October 2022 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Il Centro Nexa a Biennale Tecnologia 2022 | 10-13 novembre 2022
by Nexa Media Oct. 28, 2022

Oct. 28, 2022

Gentilissime, gentilissimi, Invitandovi a partecipare alla *seconda edizione di Biennale Tecnologia* /*"Princìpi - Costruire per le generazioni"*/, che si terrà da giovedì 10 a domenica 13 novembre, vi segnaliamo, tra gli oltre 100 appuntamenti previsti in programma, gli incontri condotti da alcuni tra i membri del nostro centro di ricerca. Nel dettaglio, interverranno all'evento: 1. *Juan Carlos De Martin*, co-fondatore e co-direttore del Centro Nexa; 2. *Luca De Biase*, trustee del Centro Nexa; 3. *Fabio Nascimbeni*, fellow del Centro Nexa; 4. *Lorenzo Benussi*, fellow del Centro Nexa; 5. *Mario Calderini*, trustee del Centro Nexa; 6. *Sandra Cortesi*, trustee del Centro Nexa; 7. *Enrico Donaggio*, faculty fellow del Centro Nexa; 8. *Antonio Casilli*, fellow del Centro Nexa; 9. *Bruce Sterling*, trustee del Centro Nexa; 10. *Jasmina Tešanović*, trustee del Centro Nexa; 11. *Carlo Blengino*, fellow del Centro Nexa; 12. *Francesca Bria*, trustee del Centro Nexa; 13. *Stefano Quintarelli*, trustee del Centro Nexa. Per maggiori informazioni sugli interventi del Centro Nexa a Biennale Tecnologia 2022 consulta la pagina: https://nexa.polito.it/biennale-tecnologia-22 Ricordiamo che la nuova edizione di Biennale Tecnologia si terrà in presenza a Torino, con una formula collaudata che vedrà alternarsi oltre 100 appuntamenti tra lezioni, dialoghi, incontri, dibattiti, mostre, spettacoli, tutti distribuiti nelle sedi principali del Politecnico di Corso Duca degli Abruzzi e del Castello del Valentino, ma anche negli spazi del Circolo dei lettori – partner fin dalla prima edizione della manifestazione – e delle Officine Grandi Riparazioni, che entrano quest’anno come sede prestigiosa grazie alla partnership con OGR Torino e al sostegno della Fondazione CRT. Grazie per l'attenzione, 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/ mail: anita.botta(a)polito.it tel: 011 090 7219

1 0

Articolo What's wrong with "AI ethics" narratives
by Daniela Tafani Oct. 28, 2022

Oct. 28, 2022

Buongiorno. Propongo alla revisione paritaria aperta un mio articolo su What's wrong with "AI ethics" narratives: https://commentbfp.sp.unipi.it/daniela-tafani-what-s-wrong-with-ai-ethics-n… Daniela Tafani, What’s wrong with “AI ethics” narratives | Bollettino telematico di filosofia politica<https://commentbfp.sp.unipi.it/daniela-tafani-what-s-wrong-with-ai-ethics-n…> commentbfp.sp.unipi.it PDF Abstract 1. Introduction 2. AI, magical thinking and imposture 3. A business model grounded on imposture: AI, cultural capture and regulatory capture 4. “AI ethics” narratives as mystification. The science fiction of AGI ethics… Grazie, saluti, Daniela Tafani

2 1

Data-owning democracy or digital socialism?
by Vetro' Antonio Oct. 27, 2022

Oct. 27, 2022

Una sintesi del dibattito attorno alla c.d. data ownership democracy, in cui l’autore individua tre limiti (cfr abstract sotto), condensabili in questa frase: "The common element in these criticisms is that DOD remains too closely wedded to existing conditions and does not make a strong enough intervention to alter the relations of power between citizens and corporations." Data-owning democracy or digital socialism? James Muldoon, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13698230.2022.2120737 This article contrasts two reform proposals articulated in recent debates about how to democratize the digital economy: data-owning democracy and digital socialism. A data-owning democracy is a political-economic regime characterized by the widespread distribution of data as capital among citizens, whereas digital socialism entails the social ownership of productive assets in the digital economy and popular control over digital services. The article argues that while a degree of complementarity exists between the two, there are important limitations to theories of data-owning democracy that have not yet received significant attention within the literature. The bulk of the article highlights three ways in which digital socialists would consider a data-owning democracy to fall short of achieving a more just digital economy: a lack of workplace democracy, limitations in terms of scope, and a lack of democratic control over long-term investment decisions in new technology. The article thus contributes to determining what is at stake in recent debates about how to democratize the digital economy. AV

3 2

"Information commissioner warns firms over ‘emotional analysis’ technologies"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Oct. 26, 2022

Oct. 26, 2022

*Information commissioner warns firms over ‘emotional analysis’ technologies* /Companies ‘should not make meaningful decisions based on technology not backed by science’// //The regulator will be publishing guidance on how to use biometric technologies in spring 2023.// / Alex Hern Tue 25 Oct 2022 The information commissioner has warned companies to steer clear of “emotional analysis” technologies or face fines, because of the “pseudoscientific” nature of the field. It’s the first time the regulator has issued a blanket warning on the ineffectiveness of a new technology, said Stephen Bonner, the deputy commissioner, but one that is justified by the harm that could be caused if companies made meaningful decisions based on meaningless data. “There’s a lot of investment and engagement around biometric attempts to detect emotion,” he said. Such technologies attempt to infer information about mental states using data such as the shininess of someone’s skin, or fleeting “micro expressions” on their faces. “Unfortunately, these technologies don’t seem to be backed by science,” Bonner said. [...] continua qui: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/25/information-commissioner…

3 3

Convegno "Scienza Aperta e Dati Aperti nella ricerca biomedica" | 28 ottobre 2022, ore 9.15
by Nexa Media Oct. 26, 2022

Oct. 26, 2022

Gentilissime, gentilissimi, Vi invitiamo a partecipare al convegno: /*"Scienza Aperta e Dati Aperti nella ricerca biomedica"*/, che si terrà *venerdì 28 ottobre**, alle ore 9.15*, presso la *Sala Conferenze Fulvio Zuelli, Palazzo di Giurisprudenza* - Via Verdi 53, Trento. Il convegno è organizzato dall'*Università di Trento*, Facoltà di Giurisprudenza, da *Open Access*, e da *AISA* (Associazione italiana per la promozione della scienza aperta). Partecipa al convegno, tra gli altri: * *Maurizio Borghi*, co-direttore del Centro Nexa e professore ordinario all'Università di Torino. L'ingresso all'evento è libero e gratuito. Per maggiori informazioni sul programma e sugli ospiti del convegno consulta la pagina: https://nexa.polito.it/scienza-aperta-dati-aperti Grazie per l'attenzione, 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/ mail: anita.botta(a)polito.it tel: 011 090 7219

1 0

Choking Off China’s Access to the Future of AI
by Antonio Oct. 25, 2022

Oct. 25, 2022

For high-end AI and supercomputing chips, the Biden administration has essentially given up on trying to thread the needle between refusing to let U.S. technology help China's military while promoting U.S.-China commercial trade. High-end AI chips can no longer be sold to any entity operating in China, whether that is the Chinese military, a Chinese tech company, or even a U.S. company operating a data center in China. The Biden administration is essentially saying to China: "If your policy is military-civil fusion, then the only realistic way of implementing our policy of no military end use is to end all sales to China, and we are now willing to take that step." https://www.csis.org/analysis/choking-chinas-access-future-ai A.

1 0

Everyone going to the World Cup must have this app - experts are now sounding the alarm
by Alberto Cammozzo Oct. 25, 2022

Oct. 25, 2022

<https://www.nrk.no/sport/everyone-going-to-the-world-cup-must-have-this-app…> Everyone going to the World Cup must have this app - experts are now sounding the alarm – It's not my job to give travel advice, but personally I would never bring my mobile phone on a visit to Qatar. That's what NRK's head of security Øyvind Vasaasen says after a thorough review of the apps. Everyone travelling to Qatar during the football World Cup will be asked to download two apps called Ehteraz and Hayya. Briefly, Ehteraz is an covid-19 tracking app, while Hayya is an official World Cup app used to keep track of match tickets and to access the free Metro in Qatar. In particular, the covid-19 app Ehteraz asks for access to several rights on your mobile., like access to read, delete or change all content on the phone, as well as access to connect to WiFi and Bluetooth, override other apps and prevent the phone from switching off to sleep mode. The Ehteraz app, which everyone over 18 coming to Qatar must download, also gets a number of other accesses such as an overview of your exact location, the ability to make direct calls via your phone and the ability to disable your screen lock. The Hayya app does not ask for as much, but also has a number of critical aspects. Among other things, the app asks for access to share your personal information with almost no restrictions. In addition, the Hayya app provides access to determine the phone's exact location, prevent the device from going into sleep mode, and view the phone's network connections. EHTERAZ – They can simply change the contents of your entire phone and have full control over the information that is there, is the conclusion of NRK's security manager. As part of the media house's preparations for the Qatar WC, he has reviewed these apps. Vasaasen is downright frightened by what NRK's security review has uncovered. – When you download these two apps, you accept the terms stated in the contract, and those terms are very generous. You essentially hand over all the information in your phone. You give the people who control the apps the ability to read and change things, and tweak it. They also get the opportunity to retrieve information from other apps if they have the capacity to do so, and we believe they do. – You're giving them the opportunity The security chief explains that it is essentially like the authorities getting full access to your house. – You're saying that it is perfectly fine for the authorities to enter your home. They get a key, and they can get in. You don't know what they're doing there. They say they might not make use of the chance, but you're giving them the opportunity. And you would never do that, Vasaasen points out. Øyvind Vasaasen leder DAB-arbeidet i NRK. NRK has asked Bouvet and Mnemonic, two independent IT security companies, to review the apps and give us their conclusions. – Can do quite a lot of bad things The Ehteraz app in particular receives criticism, and it is compared to the first Smittestopp (Stop Infection) app in Norway. – It was, after all, a privacy scandal. If someone has slightly more evil intentions than the Institute of Public Health, then you can do quite a lot of bad things with the information that the app collects in the first place, says Martin Gravåk at the Bouvet company. – He explains that the app tracks where you go, and the mobile phones that are near you. In this way, they can cross-link the information and find out who you are meeting and talking to. – If you're hunting the opposition, gays, or others you don't like, an app like this will make it much easier for you," Gravåk states. Arab Cup - Final - Tunisia v Algeria The Mnemonic company also compares the Ehteraz app with the first version of Smittestopp. – The consequences for individuals and groups if data from Ehteraz goes astray can be significant," says Tor Erling Bjørstad of Mnemonic to NRK. He has downloaded the apps and analysed what is in the application packages, and does not think the apps are hair-raising compared to "normal apps" that most people use. – At the same time, they process data, particularly linked to GPS and position, which has a high potential for abuse. In a way, you have to trust the people who develop or own the apps, and it is not a given that you particularly want to trust the authorities in Qatar. However, his technical analysis found no signs that they can actually change things that are stored locally on the mobile device, but nevertheless warns that the reason may be that it has not yet been implemented. NRK has submitted the findings about the apps' security holes to FIFA. They tell us that they do not wish to comment on the matter. – Increases the risk Naomi Lintvedt, research fellow at the Faculty of Law at the University of Oslo, has reviewed the apps at the request of NRK. She agrees with NRK's head of security that there is much that is problematic, and describes the apps as «very intrusive». – You cannot consent to parts of the use, just everything. If I understand the apps correctly, there will also be limited options to change permissions there. This means that if you want to go to the WC, you have no choice. This is a mandatory app, with no options," she points out. Lintvedt says bluntly that if she were an employer, she would not allow employees to take their work mobile phone to Qatar. Even as a private person, she would have been very sceptical about using her own phone in the World Cup host country. /– What is the main criticism against these apps, as you see it?/ – They go far too far in terms of what data is recorded and used. They get far too broad of access to change and take over functionality on your mobile phone, which appears to be completely unnecessary. It allows for government surveillance, and since it is Qatar, that has to be considered as well. This increases the risk that data will be used for purposes other than pure infection tracking, she believes.

2 1

Convegno "Una Normativa Europea sull'Intelligenza Artificiale?" | 28 ottobre 2022, ore 14.00
by Nexa Media Oct. 25, 2022

Oct. 25, 2022

Gentilissime, gentilissimi, Vi invitiamo a partecipare al convegno: /*"Una Normativa Europea sull'Intelligenza Artificiale?"*/, che si terrà *venerdì 28 ottobre**, dalle ore 14.00 alle ore 19.00*, presso l'Auditorium dell'Energy Center del Politecnico di Torino <https://www.energycenter.polito.it/>, Via Paolo Borsellino 38/16, Torino. Il convegno è organizzato dall'*Ordine degli Avvocati di Torino*, con il patrocinio dell'*Università di Torino, Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza*, e del *Politecnico di Torino*. Partecipano, tra gli altri: 1. *Prof. Ugo Pagallo*, Trustee Centro Nexa, Università degli Studi di Torino; 2. *Avv. Marco Ciurcina*, Fellow Centro Nexa, Commissione IA COA Torino - Centai Institute; 3. *Prof. Luca Peyron*, Faculty Fellow Centro Nexa, Apostolato Digitale - Università Cattolica. La partecipazione è titolo per l'attribuzione di 5 crediti formativi. Per maggiori informazioni sul convegno e sulle modalità di iscrizione consulta la pagina: https://nexa.polito.it/normativa-europea-ia Grazie per l'attenzione, 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/ mail: anita.botta(a)polito.it tel: 011 090 7219

1 0

The US supreme court case that could bring the tech giants to their knees | John Naughton | The Guardian
by Alberto Cammozzo Oct. 25, 2022

Oct. 25, 2022

<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/22/the-us-supreme-court-…> Two weeks ago, the US supreme court decided that it would hear Gonzalez v Google, a landmark case that is giving certain social-media moguls sleepless nights for the very good reason that it could blow a large hole in their fabulously lucrative business models. Since this might be good news for democracy, it’s also a reason for the rest of us to sit up and pay attention. First, some background. In 1996, two US lawmakers, Representative Chris Cox from California and Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon, inserted a clause into the sprawling telecommunications bill that was then on its way through Congress. The clause eventually became section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and read: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” The motives of the two politicians were honourable: they had seen how providers of early web-hosting services had been held liable for damage caused by content posted by users over whom they had no control. It’s worth remembering that those were early days for the internet and Cox and Wyden feared that if lawyers had henceforth to crawl over everything hosted on the medium, then the growth of a powerful new technology would be crippled more or less from birth. And in that sense they were right. What they couldn’t have foreseen, though, was that section 230 would turn into a get-out-of-jail card for some of the most profitable companies on the planet – such as Google, Facebook and Twitter, which built platforms enabling their users to publish anything and everything without the owners incurring legal liability for it. So far-reaching was the Cox-Wyden clause that a law professor eventually wrote a whole book about it, The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet. A bit hyperbolic, perhaps, but you get the idea. Now spool forward to November 2015 when Nohemi Gonzalez, a young American studying in Paris, was gunned down in a restaurant by the Islamic State terrorists who murdered 129 other people that night. Her family sued Google, arguing that its YouTube subsidiary had used algorithms to push IS videos to impressionable viewers, using the information that the company had collected about them. Their petition seeking a supreme court review argues that “videos that users viewed on YouTube were the central manner in which IS enlisted support and recruits from areas outside the portions of Syria and Iraq which it controlled”. The key thing about the Gonzalez suit, though, is not that YouTube should not be hosting IS videos (section 230 allows that) but that its machine-learning “recommendation” algorithms, which may push other, perhaps more radicalising, videos, renders it liable for the resulting damage. Or, to put it crudely, while YouTube may have legal protection for hosting whatever its users post on it, it does not – and should not – have protection for an algorithm that determines what they should view next. This is dynamite for the social-media platforms because recommendation engines are the key to their prosperity. They are the power tools that increase the user “engagement” – keeping people on the platform to leave the digital trails (viewing, sharing, liking, retweeting, purchasing, etc) – that enable the companies to continually refine user profiles for targeted advertising. And make unconscionable profits from doing so. If the supreme court were to decide that these engines did not enjoy section 230 protection, then social media firms would suddenly find the world a much colder place. And stock-market analysts might be changing their advice to clients from “hold” to “sell”. Legal scholars have been arguing for decades that section 230 needs revision. Freedom of speech fanatics see it as a keystone of liberty, as the “kill switch” of the web. Donald Trump made threatening noises about it. Tech critics (such as this columnist) regard it as an enabler of corporate hypocrisy and irresponsibility. However you look at it, though, it’s more than half a century since it became law, which is about 350 years in internet time. Having such a statute to regulate the contemporary networked world seems a bit like having a man with a red flag walking in front of a driverless car. (Though, come to think of it, that might not be such a bad idea.) Versions of the question posed by the Gonzalez suit – whether section 230 immunises internet platforms when they make targeted recommendations of content posted by other users – have been put to US courts over the last few years. To date, five courts of appeals judges have concluded that the section does provide such immunity. Three appeals judges have ruled that it does not, while one other has concluded only that legal precedent precludes liability for recommendation engines. There’s no legal consensus here, in other words. It’s high time that the supreme court decided the matter. After all, isn’t that what its there for? .

3 2

MEMENTO | 101° Nexa Lunch Seminar | 26 Ottobre 2022, ore 13.00
by Nexa Media Oct. 25, 2022

Oct. 25, 2022

Gentilissime, gentilissimi, Vi ricordiamo che *domani, dalle ore 13.00 alle ore 14.00*, si terrà il *101° Nexa Lunch Seminar* con un incontro dal titolo /*"Carcere ed esclusione digitale: le competenze tecnologiche incidono sul reinserimento sociale?"*/. Ospite dell'incontro: *Beatrice Balzola* (Intern Centro Nexa, Università di Torino). _L'incontro si terrà IN PRESENZA e ONLINE._ _SEDE FISICA_ dell'incontro: Centro Nexa su Internet e Società, Politecnico di Torino, Via Boggio 65/a, Torino (1° piano). QUI <https://nexa.polito.it/contatti> maggiori informazioni su come raggiungerci. _STANZA VIRTUALE_ dell'incontro: https://didattica.polito.it/VClass/NexaEvent INFO e DETTAGLI: https://nexa.polito.it/lunch-101 Grazie per l'attenzione, 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/ mail: anita.botta(a)polito.it tel: 011 090 7219

1 0