July 2021 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

What ISOC is doing

by Giuseppe Attardi

> Begin forwarded message: > > From: Richard Hill via InternetPolicy <internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org> > Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] [Chapter-delegates] What ISOC is doing > Date: 13 July 2021 at 10:40:30 CEST > To: "'Stephen Farrell'" <stephen.farrell(a)cs.tcd.ie>, <internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org> > Reply-To: Richard Hill <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> > > Please see embedded comments below. > > Thanks and best, > Richard > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: InternetPolicy [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces@elists.isoc.org] On >> Behalf Of Stephen Farrell via InternetPolicy >> Sent: Tuesday, 13 July 2021 03:50 >> To: internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org >> Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] [Chapter-delegates] What ISOC is doing >> > > SNIP > >> But maybe let's consider your earlier >> analogy: perhaps a "walled garden" is no longer an accurate enough >> descriptor - would it be more accurate (albeit perhaps far too emotive) >> to describe such deployments as "colonial powers"? > > Yes, that's a fair analogy, but a better one is the classic abuse of dominant market power, as in the railroads in the US in the late 19th century, or in monopoly telecoms in the 1960's. > >> After all, once such >> a service gets big enough, it can end up exercising a lot of control >> over IXP, ISP and endpoint behaviours and similar, even if >> "colonisation" is not at all a goal of the relevant folks. > > > The reason that I keep referring to proposals presented in trade negotiations is that I (and many others) see those proposals as being intended to perpetuate the current "colonization" and cast it in stone in binding international treaties. > > That's one of the things that keeps me awake at night. > > SNIP > >>> "Users" is a broad category and might not only be the "eyeballs" we >>> often think of. >> >> Indeed. I like how RFC8890 (section 2) tried to cover that. > > Here is a bit from Section 3 of that RFC (citing 4.1 of RFC 3935): > > | The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. We > | want the Internet to be useful for communities that share our > | commitment to openness and fairness. We embrace technical > | concepts such as decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and > | sharing of resources, because those concepts resonate with the > | core values of the IETF community. These concepts have little to > | do with the technology that's possible, and much to do with the > | technology that we choose to create. >

July 13, 2021

What ISOC is doing

by Giuseppe Attardi

Interessante discussione sulla lista Internet Policy di ISOC. Riporto qui l’intervento di parminder di itforchange,net, che ha ricevuto diversi consensi. A seguire una riflessione sulla metafora del “walled-garden’ vs “colonial power”. — Beppe > Begin forwarded message: > > From: parminder via InternetPolicy <internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org> > Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] [Chapter-delegates] What ISOC is doing > Date: 13 July 2021 at 10:09:55 CEST > To: internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org > Reply-To: parminder <parminder.js(a)gmail.com> > > Andrew, > > Thanks for your and others' useful responses. > > Before I go ahead I want to clarify two things, because misjudgements regarding them can cloud the reading of my responses. > > (1) ISOC like any other organization of course has the right to define and circumscribe its mandate and activities. It cannot accommodate everyone's desires about what it should be doing, This said, the mandate definition and nature of activities that follow must be rationally defended. This is true for all public interest organization, but even more applicable to ISOC as a kind of special public interest organization -- something I will not go into elaborating here. > > (2) I am glad that the Internet initially developed and grew somewhat surreptitiously, as far as big commercial and political interests are concerned, which gave it the time and space to have defined around it norms and governance structures that were informed of certain values of control at peripheries, permission-less innovation, and the such. (Will come to this again later). I fully endorse and support these, and have no doubt that the world would have been much worse off without them > > Now, taking from the second point... Lets be clear that it is not something automatically and essentially technical about the Internet that is responsible for what the Internet is. Whatever this statement means. I think it is absurd, but that absurdity IMHO extends to much of ISOC's take on 'the Internet way'. What your 'Internet way' describes as the five basic properties (of an Internet we like) are all there because some people wanted it that way.. Why they wanted it that way has to do with how, where and in whose hands early Internet was born and developed. That it was a publicly funded project had as much to do with it as the fact that Internet's first use was for academic networking... Not to deny the role of all those valiant actors who personally and organizationally defended the values that got built early on into the Internet, as a cumulative result of which we are here, and not elsewhere with digital communication technologies, which would have come one way or the other ... > > My point is, there is nothing essential, technical, about the Internet that had to be the way it is -- there are individual and organizational value, and shall I say, political, choices. I understand that ISOC is some way represents and embodies those early values and valiant acts behind the Internet. This is what I respect ISOC most about. > > What is however unfortunate is that rather than take forward such great 'human' values and choices in a dynamic manner, ISOC wants to deify them into some technical, self-evident and natural construct of 'the Internet'. Contrary to what current ISOC may think, rather than respecting those early human choices this has the effect to denying their human-ness and social-ness. Very few things could be more disrespectful of the involved people and organizations than this. > > This is what makes me -- and I suspect many others -- choke on hearing expressions like 'the Internet way' or, to quote you, 'building, promoting and defending the Internet' ... One would much rather hear you say 'promoting and defending the values that underlie the Internet'. If ISOC understands this shift much would have been achieved for a start. > > The difference is not superficial -- it has a deep social and political significance, and that is my main point here. Under the technical essentialism of 'the Internet' -- as a kind of natural deity -- is buried a lot that is of a political, sociological and cultural nature. All of which is sought to be hidden through this surface technical essentialism of 'the Internet way' and 'defending the Internet'. > > Coming down to more practical implications of all this; you and ISOC, if I may say so without offending, somewhat conveniently, keep switching between an ideal type of the Internet and its manifest practical aspects, as suits the purpose. Let me take two examples, one related to the nature of problems on the Internet, and another related to its governance. > > You say below that "There _might_ be erosion of the critical properties due to the concentration of traffic in a particular application, but that is a separate question". > > OK, fine, if you stick to this stand. But what about ISOC's advocacy on encryption employed, say, by an Instant Messaging service. ISOC indeed works a lot in this area. (Do not get me wrong. I am all for e-to-e encryption, and am part of ISOC's encryption coalition too. ).... Why that is an 'Internet' issue, but say DRM embedded in web standards (a debate ISOC passed) or Google's latest move to replace cookies in Chrome with another private system (an ongoing debate that ISOC's shows no interest in) are not 'Internet' issues? > > Or, all the efforts by digital giants to keep internet traffic within their captive applications -- whether it is FB's 'Instant Article' or Google's "Accelerated Mobile Pages' -- not an Internet issue, and not a violation of the 'Internet way'? > > IETF made email interoperability standards, at a time of Internet's early innocence, when commercial interests were not so strong to come in its way.. By the time it was about social media and instant messaging (IM), the commercial overhang on the Internet was too heavy for IETF and ISOC to push interoperability standards? Suddenly these become non Internet issues? Of course at this stage, such was increasingly the control over the Internet of a few digital biggies that voluntary adoption would likely not go too far ... It is here when mandated interoperability comes in, when law comes in aid of the 'right' technical architecture ... But ISOC has only known that law and governments militate against Internet architecture, and cannot aid it -- a fully wrong conception - which is why it never crosses ISOC/ IETF's mind that, for instance, IM interoperability standards should be developed, and coupled with advocacy with governments for mandating interoperability (with standards development for it left to outside, IETF, like bodies ... Is this not an Internet issue - something promoting the 'Internet way'? > > Doing such standards development coupled with policy advocacy would be to 'promote and defend the Internet' and to go 'the Internet way'. But as I suggested, convenient choices are made -- dictated by extraneous reasons (i can discuss them, but let me not digress). Whatever one likes is somehow fit under the 'Internet way' and the unquestionable deity of the Internet, and whatever one doesnt like gets excluded. > > Meanwhile, the very exploration of what choices are made, which not, is blocked at an higher level, taking the cover of some things (arbitrarily) being essentially Internet, and others not ... That, to say the least, is very frustrating ... and to go further, if one is to be brutally frank, actually borders on deviousness, > > The second example I said I will bring from the area of Internet governance: > > It is very fine for ISOC to stick to some layers or aspects of Internet as its mandates, and rest not being its mandate .. But then it should also stick to commenting on, and participating in, only such governance processes that pertain to that narrow technical layer, and none lese.. > > Does ISOC do that? The resounding answer is, NO ... I have sat in many many UN working groups and other settings where ISOC reps thoroughly side and conspire with US and its allies to keep the global Internet essential ungoverned... I have personal knowledge of a long history of this, which I can share sometime .. But the point here is, again convenient self-serving (or big interests serving) choices are made, which contravene the otherwise narrow construction of the Internety mission that ISOC argues for itself. > > That, dear Andrew, of running with the hare and hunting with the hound, is the problem. Not whether ISOC has a right or not to chose a narrow 'technical' mission. > > ISOC can indeed very well choose a narrow, technical mandate, and stick to it... But when convenient back and forths are done, that too in an area of globally most intense power constestation, that would be questioned ... And the big political and economic interests that get implicated and served will be brought up ... The cover of innocence -- of some kind of essential technical nature of the Internet that alone is being defended -- will be examined, and taken apart.. > > regards > > parminder > > PS: And yes, I did go through the material on Internet way of networking. Thanks > > > > On 11/07/21 8:15 am, Andrew Sullivan via InternetPolicy wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I note that some others have answered your questions, and AFAICT I agree with them. A couple more remarks below. >> >> On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 07:51:04PM +0530, parminder via InternetPolicy wrote: >> >>> That is an interesting concept... Will like to know what 'Internet' or >>> 'good Internet' is for you/ ISOC, against which alone any impact >>> assessment can be marked. >> >> Have you looked at the toolkit and the Internet Way of Networking materials? It is intended that these sorts of questions (and the others that you asked later in your mail, which I have elided from this) are answered by those materials. I would do an injustice if I tried to summarize here. But, if there is something that isn't answered for you in the materials, it would be important to know that, since additional work is happening right now. >> >> Note that this is about _the Internet_, and not about everything vaguely related to the Internet. So, for instance, one might think that concentration of ownership is bad for society and so on, and maybe also bad for the Internet. The toolkit is intended to be useful in analyzing the extent to which such a state of affairs, or any regulatory action intended to address it, affects the Internet itself, and not all the social implications that come from that. Similarly, if there is an application (call it "Blither") where people can post their thoughts, and a particular national government has a lot of negative things to say about postings on Blither, that would _not_ be in scope for the Internet Way of Networking project, because it is but one application that happens to use the Internet. That is true even if that particular application is a very significant portion of the global Internet traffic. There _might_ be erosion of the critical properties due to the concentration of traf >> fic in a particular application, but that is a separate question. >> >>> (We all know what good environment is.) >> >> Really? My impression is that such a definition is far from universally agreed upon. >> Best regards, >> >> A >> > _______________________________________________ > To manage your Internet Society subscriptions > or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at > https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login > and go to the Preferences tab within your profile. > - > View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/

July 13, 2021

Edsger W. Dijkstra: a Commemoration

by Giacomo Tesio

Edsger Dijkstra was perhaps the best known, and certainly the most discussed, computer scientist of the seventies and eighties. We both knew Dijkstra though each of us in different ways and we both were aware that his inuence on computer science was not limited to his pioneering software projects and research articles. He interacted with his colleagues by way of numerous discussions, extensive letter correspondence, and hundreds of so-called EWD reports that he used to send to a select group of researchers. His renowned Tuesday Afternoon Club seminars, first in Eindhoven and later in Austin, instilled in others his uniquely systematic way of approaching research problems and developing solutions. His courses at the University of Texas in Austin were unlike any other, both in the choice of topics and in the meticulous way they were delivered. We felt that these aspects of Edsger's influence on the field might become forgotten and next to impossible to reconstruct. In fact, some of his collaborators and PhD students had died and his peers are over eighty years old. Accordingly, we began the task of documenting his impact on the life and work of his students, colleagues, and scientific friends, and learning more about his interactions with them. Continua, con testimonianze (fra gli altri) di Hoare, Knuth e Wirth, su https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/commemoration/EWD-commemoration-2021.pdf Giacomo

July 13, 2021

(no subject)

by Giovanni Leghissa

questo mi pare interessante, in tema di tutele dei diritti https://www.dirittiglobali.it/2021/07/strasburgo-approva-la-sorveglianza-di…

July 13, 2021

Re: [nexa] Why Are Dead People Liking Stuff On Facebook?

by 380°

"VETRO' ANTONIO" <antonio.vetro(a)polito.it> writes: > Ma si riportano "like" aggiunti anche a persone vive. > https://readwrite.com/2012/12/11/why-are-dead-people-liking-stuff-on-facebo… [...] Si riportano anche persone che credono che gli unicorni esistano davvero e che Facebook sia una piattaforma neutrale che serve a far comunicare le persone. Scusate non ho resistito :-) Seriamente, si sta parlando di like sponsorizzati, ovvero quelli che si ottengono pagando si intende. --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Facebook’s Explanation A Facebook spokesman says the “likes” from dead people can happen if an account doesn’t get “memorialized” (meaning someone informs Facebook that the account-holder has died). If nobody tells Facebook that the account-holder is dead, Facebook just keeps operating on the assumption the person is alive. In that case, someone’s “likes” from months and months ago can still keep surfacing in the news feeds of their friends, since Facebook recycles “likes” long after they first occur. Who knew? [...] Fair enough. But these accidents seem to be happening a lot. Are there really that many people accidentally claiming to like stuff that they actually don’t like at all? [...] But are the brands themselves doing it? Or are third-party services selling fake “likes” to brands? Supposedly Facebook has been trying to crack down on fake likes. Nevertheless they seem to keep popping up. [...] If Facebook can’t get this under control, what does that say about the value of its data? The persistence of these fake likes is an unnerving thing for Facebook users and investors alike. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Chissà cosa c'è dietro, vero?!? :-O Saluti, Giovanni. P.S.: fake likes... anche fake posts??? -- 380° (Giovanni Biscuolo public alter ego) «Noi, incompetenti come siamo, non abbiamo alcun titolo per suggerire alcunché» Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>.

July 13, 2021

Why Are Dead People Liking Stuff On Facebook?

by VETRO' ANTONIO

Ma si riportano "like" aggiunti anche a persone vive. https://readwrite.com/2012/12/11/why-are-dead-people-liking-stuff-on-facebo…<https://readwrite.com/2012/12/11/why-are-dead-people-liking-stuff-on-facebo…> A.

July 13, 2021

Fair use via Machine Learning

by Giacomo Tesio

Upload any song protected by copyright. Our Neural Network will "Learn" your song. You can then download what we "Learned." https://fairuseify.ml/ :-D Giacomo

July 12, 2021

Memento | 142° Mercoledì di Nexa | 14 Luglio 2021

by Nexa Media

Gentilissimi, vi ricordiamo che *mercoledì ***14 luglio*, dalle ore 18.00 alle ore 20.00*, si svolgerà il 142° Mercoledì di Nexa, con un incontro dal titolo: /*"Algoritmi, AI e automazione in risposta alla pandemia: soluzione o problema?"*/ Ospite://*Fabio Chiusi* (Fellow Centro Nexa)/./ Sarà possibile partecipare al seminario connettendosi al seguente indirizzo: https://didattica.polito.it/VClass/NexaEvent <https://didattica.polito.it/VClass/NexaEvent> Maggiori informazioni sull'incontro sono disponibili alla pagina: https://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-142 <https://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-142> 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

July 12, 2021

The empty office: what we lose when we work from home

by Antonio Iacono

Oltre a spunti interessanti, l'articolo contiene aneddoti divertenti: "The engineers who created the internet have always recognised that people and their rituals matter. Since it was founded in 1986, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has provided a place for people to meet and collectively design the architecture of the web. Its members wanted to make design decisions using “rough consensus”, since they believed the internet should be an egalitarian community where anybody could participate, without hierarchies or coercion. “We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code” was, and still is, one of its key mantras. To cultivate “rough consensus”, IETF members devised a distinctive ritual: humming. When they needed to make a crucial decision, the group asked everyone to hum to indicate “yay” or “nay” – and proceeded on the basis of which was loudest. The engineers considered this less divisive than voting." l'articolo completo è qui: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jun/03/the-empty-office-what-we-lo… Antonio

July 11, 2021

Re: [nexa] "Adottato il decreto per la sperimentazione del voto elettronico per le politiche, europee ed i referendum"

by Antonio Iacono

> Chiedo scusa se faccio il pigro e approfitto della vostra pazienza, ma > ciò quindi significa che il decreto per la sperimentazione bla bla bla > in Italia prevede non solo il voto elettronico ma pure il voto > (elettronico) VIA INTERNET [1]? "2. Il sistema di voto elettronico dovrebbe basarsi su una web application, conforme ai requisiti di usabilità e accessibilità previsti dalla legge, da utilizzare con qualsiasi dispositivo digitale (smartphone, tablet, personal computer) connesso alla rete Internet e dotato di uno dei browser più diffusi." ma, quello che fa pensare di più è questo: "4. Il voto espresso non deve essere riconducibile all’elettore. A tal fine, il sistema deve garantire che le informazioni sui votanti vengano separate da quelle sui voti espressi. Tali informazioni dunque vengono digitalmente “sigillate” e rimangono del tutto indipendenti e separate. I voti sono e rimangono anonimi." A parte l'ovvietà dell'ultima frase, sono davvero curioso di vedere come saranno "sigillate" le informazioni. "10. I voti restano “sigillati” fino al momento dello scrutinio: prima di togliere il sigillo, i voti dovrebbero essere “mescolati” informaticamente e, comunque, devono essere privi di ogni tracciatura dell’istante di tempo in cui ciascun suffragio è stato espresso" Ah, ora sono più tranquillo, no, perché se non scritto magari a qualcuno poteva venire in mente di appiccicargli un bel timestamp sia all'atto dell'autenticazione che al "sigillo" "Il sistema di voto elettronico dovrebbe essere basato su standard aperti per consentire la completa interoperabilità e la possibilità di dimostrare che ciascun voto è incluso correttamente nell’urna elettronica del sistema centrale corrispondente a ciascuna consultazione. Il codice sorgente del sistema di voto elettronico dovrebbe essere pubblicato per consentire un’ampia verifica mediante mezzi indipendenti dal sistema stesso, anche al fine di garantire la massima confidenza nel sistema." E chi mi assicura che il codice in esecuzione corrisponderà a quello pubblicato? "L’infrastruttura centrale del voto elettronico è gestita esclusivamente da personale autorizzato" Ah ecco, allora sono in una botte di ferro. "Dal momento in cui è possibile iniziare a votare elettronicamente, il sistema deve essere sempre funzionante e performante" Performante? A parte l'uso (anzi l'abuso) di questo termine. Mi viene da pensare ai "click day". Comunque in tutto questo una nota positiva c'è. E' la parolina "sorgente", "shut up and show them the code.". Antonio

July 11, 2021