September 2021 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Regulating Online Speech: Ze German Way - Lawfare
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 28, 2021

Sept. 28, 2021

https://www.lawfareblog.com/regulating-online-speech-ze-german-way (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Riflessioni sul decreto di assegnazione delle risorse del PNRR ai singoli ministeri
by Antonio Iacono Sept. 28, 2021

Sept. 28, 2021

Con decreto del 6/8/2021 [1] le risorse finanziarie previste per l’attuazione degli interventi del Piano Nazionale di Ripresa e Resilienza (PNRR) sono state assegnate alle singole Amministrazioni. Conoscendo, un po', come sono andate nel passato le cose, ogni amministrazione prenderà quei soldi e farà di testa propria. Ora, quando si tratta di "Borse di studio per l'accesso all'università" è normale che se ne occupi il MUR e, per dire, del "Rafforzamento mobilità ciclistica " il MIMS, ma la stessa cosa non vale per il "digitale". E dato che il termine è abbondantemente presente, assieme a piattaforme, applicativi, portali per i quali, ovviamente, sempre di digitale si sta parlando, una riflessione (mi) sorge spontanea. Ma qualcuno a coordinare il tutto ci sarà? Capisco che il PNRR inaugurerà il periodo delle "vacche grasse" e discettare di riuso e condivisione (di idee, di soluzioni, ecc.) può apparire anacronistico, ma è veramente così? Piattaforme, portali, ecc. tanti nomi per indicare quello che è, più o meno, un sito web. Considerato che l'hardware non si comprerà, perché sostituito dal cloud, è al software che andranno questi soldini. Bene, è, o sarà, possibile in futuro sapere se: 1) Il software verrà comprato (e da chi) 2) Il software verrà scritto (e da chi) 3) Il software verrà scambiato (con chi) 4) Il software sarà pubblico, sarà aperto, potrò leggerlo, confrontarlo, analizzarlo? E questo, parafrasando Juan Carlos, mi "interessa moltissimo". Perché quando domani i miei figli mi chiederanno, ma papà i 20/30 miliardi di euro (a spanne la parte afferente il digitale), che ora ci tocca restituire, a cosa vi sono serviti nei "lontani" anni venti, potrò tentare di rispondere. A. [1] https://www.camera.it/temiap/2021/09/20/OCD177-5087.pdf

4 6

Why Telegram had to follow Apple and Google when they suspended a voting app
by 380° Sept. 27, 2021

Sept. 27, 2021

Buongiorno, applicazioni (bot) illegali... «Why Telegram had to follow Apple and Google when they suspended a voting app» by Pavel Durov - September 25, 2021 --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- This year Google and Apple started to require that apps like Telegram comply with local laws in the countries where they operate. [...] An example of this occurred last week, when Apple and Google banned a Russian voting app due to local laws. The app offered tactical voting advice, directing most of its users to vote for the communist party in the Russian parliamentary elections last weekend. This voting app also existed for months as a Telegram bot [...] Telegram was forced to follow the stores’ policies and temporarily suspend the bot for the 2 remaining days of the election. [...] last weekend was not the right moment to start a war – for two reasons. First, without support from Apple and Google, any fight with a local regulator is lost before it starts. [...] Second, this particular demand of the Russian authorities wasn't obviously unconstitutional, as they referred to a law that restricts campaigning after people start casting their votes. Laws against political campaigning while voting is underway exist in many countries and the Russian counterpart had been introduced a long time ago. [...] [...] A request to temporarily suspend a campaigning bot while an election is already underway is nowhere close to demands for mass surveillance or mass censorship. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Sostanzialmente, i dirigenti di Telegram lo hanno fatto per evitare che l'app stessa (Telegram) venisse bannata dai rispettivi app store. Sulla vicenda e sul bot "Smart Voting" altre info qui: https://www.rferl.org/a/telegram-navalny-smart-voting/31466263.html Sta iniziando l'era della messa al bando (temporanea!) del software. Saluti, 380° -- 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>.

2 1

Re: [nexa] nexa Digest, Vol 149, Issue 38
by Giuseppe Attardi Sept. 27, 2021

Sept. 27, 2021

Il tema è interessante, ma sono perplesso su alcune affermazioni: “il flusso continuo di dati tra noi e questo enorme network di dispositivi avviene per la quasi totalità su reti non protette” Certo, la protezione va fatta sui dispositivi, la rete Internet fornisce solo trasporto. Al massimo la rete può proteggere se stessa da congestionamenti o traffico anomalo. “La concezione aprioristica della rete come un sistema di comunicazione tra le persone deve essere superata.” Ma quando mai? Internet è una rete di computer, non di persone. Il Web e servizi basati su di esso offrono strumenti per lo scambio di contenuti tra persone, ma il Web non è Internet. — Beppe > On 27 Sep 2021, at 12:00, nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it wrote: > > From: Antonio Iacono <antiac(a)gmail.com> > To: Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > Subject: [nexa] Internet in ogni cosa > Message-ID: > <CAPN6PESA8m1YVfhg=YOX9e90-UoPQj84i6h7OzZeePEPT809nQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Segnalo il saggio appena uscito "Libertà, sicurezza e privacy nell'era > degli oggetti iperconnessi" di Laura Denardis [1] > > La trasformazione di Internet da rete di comunicazione tra persone a > rete di controllo, incorporata direttamente nel mondo fisico, potrebbe > essere ancora più significativa del passaggio dalla società > industriale alla società dell’informazione digitale > ... > Le sfere ibride online-offline penetrano nel corpo, nella mente, negli > oggetti e nei sistemi che collettivamente compongono il mondo > materiale. Internet non ha più solo a che fare con le comunicazioni e > non è nemmeno più un semplice spazio virtuale. La concezione > aprioristica della rete come un sistema di comunicazione tra le > persone deve essere superata. L’impennata di sistemi che integrano > simultaneamente componenti digitali e del mondo reale crea condizioni > che mettono profondamente in discussione le nozioni tradizionali della > governance di Internet. Non ha più senso vedere gli spazi online come > sfere distinte, tecnicamente o politicamente, all’interno di un mondo > virtuale separato in qualche modo dal mondo reale. Online e offline > sono intrecciati" > ... > La mercatizzazione della società in via di digitalizzazione > automatizza la gestione manageriale degli individui sia come corpi > fisici che come corpi virtuali, assegnando loro funzioni, standard, > obiettivi, distribuendo loro incentivi e disincentivi, integrandoli o > espellendoli secondo necessità, su scala mondiale, come ci insegnano i > processi di delocalizzazione repentina. Questa nuova biopolitica > digitale configura inediti assetti di potere ridisegnando le relazioni > che ne tessono la trama e ne delineano forme plastiche, fluide, > mobili, e tendenze dinamiche, vorticose, al limite caotiche > > A. > > [1] https://luissuniversitypress.it/pubblicazioni/internet-in-ogni-cosa/

4 3

Internet in ogni cosa
by Antonio Iacono Sept. 27, 2021

Sept. 27, 2021

Segnalo il saggio appena uscito "Libertà, sicurezza e privacy nell'era degli oggetti iperconnessi" di Laura Denardis [1] La trasformazione di Internet da rete di comunicazione tra persone a rete di controllo, incorporata direttamente nel mondo fisico, potrebbe essere ancora più significativa del passaggio dalla società industriale alla società dell’informazione digitale ... Le sfere ibride online-offline penetrano nel corpo, nella mente, negli oggetti e nei sistemi che collettivamente compongono il mondo materiale. Internet non ha più solo a che fare con le comunicazioni e non è nemmeno più un semplice spazio virtuale. La concezione aprioristica della rete come un sistema di comunicazione tra le persone deve essere superata. L’impennata di sistemi che integrano simultaneamente componenti digitali e del mondo reale crea condizioni che mettono profondamente in discussione le nozioni tradizionali della governance di Internet. Non ha più senso vedere gli spazi online come sfere distinte, tecnicamente o politicamente, all’interno di un mondo virtuale separato in qualche modo dal mondo reale. Online e offline sono intrecciati" ... La mercatizzazione della società in via di digitalizzazione automatizza la gestione manageriale degli individui sia come corpi fisici che come corpi virtuali, assegnando loro funzioni, standard, obiettivi, distribuendo loro incentivi e disincentivi, integrandoli o espellendoli secondo necessità, su scala mondiale, come ci insegnano i processi di delocalizzazione repentina. Questa nuova biopolitica digitale configura inediti assetti di potere ridisegnando le relazioni che ne tessono la trama e ne delineano forme plastiche, fluide, mobili, e tendenze dinamiche, vorticose, al limite caotiche A. [1] https://luissuniversitypress.it/pubblicazioni/internet-in-ogni-cosa/

1 0

Intelligenza artificiale vs intelligenza collettiva
by Guido Vetere Sept. 26, 2021

Sept. 26, 2021

Is the new capitale vs lavoro? https://www.agendadigitale.eu/cultura-digitale/codex-e-la-fine-per-i-progra… Guido

6 8

Kidnapping, assassination and a London shoot-out: Inside the CIA's secret war plans against WikiLeaks
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 26, 2021

Sept. 26, 2021

https://news.yahoo.com/kidnapping-assassination-and-a-london-shoot-out-insi… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Worker surveillance rises as more companies offer remote work options - The Washington Post
by Alberto Cammozzo Sept. 25, 2021

Sept. 25, 2021

<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/24/remote-work-from-home-…> When Kerrie Krutchik, an attorney for 34 years, was hired this spring for one of the legal field’s fastest-growing jobs, she expected to review case files at a pandemic-safe distance from the comfort of her Ohio home. Then she received a laptop in the mail with her instructions: To get paid, she’d have to comply with a company-mandated facial recognition system for every minute of her contract. If she looked away for too many seconds or shifted in her chair, she’d have to scan her face back in from three separate angles, a process she ended up doing several times a day. For Krutchik, the laptop’s unblinking little camera light quickly became a nightmare — and a reminder of what her new work day might look like even after the pandemic fades. After two weeks, she ended her contract and pledged never to consent to that kind of monitoring again. “It’s just this constant, unnecessary, nerve-racking stress: You’re trying to concentrate and in the back of your mind you know you’re on camera the entire time,” she said. “While you’re reviewing a document, you don’t know who is reviewing you.” The spread of the delta variant has kept many of America’s office employees working from home and fueled a rise in surveillance technologies by employers — in finance, law, technology and other industries — eager to keep tabs on their remote workforce. The facial recognition monitoring Krutchik experienced offers one of the stranger examples of America’s massive work-from-home experiment, because it relies on a glitchy and, to some, quite creepy camera system built to ensure workers don’t lose focus or break the rules. The adoption of the technology coincides with an increase in companies’use of more traditional monitoring software <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/30/work-from-home-surveil…>, which can track an employee’s computer keystrokes, take screenshots and in some cases record audio or video while they are working from home. Sometimes, this is done without their knowledge, which means companies have the potential to gain access to employees’ private details like banking or health information. Workers have little power to control how and when they’re being monitored, especially if they are using work-issued devices. Experts advise workers to assume they are being monitored if they’re in the office or using company equipment, and recommend they read the fine print when in comes to employee contracts. Market research firm Gartner**says companies used more surveillance tools during the coronavirus <https://www.washingtonpost.com/coronavirus/?itid=lk_inline_manual_14> pandemic to keep tabs on employees and monitor work productivity. The number of large employers using tools to track their workers doubled since the beginning of the pandemic to 60 percent. That number is expected**to rise to 70 percent within the next three years, said Brian Kropp, chief of human resources research at Gartner. Federal government to expand use of facial recognition despite growing concerns <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/25/federal-facial-recogni…> And the software**is expected to become even**more sophisticated, telling employers how to turn the data they collect into actionable measures to drive the business. Soon it might do things like tell managers how employees work together via Zoom, understand who the main contributors are and how specific patterns may lead to specific results. “That’s going to be the evolution of the monitoring,” Kropp said. Companies say the tracking offers a critical way to ensure theiremployees are staying productive <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/30/work-from-home-surveil…>and telling the truth about how much they work when their bosses are many miles away. Some employers have voiced concerns that, without the monitoring, their workers might cut corners or pursue multiple jobs simultaneously, depriving them of the focus and labor they need to stay competitive in the remote-work era. Help Desk: Ask our tech team your tech questions <https://hosted-washpost.submissionplatform.com/sub/hosted/5c780829031087003…> Brad Edward, CEO of Spekless Cleaning in Arlington, VA, said he has been using monitoring software from Hubstaff at his company for about five years. The reason? He needs a reliable time tracking system for his local and remote office workers who help with operations. But Spekless is not interested in checking on exactly what employees are doing throughout the day because Edward believes privacy is an important part of the employer-employee relationship. “Ultimately as an employer your goal is to foster a culture of collaboration and mutual trust,” he said. “These tools can either work with you or against you, depending on how you use them.” Still, many workers say they are increasingly worried about the level of surveillance. David, who spoke on the condition that his last name remain anonymous, was working as a customer service agent for a financial tech company in Utah when the pandemic started, and he was sent to work from home. Last fall, after his company switched the software it asked employees to use on their work-issued computers, he was randomly clicking around the system trying to figure out how to get where he needed to be. Suddenly, his boss started speaking to him through his headset, instructing him on how to log in. David said he couldn’t recall exactly what software the company used, but he was surprised to find that his boss could see what he was doing, a seemingly new capability at the company. “I was upstairs with my boys, and I get a text from my husband (David) that said, ‘If you come down here, don’t say anything and let me know because we’re being listened to,’” said David’s wife, Rebekah. When David brought the issue up at a company meeting, he found out the company could listen to his audio at any time, not just during calls that are often monitored for quality purposes. But now David was at home with his wife and children. The situation had changed, but the monitoring had not adapted to the privacy he expected while working from home. “[I felt] paralyzed,” David said. “Like I couldn’t say anything without potential repercussions.” Within a month of the discovery, David quit his job. Ashley, who spoke on the condition of being identified only by her first name to avoid employment repercussions, said the banking start-up she was working for in New York implemented surveillance software about 10 days after the company sent employees to work from home last year. The company asked them to download Hubstaff, a software program that tracks productivity in part by recording keystrokes and taking screenshots, on their personal computers. The request was out of the question for Ashley, who was**furloughed for refusing to download the software before getting a new job altogether. “I have so much information on my computer: my banking information, my passwords, my email that has stuff from my doctors,” she said. “I just wouldn’t want my employers to have access to this.” While she tried to take up the issue with human resources, she saw a change in how her colleagues worked. The company expected employees to have an 85 percent or higher “activity level,” which is calculated based on keystrokes and mouse movement. Anyone who didn’t meet expectations was docked pay. To avoid that, Ashley said her co-workers began sending each other more messages to meet their keystrokes rather than lose time thinking through a complex problem. “People just stopped caring [about the job],” she said. The tension between employees and employers around the level of monitoring comes down to trust and transparency, experts say. If employees aren’t given the full details of when and how they’re monitored and if they don’t feel trusted at work, they’re more likely to refuse monitoring of any kind regardless of the purpose. “Employers have to be upfront and honest about the extent of the monitoring,” said John Verdi, vice president of policy at data privacy-focused think tank Future of Privacy Forum, which is funded by Big Tech companies including Facebook and Google. “And employees have to be upfront and honest about what they view is their obligation in their jobs.” Attorneys required to use the new face-scanning software <https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/02/08/dangers-facial-recognitio…> while working from home said they understood the need for security because reviewing sensitive documents is part of the job. But many felt the remote-work surveillance had gone too far. The facial recognition systems, they said, felt intrusive, dysfunctional or annoying, booting them out of their work software if they shifted in their seat, rested their eyes, adjusted their glasses, wore a headband or necklace, went to the bathroom or had a child walk through their room. Even more problematically, some facial recognition systems have been shown in research to perform worse with people of color because the algorithms are less accurate at identifying people with darker skin tones. That leaves many attorneys fearful that they could be penalized due to the color of their skin. Three attorneys, all of whom are Black, said they’d routinely struggled to be recognized by the face-scanning systems in a way that their lighter-skinned colleagues did not. Several couldn’t help but note the irony that their careers in consumer privacy and employment law had led them to a role they felt pushed the boundaries on both. “The true currency an attorney has is trust … and the technology they’re using to monitor what attorneys are doing puts that trust into question,” said Gerald Edwards, a New York City attorney practicing since 1994. “Are you even trusting me at all, that you have to watch me and monitor me like a 4-year-old?” Experts say monitoring often doesn’t accomplish management’s goals unless leaders set clear-cut, realistic objectives customized to each team and its needs. But the pandemic triggered panic among many companies that suddenly had to allow their employees to work from home for the first time. “It seems like a lot of people confused monitoring with management,” said Alison Green, work advice columnist who runs the Ask a Manager website and received numerous complaints about employee surveillance during the pandemic. “You don’t always need this level of micromanaging.” Laszlo Bock, CEO and co-founder of human resource software service Humu and former Google executive, said the pandemic created a sudden instinct in leaders to increase the level of control as workers went remote. “The paradox is every manager is also an employee, and they have a manager,” he said. “If you ask [managers] what they want from their manager, it’s to stay out of their way.” Legally, employers usually have the upper hand when it comes to monitoring, said Marta Manus, an attorney at San Diego-based Marble Law Firm. Often, employees are unaware that the policies they sign upon their hiring include terms that cover work surveillance such as monitoring through laptop cameras or computer software. Manus said employees should be wary and ask for specifics about any monitoring policy as well as who will have access to that data. But if workers hope to sue their employers for invasion of privacy, they have the burden to prove damages. “If it’s a company device, you have zero expectation of privacy,” she said. “If it’s a personal device, as long as there are clear policies in place in favor of monitoring for work purposes, the law is going to permit it.” Employee monitoring software provider Teramind says its number of customers has increased by three to four times during the pandemic. And many small and midsize employers who were on the fence about purchasing the software at the beginning of the pandemic are now making the purchase as they move to permanent remote work options. Teramind has two versions of monitoring software, one in which employees know they’re being monitored and can switch on or off, and one where employers have control of the monitoring. Eli Sutton, Teramind’s vice president of operations, said the company advises its clients to tell their employees that they’re using the software as well as explain the productivity goals. The knowledge alone on average translates into a 30 percent spike in productivity versus secretly monitoring employees, Sutton said. The reason is because employees know what specific goals they have to reach and that they’re being monitored for those goals, he said. Hubstaff said it logged a record month in March 2020, and since the beginning of the pandemic, customers have increased by 40 percent. Currently, more than 70,000 companies and organizations use Hubstaff. But Hubstaff said most employers want their employees to understand how the software works and know what’s being tracked. [...]

1 0

'Chilling': Facial recognition firm Clearview AI hits watchdog groups with subpoenas - POLITICO
by Alberto Cammozzo Sept. 25, 2021

Sept. 25, 2021

<https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/24/clearview-ai-subpoena-watchdog-gro…> Clearview AI, the controversial facial recognition company that scrapes public images from social media to aid law enforcement probes, has subpoenaed internal documents from some of the groups that first exposed its activities. The firm served subpoenas in August to civil society coalition Open The Government, its policy analyst Freddy Martinez and the police accountability nonprofit that he’d previously founded, Lucy Parsons Labs — demanding any correspondence they’d had with journalists about Clearview and its leaders, as well as information they’d uncovered about the company and its founders in public records requests, over the last four years. The subpoenas, obtained by POLITICO, could draw the groups into lengthy court battles and, they argue, dissuade others from taking on Clearview or other companies working on potentially problematic technologies. David Brody, counsel and senior fellow for privacy and technology at the nonprofit Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said the move could be seen as an attempt to deter the advocacy groups, and journalists, from future investigations. “To use legal process to try to silence critics — silence people that are just trying to get transparency about how our criminal justice system is operating and what tools are being used by law enforcement agencies — that's pretty problematic,” Brody said. Open the Government and MuckRock shared their research about police use of surveillance — including Clearview’s technology — with the New York Times, and the paper published several reports last year <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/technology/clearview-privacy-facial-reco…> detailing the startup’s work with law enforcement. Authorities have been using Clearview’s software for several years to try to match images in government databases and surveillance footage with billions of personal photos posted to the internet. Privacy, human rights and civil liberties advocates have long raised alarm about the technology as both intrusive and biased. It has been shown <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/technology/facial-recognition-bias.html> to disproportionately misidentify women and people of color. Clearview's attorney Andrew J. Lichtman said in a statement that “Clearview AI is vigorously defending itself against claims in multi-district litigation and therefore has served subpoenas to appropriate parties relating to its defense.” That litigation is a privacy case in Illinois district court that does not appear to involve Open The Government, Martinez or Lucy Parsons Labs. Clearview did not respond to a question on how the communications with journalists were relevant to the Illinois case. Brody said it can be a taxing and expensive process to contest a subpoena — and that can be especially troublesome for nonprofits and smaller advocacy organizations without the legal or financial might to fight it off. Lisa Rosenberg, executive director of Open the Government, argued it’s a way for Clearview to threaten critics. "They presumably have massive amounts of resources at their disposal; we do not,” Rosenberg said in an interview, adding that “nonprofits could potentially be bullied by Clearview." Open the Government has secured pro bono legal representation from the firm Ballard Spahr. It was not immediately clear whether other advocates or civil society groups that have been outspoken about Clearview were targeted with subpoenas. Albert Fox Cahn, founder and executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, a nonprofit that litigates and advocates against government mass surveillance, argued the subpoenas could intimidate or undermine watchdog groups like his. “There is absolutely no justification for a vendor to be able to target civil society groups; we know just how chilling that can be,” he said. Rosenberg also called the subpoenas “a backhanded way” of targeting journalists’ sources. “If a court did make us turn over those records, that precedent would be terrifying for First Amendment reasons,” she said. Journalists “would have to be worried that you could maybe protect your sources, but your sources couldn't protect themselves.” Clearview**Founder Hoan Ton-That has stood by his “search engine for faces <https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2020/02/10/clearview-ai-facial-recognit…>,”emphasizing that <https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clearview-ai-google-youtube-send-cease-and-des…> Clearview uses only publicly available photos and arguing that there is a First Amendment right to public information. MOST READ Sen. Joe Manchin arrives to chair the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. <https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/25/democrats-bill-joe-manchin-514152> 1. As Dems race forward, Manchin pumps brakes: ‘There is no timeline’ <https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/25/democrats-bill-joe-manchin-514152> 2. ‘The No. 1 issue’: Trump whips up election falsehoods after flawed Arizona report <https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/24/trump-election-falsehoods-arizona-…> 3. ‘You’ve disgraced this country’: Judge rips Capitol riot defendant <https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/24/judge-rips-capitol-riot-defendant-…> 4. Opinion | The Roots of Democratic Disarray <https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/25/biden-agenda-democrats-co…> 5. Opinion | Why the Fear of Trump May Be Overblown <https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/24/why-the-fear-of-trump-may…> Public backlash to the technology has prompted tech giants like Microsoft and IBM to pull out of the market for good, and Amazon has halted police use of its Rekognition product indefinitely to give Congress time <https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/policy-news-views/we-are-implementing-a-on…> to implement safeguards. But federal laws governing the technology are far off, and momentum on the issue seen last Congress has largely petered out. And even as action to regulate or ban the technology grows at the state and local levels, an August report <https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-526> from the Government Accountability Office shows that almost half of federal agencies plan to expand their use of facial recognition in the next two years. At the same time, Clearview is building up its presence in Washington. The company hired its first lobbyistsearlier this year <https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2021/05/10/k-street…>, bringing on Klein/Johnson Group, which was started by aides to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) to provide “education” about facial recognition software, according to a disclosure filing.

1 0

Björn Brembs sul capitalismo della sorveglianza nella ricerca accademica
by MORRIELLO ROSSANA Sept. 25, 2021

Sept. 25, 2021

In questa lista di parla spesso del "capitalismo della sorveglianza" ma raramente declinato in ambito di ricerca accademica. Un recente articolo di Björn Brembs spiega bene come i grossi editori scientifici commerciali si stiano spostando dall'editoria all'analisi e capitalizzazione dei dati http://bjoern.brembs.net/2021/09/algorithmic-employment-decisions-in-academ… Un saluto Rossana Morriello

2 1