April 2021 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Our customers received 40 billion more emails in February of 2021 than in February of 2020.” ...
by gianlucaquaglia＠gmail.com April 26, 2021

April 26, 2021

By Kate Morgan26th April 2021 Since the pandemic hit, we’ve been using more digital tools to work longer hours, creating a cognitive load that’s tough on our brains. How do we fix that? L Late last year, a tweet <https://twitter.com/delia_cai/status/1330597127131684870> from BuzzFeed trends editor Delia Cai went viral: “Another day of staring at the big screen while scrolling through my little screen so as to reward myself for staring at the medium screen all week,” she joked. It seems right on. More than a year into the pandemic, we are glued to our screens. And it’s not only about binging movies and scrolling through TikTok. As remote work has set in, we’re relying entirely on digital tools to keep in touch with each other and get our work done. This all-virtual-all-the-time nature of our everyday has led to a worrisome spike in ‘digital intensity’. It’s not just that we’re increasingly using digital tools to work; it’s that we’re also using digital tools more to /work more. /A new survey from Microsoft tracked the habits of more than 30,000 users in 31 countries <https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index/hybrid-work> over the last year, and the results are alarming. “People spend 148% more minutes in weekly Teams meetings,” says Jared Spataro, Microsoft corporate vice-president. “An average user is sending 42% more chats after hours, and 200% more chats on weekends. Our customers received 40 billion more emails in February of 2021 than in February of 2020.” [...] continua qui https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210423-is-there-an-antidote-to-digit… --

1 0

Minutes before Trump left office, millions of the Pentagon’s dormant IP addresses sprang to life
by Alberto Cammozzo April 26, 2021

April 26, 2021

Da Liberationtech: <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/24/pentagon-internet-addr… <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/24/pentagon-internet-addr…>> While the world was distracted with President Donald Trump leaving office on Jan. 20, an obscure Florida company discreetly announced to the world’s computer networks a startling development: It now was managing a huge unused swath of the Internet that, for several decades, had been owned by the U.S. military. What happened next was stranger still. The company, Global Resource Systems LLC, kept adding to its zone of control. Soon it had claimed 56 million IP addresses owned by the Pentagon. Three months later, the total was nearly 175 million. That’s almost 6 percent of a coveted traditional section of Internet real estate — called IPv4 — where such large chunks are worth billions of dollars on the open market. The entities controlling the largest swaths of the Internet generally are telecommunications giants whose names are familiar: AT&T, China Telecom, Verizon. But now at the top of the list was Global Resource Systems — a company founded only in September that has no publicly reported federal contracts and no obvious public-facing website. As listed in records, the company’s address in Plantation, Fla., outside Fort Lauderdale, is a shared workspace in an office building that doesn’t show Global Resource Systems on its lobby directory. A receptionist at the shared workspace said Friday that she could provide no information about the company and asked a reporter to leave. The company did not respond to requests for comment. The only announcement of Global Resources Systems’ management of Pentagon addresses happened in the obscure world of Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) — the messaging system that tells Internet companies how to route traffic across the world. There, messages began to arrive telling network administrators that IP addresses assigned to the Pentagon but long dormant could now accept traffic — but it should be routed to Global Resource Systems. Network administrators began speculating about perhaps the most dramatic shift in IP address space allotment since BGP was introduced in the 1980s. “They are now announcing more address space than anything ever in the history of the Internet,” said Doug Madory, director of Internet analysis for Kentik, a network monitoring company, who was among those trying to figure out what was happening. He published a blog post on the mystery Saturday morning. The long life of a quick ‘fix’: Internet protocol from 1989 leaves data vulnerable to hijackers The theories were many. Did someone at the Defense Department sell off part of the military’s vast collection of sought-after IP addresses as Trump left office? Had the Pentagon finally acted on demands to unload the billions of dollars worth of IP address space the military has been sitting on, largely unused, for decades? An answer, of sorts, came Friday. The change is the handiwork of an elite Pentagon unit known as the Defense Digital Service, which reports directly to the secretary of defense. The DDS bills itself as a “SWAT team of nerds” tasked with solving emergency problems for the department and conducting experimental work to make big technological leaps for the military. Created in 2015, the DDS operates a Silicon Valley-like office within the Pentagon. It has carried out a range of special projects in recent years, from developing a biometric app to help service members identify friendly and enemy forces on the battlefield to ensuring the encryption of emails Pentagon staff were exchanging about coronavirus vaccines with external parties. Brett Goldstein, the DDS’s director, said in a statement that his unit had authorized a “pilot effort” publicizing the IP space owned by the Pentagon. “This pilot will assess, evaluate and prevent unauthorized use of DoD IP address space,” Goldstein said. “Additionally, this pilot may identify potential vulnerabilities.” The Path Forward: Safeguarding Global Innovation Keith J. Krach and Gen. Stanley McChrystal join Washington Post Live on Thursday, April 22 (The Washington Post) Goldstein described the project as one of the Defense Department’s “many efforts focused on continually improving our cyber posture and defense in response to advanced persistent threats. We are partnering throughout DoD to ensure potential vulnerabilities are mitigated.” The specifics of what the effort is trying to achieve remain unclear. The Defense Department declined to answer a number of questions about the project, and Pentagon officials declined to say why Goldstein’s unit had used a little-known Florida company to carry out the pilot effort rather than have the Defense Department itself “announce” the addresses through BGP messages — a far more routine approach. What is clear, however, is the Global Resource Systems announcements directed a fire hose of Internet traffic toward the Defense Department addresses. Madory said his monitoring showed the broad movements of Internet traffic began immediately after the IP addresses were announced Jan. 20. These hackers warned the Internet would become a security nightmare Madory said such large amounts of data could provide several benefits for those in a position to collect and analyze it for threat intelligence and other purposes. The data may provide information about how malicious actors operate online and could reveal exploitable weaknesses in computer systems. In addition, several Chinese companies use network numbering systems that resemble the U.S. military’s IP addresses in their internal systems, Madory said. By announcing the address space through Global Resource Systems, that could cause some of that information to be routed to systems controlled by the U.S. military. The data could also include accidental misconfigurations that could be exploited or fixed, Madory said. “If you have a very large amount of traffic, and someone knows how to go through it, you’ll find stuff,” Madory added. The U.S. government spent billions on a system for detecting hacks. The Russians outsmarted it. Russell Goemaere, a spokesman for the Defense Department, confirmed in a statement to The Washington Post that the Pentagon still owns all the IP address space and hadn’t sold any of it to a private party. [...]

2 2

Jury acquits Extinction Rebellion protesters despite ‘no defence in law’ | Extinction Rebellion | The Guardian
by Alberto Cammozzo April 26, 2021

April 26, 2021

La notizia dell'assoluzione su basi morali e non giuridiche degli attivisti di Extinction Rebellion mi pare talmente singolare da meritare di essere registrata anche nel nostro contesto, in cui i vuoti normativi spesso sono più efficaci dei pieni. <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/23/jury-acquits-extinction…> Six Extinction Rebellion protesters have been cleared of causing criminal damage to Shell’s London headquarters despite the judge directing jurors that they had no defence in law. Two of the group’s co-founders, Simon Bramwell, 49, and Ian Bray, 53, were acquitted on Friday alongside Jane Augsburger, 55, Senan Clifford, 60, David Lambert, 62, and James “Sid” Saunders, 41, after a trial at Southwark crown court. The six, who represented themselves, were also cleared of individual counts of having an article with intent to destroy or damage property, while a seventh protester, Katerina Hasapopoulos, 43, earlier pleaded guilty to criminal damage. Prosecutor Diana Wilson told jurors that each of the defendants deliberately sprayed graffiti or smashed windows of the Shell building in Belvedere Road, central London, on 15 April 2019. The protest, which saw activists pour fake oil, glue themselves to windows and doors, break glass, climb on to a roof and spray graffiti, was part of wider Extinction Rebellion demonstrations across the capital. Wilson said that while some protesters stood outside the building holding banners or speaking through megaphones, “these defendants went further”, adding: “The seven involved caused significant damage.” All those who stood trial explained they had targeted the Shell building because the oil giant was directly contributing to the climate crisis, thereby causing serious injury and death, and argued that it was a “necessary” and “proportionate” response to the harm being caused. Clifford quoted Sir David Attenborough and former archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams in his evidence. He said: “I believe if I don’t do whatever I can to protect our Earth, to protect life on this Earth, to stop the death and injury that is and will be happening, I’m committing a crime, a really serious crime, and I’m willing to break a window, to paint a message on a wall, I’m willing to break the glass on that emergency button, even if some say that’s a crime. “Because this is a much bigger crime and I’m trying to stop that crime, I’m trying to protect life in the only way I feel I can.” Judge Gregory Perrins directed jurors that even if they thought the protesters were “morally justified”, it did not provide them with a lawful excuse to commit criminal damage. With the exception of Saunders, who claimed in his defence that he honestly believed Shell’s employees and shareholders would have consented to his criminal damage, the judge said: “They don’t have any defence in law for the charges they face.” But the jury of seven women and five men took seven hours and four minutes to acquit them of both charges. Some of the defendants waved at jurors, several of whom were visibly emotional, as they left court. Before reaching their verdicts, the jury had asked to see a copy of the oath they took when they were sworn in. Thanking jurors for their “care and attention”, the judge said: “This has been an unusual case.” Augsburger, Bramwell, Clifford, Lambert and Saunders, who are all from Stroud, Gloucestershire and Bray, from Holmfirth, West Yorkshire, were jubilant as they left court. Hasapopoulos, from Stroud will be sentenced later. Speaking after the verdicts, Bramwell said Hasapopoulos had only pleaded guilty because of childcare issues. He said: “This is such a significant victory for the consciousness of the British people when it comes to the huge, immediate threat of climate change and the absolute failure of our government to do anything meaningful about it.”

1 0

Memento | 87° Nexa Lunch Seminar | 28 Aprile 2021
by Nexa Media April 26, 2021

April 26, 2021

Gentilissimi, vi ricordiamo che *mercoledì ***28 aprile*, dalle ore 13.00 alle ore 14.00*, si svolgerà l'87° Nexa Lunch Seminar, con un incontro dal titolo: */*/*"I rischi della sovranità digitale"*/*/.* Ospiti: *Simone Basso* (OONI) e *Edoardo Celeste* (Dublin City University). L'incontro si svolgerà 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 <https://meet.nexacenter.org/LunchSeminar> Maggiori informazioni sull'incontro sono disponibili alla pagina: https://nexa.polito.it/lunch-87 <https://nexa.polito.it/lunch-87> 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/ <https://nexa.polito.it/> _mail:_anita.botta@polito.it <mailto:anita.botta@polito.it> tel: 011 090 7219

1 0

Bad software sent postal workers to jail, because no one wanted to admit it could be wrong - The Verge
by Alberto Cammozzo April 25, 2021

April 25, 2021

<https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/23/22399721/uk-post-office-software-bug-cri…> For the past 20 years UK Post Office employees have been dealing with a piece of software called Horizon, which had a fatal flaw: bugs that made it look like employees stole tens of thousands of British pounds. This led to some local postmasters being convicted of crimes, even being sent to prison, because the Post Office doggedly insisted the software could be trusted. After fighting for decades, 39 people are finally having their convictions overturned, after what is reportedly the largest miscarriage of justice that the UK has ever seen. The impact on these employees has been vast: according to the BBC, some have lost marriages or time with their children. Talking to the BBC, Janet Skinner said that she was taken away from her two kids for nine months when she was imprisoned, after the software showed a £59,000 shortfall. She also says she lost a job offer because of her criminal conviction. The time she and others like her spent in jail can’t be bought back, and it happened because software was taken at its word. According to the BBC, another woman, who swore she was innocent, was sent to prison for theft while she was pregnant. One man reportedly died by suicide after the computer system showed that he had lost almost £100,000. Within a few months, his replacement also faced losses due to discrepancies from the software. Horizon was made by Japanese company Fujitsu, and information from it was used to prosecute 736 Post Office employees between 2000 and 2014, some of whom ended up going to jail. Bugs in the system would cause it to report that accounts that were under the employees’ control were short — the BBC has reported that some employees even tried to close the gap by remortgaging their homes, or using their own money. It does seem like the nightmare for the employees may be coming to an end. The 39 who had their convictions overturned are following another six who were cleared of wrongdoing back in December. The Post Office has also been working on financially compensating other employees who were caught up by the software. [...]

4 3

Mala innovazione: se bisogna fermarsi per salvare l’umano
by maurizio lana April 24, 2021

April 24, 2021

Condivido l'idea di Antonio che l'idea di augmented intellect di D. Englebart sia centrale ancora a distanza di 60 anni. In Englebart il computer è come un esoscheletro, è concepito per potenziare la capacità umane (poi vedremo se sono quelle dei buoni come Ripley in Alien - Scontro finale, o dei cattivi come Quaritch in Avatar) ed è quasi un grido la sua conclusione nel 1964 "After all, we spend great sums for disciplines aimed at understanding and harnessing nuclear power. Why not consider developing a discipline aimed at understanding and harnessing "neural power?" In the long run, the power of the human intellect is really much the more important of the two." JCR Licklider sviluppa riflessioni vicine a quelle di Engelbart con "Man Computer Symbiosis" [1] e con "The computer as a communication device"[2]. io agli studenti ne parlo chiamandolo "il paradigma Licklider-Engelbart", un paradigma tutt'ora vitale a mio avviso. l'idea di Engelbart era che "il computer" dovesse liberare l'intelligenza umana perché essa si potesse dedicare ai compiti in cui eccelle: We do not speak of isolated clever tricks that help in particular situations. We refer to a way of life in an integrated domain where hunches, cut-and-try, intangibles, and the human 'feel for a situation" usefully co-exist with powerful concepts, streamlined terminology and notation, sophisticated methods, and high-powered electronic aids.[3] oggi invece vediamo tentativi di sostituire l'intelligenza umana, con sistemi difettosi che tendono a perpetuare uno status quo iniquo. bisognerebbe forse, a mio avviso, in termini di comunicazione abbandonare la forma bipolare che esemplificherei come "l'IA scopre come è ripiegata una proteina, nessuno c'era mai riuscito prima"(ottimistica) e "l'IA controllerà e regolerà le nostre vite" (catastrofica). entrambe le forme implicano infatti l'agency dell'IA, che non esiste (l'agency, non l'IA!) perché l'agency è dei soggetti umani che compiono specifiche scelte per fare essere i software di IA ciò che sono, alimentandoli con i dati appropriati alla loro concezione del mondo. questo si deve sapere, deve essere comunicato. e tra l'altro ipostatizzare "l'IA" concorre a collocarla in uno spazio in cui sembra che i cittadini come singoli e come gruppo con le loro scelte non possano arrivare. invece non è così, si deve sapere che ci sono spazi di scelta e di azione per cambiare e che una buona politica serve[4]. maurizio [1] 1960. «Man-Computer Symbiosis». /IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics/ HFE-1 (1): 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/THFE2.1960.4503259 <https://doi.org/10.1109/THFE2.1960.4503259>. [2] con Robert W. Taylor. 1968. «The computer as a communication device». /Science and technology/ 76 (2): 21–41. http://gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/DEC/SRC/research-reports/abstracts/src-rr-061… <http://gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/DEC/SRC/research-reports/abstracts/src-rr-061…>. [3] 1962. «Augmenting human intellect: a conceptual framework.» AFOSR-3233. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/289565.pdf <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/289565.pdf> [4] Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL LAYING DOWN HARMONISED RULES ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=75788 <https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=75788> Il 23/04/21 12:00, nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it ha scritto: > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:20:16 +0200 > From: Antonio Iacono<antiac(a)gmail.com> > To: Nexa<nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > Subject: [nexa] Mala innovazione: se bisogna fermarsi per salvare > l’umano > Message-ID: > <CAPN6PEQ6pnkgeOWK3EU4cRoST3rudUK5uvZUyU3HCkHYyW1mwA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Quello in oggetto è il titolo di un articolo di Alessandro Longo di un > paio di giorni fa [1] che termina con: > "A volte la cosiddetta innovazione va fermata. A volte, almeno, > dobbiamo (sof)fermarci noi (per un po’): per riflettere sulla bontà di > quell’innovazione e di come integrarla nell’umano, rendendola umana. > Come dicono sempre più esperti di intelligenza artificiale e come > suggerisce lo stesso Regolamento UE. > Vanno tutelati così gli interessi di fruitori di quella tecnologia, ma > anche dei lavoratori, sui cui diritti non possiamo permetterci passi > indietro. > Appunto: un’innovazione che fa fare passi indietro alla società non è > un’innovazione; ma ha una funzione regressiva." > > Avevo scritto cose simili in questa lista un paio di mesi fa, sono > quindi d'accordo con quanto detto da Longo. > > Una piccola chiosa storica. > > Agli inizi degli anni Sessanta, a guidare l'ARPA c'era Jack Ruina [2]. > Anni dopo, ad una intervista, a chi gli chiese cosa si aspettassero i > militari dall'ARPA e dall'intelligenza artificiale, rispose: > "L'idea che avevano era di immettere in un potente calcolatore > informazioni qualitative del tipo: 'Il comandante dell'aviazione ha > bevuto due Martini' oppure ' Khrushchev non legge la Pravda il lunedì' > e il computer avrebbe recitato la parte di Sherlock Holmes, e ne > avrebbe concluso che i russi stavano costruendo un missile MX-72, o > qualcosa del genere." > Sia Ruina che Joseph Licklider [3] cercarono di mettere un freno a > questo "modo idiota di procedere" [parole loro]. > Poco tempo dopo un altro "pioniere dell'informatica moderna", tale > Douglas Engelbart [4] (se usiamo il 'mouse' è anche grazie a lui) > faticò a far passare l'idea di "intelligenza aumentata", il suo > "Augmenting Human Intellect" [5] anticipava il computer e internet di > qualche decennio. > Engelbart capì subito che i fautori dell'intelligenza artificiale > erano i suoi nemici filosofici. La loro "missione" era rimpiazzare gli > esseri umani con della macchine, mentre la sua visione consisteva > nell'estendere le capacità dell'uomo. > Ruina, Licklider, Engelbart, e poi Stallman e molti altri, gente che > non si limitava a seguire il "mainstream". > > Sessant'anni dopo le cose non sono cambiate di molto > Al posto dei tecnici in camice bianco che inseriscono schede perforate > negli enormi mainframe per "individuare modelli comportamentali fra > gli alti ufficiali sovietici", ci siamo noi che, volontariamente e > gratuitamente, immettiamo continuamente dati nella "megamacchina" che > è la rete. > E dall'altra parte c'è ancora chi, per interesse economico, politico o > militare, prova ancora a "individuare modelli comportamentali", > stavolta non degli odiati russi ma di tutti noi. > Se c'è un compito a cui l'università dovrebbe adempiere è quello di > formare degli "Engelbart" dotati di spirito critico e la forza e il > coraggio di sapere andare controcorrente (anche se questo dovesse > significare abbandonare il "proprio settore" per dedicarsi ad altri > "campi di ricerca"). > > Antonio > > [1]https://www.agendadigitale.eu/cultura-digitale/se-linnovazione-ci-fa-male-dal/ > [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruina > [3]https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Licklider > [4]https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Engelbart > [5]https://www.dougengelbart.org/content/view/138 > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > > ------------------------------ > > End of nexa Digest, Vol 144, Issue 46 > ************************************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ many of us believe the EU remains the most extraordinary, ambitious, liberal political alliance in recorded history. where it needs reform, where it needs to evolve, we should be there to help turn that heavy wheel. i. mcewan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maurizio Lana - 347 7370925

1 0

"The Military Origins of Facebook"
by J.C. DE MARTIN April 24, 2021

April 24, 2021

*The Military Origins of Facebook* /Facebook’s growing role in the ever-expanding surveillance and “pre-crime” apparatus of the national security state demands new scrutiny of the company’s origins and its products as they relate to a former, controversial DARPA-run surveillance program that was essentially analogous to what is currently the world’s largest social network./ WHITNEY WEBB APRIL 12, 2021 [...] continua qui: https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/04/investigative-reports/the-military-ori…

1 0

"Towards a new wave of technological activism" (21-22 June 2021)
by J.C. DE MARTIN April 24, 2021

April 24, 2021

*Towards a new wave of technological activism** * /Understanding, Promoting, and Designing for Sustainable Appropriation of Technologies by Grassroots Communities // / A workshop of C&T 2021 - 21-22 June 2021 https://sites.google.com/view/technological-activism-ws/home Two online half-day sessions The time will be determined to accommodate the widest participation possible from different timezones This workshop is interested in the "development of digitally-mediated technologies that value social cooperation as a common good rather than as a source of revenue and accumulation" [3]. Therefore, it focuses on grassroots initiatives and local communities wishing to contribute to the ongoing critique of platform capitalism and its sharing economy narrative, questioning the commodification of collaboration [1], and engaging in building platforms for a caring economy that values cooperation as an emancipatory practice [4]. Moreover, this workshop focuses on the sustainable appropriation of emerging technologies by grassroots communities. Indeed, following arguments developed in relation to interaction design research and environmental sustainability [16], we argue that the works discussing the relation between design researchers and grassroots communities can be expanded and rethought in the light of the crisis of sustainability humankind is going through. Here sustainability is intended as encompassing not only the ecological aspects of life but all the dimensions, as social, economic, and political, that traverse what the United Nations have called “Sustainable Development Goals” [15]. Although most available technologies are not explicitly oriented to grassroots communities, the last decade has been characterized by a low intensity but constant conversation on grassroots technologies, as shown by the COST Action “From Sharing to Caring” [2]. Indeed, in some recent work, a systematic analysis of existing platforms has been conducted showing that grassroots initiatives need better support for collectivity when they work to design their technological platform [8]. While some features of existing platforms support aspects of collectivity implicitly (such as building trust and enabling participation), the ’social’ aspect of the participation is often not directly enhanced by the design. When grassroots initiatives attempt to scale beyond the level of a very basic technological platform, the pre-existing trust and social capital benefiting from their local focus might not be sufficient. In addition, if one wants caring communities to become an alternative to classical models of consumerism, driven by more altruistic and community-driven motives rather than profit-oriented ones, supporting collectivity should be a central premise when thinking of emerging technologies to support them. Indeed, this is something that is still lacking in current implementations, at least from a design perspective—or sometimes even explicitly hindered, as the example of Mechanical Turkers starting their own platforms to self-organize illustrates [25]. At the same time, there are more and more academic contributions focusing on how technologies can be designed with grassroots communities and on the reflexive positions of the design researchers, opening the conversations to novel questions or empirical contexts, aligning with the needs and desires of society. For example, a few contributions have shown how technologies have been designed and/or appropriated by grassroots initiatives interested in food. If work done with a group buying organic food has highlighted the usefulness of analytical lenses like the distinction between strategies and tactics or the concept of artifact ecologies [6,7], other work conducted with activists trying to reduce food waste has connected the appropriation of technologies by activists to social values like collective care and commons [5]. The conversation on food reflects some of the key axes along which the discussion on technologies with and for grassroots communities has developed, namely: starting with problems that matter to people, like the aforementioned food or the transformations in employment [12,13,21] and welfare provisions [3,9]; acknowledging grassroots communities’ perspective on commons and care as theoretically relevant for design research [17,20,22]; discussing designers and people’s actions through the same language, e.g. the one of strategies and tactics, refusing to attribute a privileged position to the design researchers [19]; and, considering the collaboration between the design researchers and the grassroots communities in relation to existing institutions and institutional constraints [10,11,18,23,24]. The aforementioned contributions have had the merit of advancing understandings of the relationship between grassroots communities and digital technologies, but we think their conceptual focus can be expanded, technologically and socially. Technologically, the focus of the previous contributions has mainly been on digital platforms or web-based technologies. Recent events in society suggest that there is a need and space to expand the technological focus of the relation between grassroots communities and design research on digital technologies. For example, a controversial technology like face recognition has started to be reappropriated by social movements to identify police officers involved in critical situations like the beating and killing that has been at the center of phenomena like Black Lives Matter [14]. Therefore, in this workshop we point to the importance of looking into the appropriation by social movements of technologies beyond digital platforms, mobile apps, and web-based solutions, to refer to what we call, generically, emerging technologies. Socially, issues like fighting racism, promoting feminism, or combating climate change have emerged as key points of attention for social movements all around the world, siding the material aspects of food, work, and welfare mentioned before. The grassroots initiatives engaging with these issues, and the social movements emerging, have been advancing radical requests, e.g. defund the police, that are based on questioning the ecological and social sustainability of the dominant ways of collectively organizing life. Therefore, in this workshop we look at these social movements as bringing new ways of looking at the relations between communities and the world, relations with which designers can be entangled [22, 24] and relations in which the design, development, and use of technologies are important elements. This workshop welcomes contributions enlightening how we, as technology design researchers and activists can understand, promote, and design for such sustainable appropriation, at a descriptive, technical or conceptual level: Empirical cases illustrating the appropriation of existing digital technologies by grassroots initiatives’. Contributions might outline the role of existing technologies in infrastructuring such initiatives and their limitations in organizing action; Technical descriptions of grassroots-oriented technologies and/or of the artifact ecologies that grassroots initiatives might adopt; Conceptual contributions illustrating or expanding concepts, values, tactics and other socio-cultural aspects that are central to the appropriation of technologies by community initiatives. e.g. commoning, caring; We welcome conceptual, methodological, and empirical contributions discussing sustainable appropriation of technology by grassroot initiatives in different forms: position papers, pictorials, manifestos, design portfolios, and design fictions. In particular, we encourage potential participants to discuss their interest in the workshop theme, submitting contributions regarding next steps of working on a topic related to the theme. The following, non-exhaustive, list provides an overview of potential topics of interest: The position of design researchers in relation to grassroots communities, e.g. problematizing the idea of expert/diffuse design, overcome by the bottom-up engagement with emerging technologies; that includes the relations between grassroots initiatives, design researchers, and existing or new institutions; The exploration of (alternative) research outcomes that make results relevant to communities and other non-academic audiences. The relation between grassroots initiatives, digital technologies, and aspects of scaling or meshing, grassroots initiatives.

1 0

NutriScore e l'alimentazione algoritmica.
by Giovanni Biscuolo April 24, 2021

April 24, 2021

Buongiorno, «La guerra sull’etichetta Ue a colori per gli alimenti: per il governo “l’algoritmo danneggia l’eccellenza italiana”. Gli interessi delle multinazionali, la gara tra i Paesi» di Luisiana Gaita, 24 APRILE 2021 https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2021/04/24/la-guerra-sulletichetta-ue-a-co… --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- L’algoritmo Nutri-score è stato criticato, oltre che da diversi governi e gruppi industriali, anche numerosi nutrizionisti [...] le basi scientifiche su cui si basa sono molto discusse, a cominciare dalla lotta agli acidi grassi saturi “totalmente superata”, ancor più perché il Nutri-Score non distingue tra i diversi tipi di grassi che hanno funzioni ed effetti diversi. Secondo Legrand il Nutri-Score avrebbe dovuto limitarsi agli alimenti trasformati e lavorati, senza includere alimenti naturali di base [...] [...] Per l’europarlamentare ed ex ministro Paolo De Castro, si tratta di un sistema che non tiene in conto l’impatto ambientale “paradossalmente più pesante per gli alimenti che ottengono il bollino verde, perché sono cibi molto trasformati che necessitano di acqua, energia e packaging”. [...] LA PRESA DI POSIZIONE – Il professore Mauro Serafini, docente di Alimentazione e nutrizione umana alla facoltà di Bioscienze dell’Università di Teramo è tra i 19 scienziati italiani (Ricciardi compreso) che hanno firmato l’appello in sostegno del Nutri-Score. “Qualsiasi etichettatura nutrizionale dovrebbe essere associata a una cultura dell’alimentazione e del proprio corpo – spiega a ilfattoquotidiano.it – ma credo che il Nutri-Score sia comunque più efficace, perché parte da una solida letteratura scientifica, i dati sono stati applicati su studi epidemiologici di coorte e il sistema a semaforo offre una lettura molto più immediata al consumatore”. In pratica si capisce subito se il consumo di un determinato elemento va limitato. “Limitato, appunto, e non totalmente bannato”, aggiunge. Eppure, una così netta indicazione potrebbe avere conseguenze sugli acquisti. “Non possiamo escluderlo – spiega – ma dobbiamo domandarci se l’etichettatura abbia come obiettivo quello di migliorare le abitudini alimentari degli europei o quello di tutelare i prodotti, senza impattare sulle vendite”. LE CRITICHE AL NUTRINFORM – Il sistema italiano non ‘boccia’ nessun alimento, ma la lettura non è così immediata. “Questo significa non toccare nessun interesse – replica Serafini – perché si scorpora l’alimento dicendo, ad esempio, che percentuale di zuccheri contiene rispetto a quella che posso assumere al giorno”. Per Serafini l’etichettatura proposta dall’Italia ha più di un limite. “Non so quante persone si fermeranno a fare i calcoli delle percentuali al supermercato – aggiunge – ma è evidente che il consumatore potrebbe anche rientrare nelle dosi raccomandante prendendo tutti gli zuccheri dalle bevande gasate, invece che dalla frutta. Eppure c’è una differenza sostanziale tra le due fonti. In questo modo non si educa a una corretta alimentazione”. [...] [...] “Con il Nutri-Score tutti ricorderebbero facilmente il colore attribuito a una banana o a qualsiasi altro alimento, anche facendo la spesa al mercato (dunque senza alcuna etichettatura, ndr), abituandosi invece al Nutrinform in un contesto come quello del mercato il consumatore si troverebbe senza alcuno strumento”. [...] Serafini spiega, però, che il Nutri-Score nasce per confrontare alimenti dello stesso gruppo: “Non posso certo paragonare la frutta con il formaggio. E questo andrà spiegato al consumatore”. Già un anno fa, rispondendo alle polemiche, Hercberg e il suo team hanno sottolineato che “comparare l’olio di oliva alla Coca-Cola Light non ha alcun senso” perché il consumatore vuole confrontare “la qualità nutrizionale degli alimenti che possono sostituirsi tra loro”. Così, se vuole acquistare un olio, potrà scegliere quello classificato come migliore. L’olio d’oliva si classifica C (colore giallo), il miglior punteggio per i grassi aggiunti e gli oli vegetali, meglio di quello di soia, di girasole e di mais (D), di quello di cocco e di palma e del burro, tutti nella categoria E, in modo “totalmente coerente con la dieta mediterranea” che “mai promuove formaggi e salumi (per la maggior parte in D e qualcuno in E, che siano italiani oppure no)”, ha spiegato il team dell’Eren. Per Hercberg, invece, è il sistema italiano a batteria a essere “senza basi scientifiche” e “sostenuto dalle lobby italiane”. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- La battaglia a suon di prosciutti e olio di oliva prosegue almeno tanto quanto la perplessità di alcuni (molti?) sui sistemi di "classificazione algoritmica scientificamente dimostrata e tecnologicamente deterministica del bene e del male". Tutto questo per sostituire i nutrizionisti, la cultura personale e un sano rapporto col cibo con etichette facili facili per consumatori (l'importante è che _consumino_)? Tutto questo per dirci, ANCORA?!?, che l'olio di palma è peggio dell'olio di oliva (ma spremuto a caldo o a freddo?). ...e la RedBull è più sana o meno di una CocaCola Zero?!? :-O Sono l'unico ad averne abbastanza del marketing del "Senza olio di palma" e compagnia cantante?!? Io purtroppo conosco alcune persone con qualche disturbo alimentare, alcune già ossessionate dalle informazioni nutrizionali sulle etichette, e ho l'impressione che ulteriori map-reduce di una sana ed equilibrata conoscenza in merito NON miglioreranno le loro condizioni e la nostra "sanità nutrizionale". Modesta proposta: e se vi "limitaste" a rendere obbligatoria l'indicazione della qualità e quantità di nutrienti? Sul cibo circolano così tanti miti e incomprensioni che secondo me l'ultima cosa di cui abbiamo bisogno è delle *semplificazioni*. ...anche perché *forse* abbiamo ancora qualcosa da capire _scientificamente_ in merito, no? A me fa impressione che i nutrizionisti non si incazzino di tutto ciò, a voi? Saluti, Giovanni. P.S.: io me lo ricordo *benissimo* quando negli anni '80 del secolo scorso la margarina per un decennio almeno quasi sostituì il burro su molte tavole degli italiani a suon di spot pubblicitari... adesso invece il burro è trendy! Ah, le mode! -- Giovanni Biscuolo Noi, incompetenti come siamo, non abbiamo alcun titolo per suggerire alcunché.

1 0

Distributed Ledgers (María-Cruz Valiente, Florian Tschorsch on Internet Policy Review)
by Giovanni Biscuolo April 24, 2021

April 24, 2021

Buongiorno, il vero titolo del paper è «Blockchain-based technologies» ma io mi rifiuto di prestarmi al giochino del clickbait e per questo lo rititolo, NON a caso, con un titolo più... noioso e démodé. :-D Nel paper i due ricercatori tentano di dirimere la questione di cosa sia una blockchain e nel farlo illustrano la confusione che regna attorno a quel termine e, aggiungo io, inconsapevolmente pure sul fatto che algoritmi e strutture dati non sono una tecnologia (già ho dei problemi pure a considerare il software una tecnologia): ogni cosa ha un nome... semantico. Executive summary: «In order to facilitate an unambiguous understanding of blockchains, they have been classified as a subset of Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLTs). Hence, DLT becomes the technical accurate term, referring to consensus of replicated data in a peer-to-peer network.» https://policyreview.info/glossary/blockchain-based-technologies --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- [...] The main question that needs to be answered is: what fundamental requirements have to be met in order for a proposal or solution to be classified as blockchain technology? [...] In summary, we observe that the meaning of the word blockchain is and remains controversial. It has no standard technical definition. Rather it is used as a loose umbrella term to refer to systems that bear resemblance to the Bitcoin protocol, or more generally the Nakamoto Consensus (Narayanan & Clark, 2017). At the same time, blockchain technologies are influenced by other research areas and existing technologies, e.g., peer-to-peer networks, fault tolerance, distributed timestamping, and cryptography (Tschorsch & Scheuermann, 2016; Narayanan & Clark, 2017). In order to facilitate an unambiguous understanding of blockchains, they have been classified as a subset of Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLTs). Hence, DLT becomes the technical accurate term, referring to consensus of replicated data in a peer-to-peer network. [...] Such ambiguities between permissionless and permissioned blockchains and many more misconceptions motivated articles that explore suitable application domains of blockchains by trying to give an answer to the question “do you need a blockchain?” (Wüst & Gervais, 2018). This dissonance clearly emphasises the issues that we observe with the definition of the term blockchain. [...] With a range of use cases that go far beyond virtual currencies applications, they are proposed as a technological means to achieve trust, security, and privacy. After more than a decade of research and experimentation, however, the utility of blockchains seems to be circumscribed to few use cases, with cryptocurrencies still representing their most relevant application. [...] i.e., the system can handle Byzantine failure up to a certain threshold. [...] Often, the term is used merely to point at the ideologies that have been attached to it, with imprecise references to technological specifications. This makes it difficult to classify a given application as blockchain-based technology. While not clearly defined, blockchains typically exhibit a resemblance to Bitcoin, which is commonly considered its archetypal example, repeating its technical characteristics or following similar goals. From a purely technical point of view, blockchains are a type of DLT. Therefore, they can be understood as a distributed network of computers, ideally organised in a decentralised way, mutually agreeing on a common state while tolerating failures (incl. malicious behaviour) to some extent. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Purtroppo i ricercatori non fanno il minimo accenno alla caratteristica più problematica di alcuni tipi di distributed ledger: la proof-of-work. Saluti, Giovanni. -- Giovanni Biscuolo Noi, incompetenti come siamo, non abbiamo alcun titolo per suggerire alcunché.

1 0