August 2021 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

On line il sito Italia Domanni
by don Luca Peyron Aug. 3, 2021

Aug. 3, 2021

Il portale ufficiale dedicato al PNRR italiano, lo strumento per costruire l’Italia del futuro e affrontare le sfide ambientali, tecnologiche e sociali del nostro tempo. Così come lo definisce il ministero. Un punto per avere in un unico punto molti dei temi che ci interessano. Buon tutto dl https://italiadomani.gov.it/it/home.html _________________________ don Luca Peyron Direttore Ufficio per la Pastorale Universitaria Arcidiocesi di Torino www.universitari.to.it via XX settembre 83, Torino tel. 011 5156239

1 0

FSF-funded call for white papers on philosophical and legal questions around Copilot
by Giacomo Tesio Aug. 2, 2021

Aug. 2, 2021

Microsoft's GitHub recently announced a new service known as Copilot. This service uses machine learning to help suggest code snippets to developers as they write software. GitHub trained this neural network with the code hosted on GitHub; while the Free Software Foundation (FSF) urges free software developers not to host their code on GitHub, many do, and even many who don't have their work mirrored there by others. [...] The Free Software Foundation has received numerous inquiries about our position on these questions. We can see that Copilot's use of freely licensed software has many implications for an incredibly large portion of the free software community. Developers want to know whether training a neural network on their software can really be considered fair use. Others who may be interested in using Copilot wonder if the code snippets and other elements copied from GitHub-hosted repositories could result in copyright infringement. And even if everything might be legally copacetic, activists wonder if there isn't something fundamentally unfair about a proprietary software company building a service off their work. With all these questions, many of them with legal implications that at first glance may have not been previously tested in a court of law, there aren't many simple answers. To get the answers the community needs, and to identify the best opportunities for defending user freedom in this space, the FSF is announcing a funded call for white papers to address Copilot, copyright, machine learning, and free software. We will read the submitted white papers, and we will publish ones that we think help elucidate the problem. We will provide a monetary reward of $500 for the papers we publish. # Areas of interest While any topic related to Copilot's effect on free software may be in scope, the following questions are of particular interest: - Is Copilot's training on public repositories infringing copyright? Is it fair use? - How likely is the output of Copilot to generate actionable claims of violations on GPL-licensed works? - How can developers ensure that any code to which they hold the copyright is protected against violations generated by Copilot? - Is there a way for developers using Copilot to comply with free software licenses like the GPL? - If Copilot learns from AGPL-covered code, is Copilot infringing the AGPL? - If Copilot generates code which does give rise to a violation of a free software licensed work, how can this violation be discovered by the copyright holder on the underlying work? - Is a trained artificial intelligence (AI) / machine learning (ML) model resulting from machine learning a compiled version of the training data, or is it something else, like source code that users can modify by doing further training? - Is the Copilot trained AI/ML model copyrighted? If so, who holds that copyright? - Should ethical advocacy organizations like the FSF argue for change in copyright law relevant to these questions? Per chi fosse interessato la scadenza è il 23 Agosto (ore 14 UTC). https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/fsf-funded-call-for-white-papers-on-phi… Giacomo

1 0

How Google quietly funds Europe’s leading tech policy institutes
by J.C. DE MARTIN Aug. 2, 2021

Aug. 2, 2021

https://www.newstatesman.com/business/sectors/2021/07/how-google-quietly-fu… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

3 2

Hundreds of AI tools have been built to catch covid. None of them helped.
by don Luca Peyron Aug. 2, 2021

Aug. 2, 2021

In June, the Turing Institute, the UK’s national center for data science and AI, put out a report summing up discussions at a series of workshops it held in late 2020. The clear consensus was that AI tools had made little, if any, impact in the fight against covid. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/30/1030329/machine-learning-ai-fai… _________________________ don Luca Peyron Direttore Ufficio per la Pastorale Universitaria Arcidiocesi di Torino www.universitari.to.it via XX settembre 83, Torino tel. 011 5156239

1 0

Can Fake Accounts Save the Internet? - The New York Times
by Alberto Cammozzo Aug. 2, 2021

Aug. 2, 2021

<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/31/style/anonymity-pseudonymity-online-iden…> In early July, when England’s soccer team lost the European Championship final to Italy on its home turf, the crushing defeat was followed by a torrent of racist abuse on social media directed at the team’s Black players. The messages — part of an ongoing pattern of social media bigotry — were condemned by politicians, platforms, teammates and fans. They were also blamed, in part, on a familiar figure: the masked troll. He’s been popping up a lot lately. Depending who you are, he may be the source of all political disinformation; one of an army of bots; the leader of an online mob; a hacker or a scammer. He has a mascot — the guy in a hoodie at his keyboard, face obscured in the shadows, except for a little smirk. In the popular imagination, this figure, operating under a name concealed or chosen, is almost always up to no good. That could explain why people so often push for unmasking him. In England, this episode renewed calls for tech companies to enforce identity verification for their users. A petition of the British government demanding that it make “verified ID a requirement for opening a social media account” has more than 688,000 signatures. “We have rights to free speech and association, but as real people, not fake people,” wrote Paul Mason, a columnist for The New Statesman. One optimistic assumption behind these ideas is that racism is so stigmatized, people wouldn’t dare espouse such things under their own names (a curious read of politics, British or otherwise, circa 2021). It implies that to adopt a new identity is to become “fake.” But it is also pretty close to how things already work. After a decade in which online identity came under increasingly centralized control, in which various digital and offline identities were mingled, and during which personal data became a hot global commodity, control over one’s identity is starting to look more like a threatened privilege than a right. To exist online is to be constantly asked to show yourself. Whose Space Is This? Online anonymity and pseudonymity have survived accusations of ruining the internet for as long as people have been logging on; they have been abused by bad actors. They’re also widely misunderstood. A lot of common assumptions about anonymity are complicated by the literature on how people actually behave online, as noted by researcher K. Nathan Matias. In studies, for example, anonymous actors tend to be more, not less, sensitive to group norms. More than half of victims of online harassment already know their harassers. While there is scant evidence that “real name” policies mitigate abuse, there is plenty suggesting that asking people to expose more private information can intensify it. Researchers have found that, in some contexts, the most aggressive commenters have been observed to be more likely to reveal their identities. An analysis of nearly two decades of British press by Thais Sardá, a researcher at Loughborough University, however, found that coverage of anonymous spaces, often and imprecisely called the “dark web,” was “underpinned by a sharply negative characterization” of anonymity. When represented at all, positive uses of anonymity and pseudonymity are portrayed as narrow and exceptional; it makes sense for dissidents, for instance, but what does everyone else have to hide? [...]

2 1

China Supreme Court issues regulations against misuse of facial recognition technology - JURIST - News - Legal News & Commentary
by Alberto Cammozzo Aug. 1, 2021

Aug. 1, 2021

<https://www.jurist.org/news/2021/08/china-supreme-court-issues-regulations-…> The Supreme People’s Court of China issued regulations Wednesday for use of facial recognition technology by private businesses. The guidelines require private businesses to receive consent from customers before collecting and processing their facial information. Under the new regulations, individuals have the right to reject the use of facial recognition technology for identity verification. They must be offered a reasonable alternative form of access to the building or service. The Supreme Court’s regulations treat violation of the law as a personal rights infringement and enable the aggrieved individual to file a claim for compensation. The regulations also state that businesses must notify customers with a specific clause to obtain explicit and “independent” consent before carrying out a scan. Hence, they cannot stow away their use of facial recognition in the general terms of use or through bundled consent, a method of obtaining consent for multiple requests with a single swipe. The regulations cover civil disputes involving private players and the Chinese government. The government’s nationwide surveillance system, which has widespread ramifications on civil liberties, remains outside the regulations’ purview for public security reasons. There is also an exception for services that cannot function without facial recognition information. The first facial recognition lawsuit in China was brought in 2019 in a court of Hangzhou by a law professor, Guo Bing, who sued the Hangzhou Safari Park. Bing alleged Hangzhou Safari Park refused entry to visitors who did not submit to the facial recognition and that it had not taken adequate precautions to protect visitors’ biometric information. Earlier this year, the Hangzhou court ruled in favor of Bing. However, its decision was based on a breach of contract and not the legality of data use in facial recognition.

1 0