel compelled to attack it. People on the other side of the issue have the same impulses. The cycle continues with the algorithm in the middle happily dealing arms to both sides in an endless war of words and misinformation. All the while, the technology is getting smarter and better at provoking a response from you. These algorithms have brought out the worst in us. They’ve literally rewired our brains so that we’re detached from reality and immersed in tribalism. This is not by accident. It’s an algorithmically optimized playbook to maximize user attention -- and profits. And there are limited checks and balances. In 2016, internal analysis at Facebook found 64% of all extremist group joins were due to their own recommendation tools. Yet repeated attempts to counteract this problem were ignored or shut down. As you know, Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act shields Internet companies from liability for third-party content. I can think of few industries that enjoy such broad immunity and none that have profited so greatly from this lack of basic regulation. I’m not a lawyer or legislator but I can't imagine where we'd be if we hadn't held tobacco companies accountable for making so many people sick. And yet, that is what we have allowed these companies to do. It has to change. When it comes to misinformation, these companies hide behind the First Amendment and say they stand for free speech. At the same time, their algorithms continually choose whose voice is actually heard. In truth, it is not free speech they revere. Instead, Facebook and their cohorts worship at the altar of engagement and cast all other concerns aside, raising the voices of division, anger, hate and misinformation to drown out the voices of truth, justice, morality, and peace. When it comes to spreading extremist views and propaganda, these services have content moderation tools—but the tools can never seem to keep up, despite these companies having billions of dollars at their disposal. Without accountability for the platforms, we can only expect the problem to continue and get worse. As these platforms continue to addict us and make us more vulnerable, we are going to get more depressed and anxious. Our judgement will continue to weaken and our susceptibility to radicalization will only increase. A Princeton study found that watching 2 minutes of a conspiracy theory video can make people less willing to help others and reduces their belief in established scientific facts. On a personal level, I’m aware that I’ve benefited from these addictive business models and this deepens my sense of responsibility for where we are and my sense of obligation to help us improve things. I am not sure I could have ever known at the time where the work that I contributed to would lead. But for my role, I do bear some responsibility. And I regret that. One thing I can do now, however, is what I am doing: dedicate all my time and resources to undo as much damage as I can. To be clear, social media is not the root cause of every problem we’re facing. But I believe it may be the most powerful accelerant in history.These services are making us sick. These services are dividing us. It’s time we take account of the damage. It’s time we put in place the necessary measures to protect ourselves—and our country.

Sept. 24, 2020

Mon roman Sœur(s)

by Philippe Aigrain

Italian below My novel Sœur(s) went out yesterday. This polyphonic story occurs in a world of surveillance, influence and control, but it is not yet another dystopia. Here's what the reviews say : This tripartite narrative comes in the form of a polyphony that allows for a quirky and critical look - amazed! - on "our great camp of forced consumption and bureaucratized work". Fabrice Thumerel, Libr-Critique Between mass computer surveillance and political chance oscillating between metaphor and fantasy, a technical tale that operates both facetiously and to great depth, by mobilizing poetry, love and the gratuitous in the face of what crushes as if by reflex. Hugues Robert, Librairie Charybde* More here for French readers: https://www.publie.net/2020/09/23/nouveaute-soeurs-de-philippe-aigrain/ ------------ Il mio romanzo Sœur(s) è apparso ieri. This polyphonic story occurs in a world of surveillance, influence and control, but it is not yet another dystopia. Eco cosa dicono le recensioni: Questa narrazione tripartita si presenta sotto forma di una polifonia che consente uno sguardo bizzarro e critico - stupito! - sul "nostro grande campo di consumi forzati e lavoro burocratizzato". Fabrice Thumerel, Libr-Critique Tra sorveglianza informatica di massa e casualità politica che oscilla tra metafora e fantasia, un racconto tecnico che opera in modo scherzoso e profondo, mobilitando la poesia, l'amore e il gratuito di fronte a ciò che si schiaccia come per riflesso. Hugues Robert, Librairie Charybde per i lettori francesi: https://www.publie.net/2020/09/23/nouveaute-soeurs-de-philippe-aigrain/

Sept. 24, 2020

Re: [nexa] The Social Dilemma, un processo tv ai social con troppe mancanze

by lilo

Il 20/09/20 12:50, Claudio Agosti ha scritto: > Posto che il mio fastidio verso social dilemma è che si vada a prendere > come interpreti della complessità persone che sono state così poco > lungimiranti da non interrogarsi sul potere mentre ne facevano parte, e be' ma tra chi si e' dimesso e tra chi ne fa denuncia a conferenze e altro, almeno sono persone che sono capaci di un filino di messa in discussione. cosa assai rara di questi tempi.. > Nothing to Hide: https://vimeo.com/218966342 e alterna interviste a > persone con un'indagine del tutto originale che ti spiega, perchè, > nessuno dovrebbe mai dire /nothing to hide./ madonna ma lo si dice da ANNI e ANNI ormai, ancora cosi' stiamo messi? :) grande Vecna, abbraccio. -- lilo

Sept. 24, 2020