June 2026 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

"Venti secondi: Come l’intelligenza artificiale cancella lo sguardo che trattiene la mano"
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 12, 2026

July 12, 2026

*Venti secondi /Come l’intelligenza artificiale cancella lo sguardo che trattiene la mano /Lavinia Marchetti/ /* /Venti secondi. Tanto durava, nell’inverno del 2023, il controllo umano su un nome destinato a morire./Un ufficiale dell’intelligence israeliana, indicato con la lettera B., lo ha raccontato ai giornalisti di +972 Magazine e di Local Call, che per primi hanno svelato l’esistenza del programma (Abraham 2024)^1 . Il suo compito si riduceva a una verifica sola, che il bersaglio scelto dalla macchina fosse un maschio. /«Investivo venti secondi per ogni bersaglio, e ne facevo decine al giorno. Come essere umano non avevo alcun valore aggiunto, ero solo un timbro di approvazione. Mi faceva risparmiare un sacco di tempo»./ Il controllo del sesso era diventato l’unico filtro perché, secondo gli ufficiali, tra le file militari di Hamas non figurano donne, e dunque un bersaglio femminile segnalava soltanto un errore della macchina. «All’inizio facevamo dei controlli per assicurarci che la macchina non si confondesse», spiega B. «A un certo punto ci siamo affidati al sistema automatico, e ci limitavamo a controllare che il bersaglio fosse un uomo. Non ci vuole molto a capire se una voce è maschile o femminile» (Abraham 2024). Il software si chiama /Lavender/. Analizza i dati raccolti, attraverso una sorveglianza di massa, sui due milioni e trecentomila abitanti di Gaza, e assegna a quasi ciascuno un punteggio da 1 a 100 che misura la probabilità di appartenere all’ala militare di Hamas. Ha imparato a riconoscere i tratti dei miliziani noti per cercarli nella popolazione, dal trovarsi in un gruppo WhatsApp con un militante al cambiare spesso telefono. Nelle prime settimane di guerra ha schedato circa trentasettemila persone come sospette, insieme alle loro case. La definizione di miliziano restava elastica, e uno degli analisti che addestrarono il sistema se ne dichiarò turbato, perché nei dati di addestramento erano finiti anche addetti alla protezione civile, cioè profili di comunicazione civili che la macchina avrebbe poi cercato, e colpito, nella popolazione. Gli ufficiali sapevano che la macchina sbaglia in circa il dieci per cento dei casi, e la trattavano lo stesso, sono parole loro, come se fosse una decisione umana. L’errore più frequente, racconta B., nasceva quando un bersaglio cedeva il proprio telefono a un familiare. «Quella persona verrà bombardata in casa con la sua famiglia. È successo spesso» (Abraham 2024)^1 . Selezionare i nomi era una procedura che gli operatori chiamavano, con una metafora venatoria, /Caccia Larga/: «Metti centinaia di bersagli nel sistema e aspetti di vedere chi puoi uccidere. Copi e incolli dalle liste che il sistema produce». La seconda macchina porta un nome che è la domanda di un bambino, /Where’s Daddy?,/ dov’è papà. Seguiva le persone schedate e avvertiva l’esercito quando rientravano a casa, di notte, mentre le famiglie dormivano. Le abitazioni private erano il luogo preferito per colpirle, perché localizzarle là risultava più semplice. L’ufficiale A. lo ha messo a verbale con una franchezza assoluta: /«Non eravamo interessati a uccidere i miliziani solo quando si trovavano in un edificio militare. Al contrario, li bombardavamo nelle loro case senza esitazione, come prima opzione. È molto più facile colpire la casa di una famiglia»./ Lo stesso A. tira la conclusione aritmetica di quella scelta. /«Diciamo che calcoli un miliziano di Hamas più dieci civili nella casa. Di solito quei dieci saranno donne e bambini. Così, per assurdo, viene fuori che la maggior parte delle persone che hai ucciso erano donne e bambini»./[...] continua qui: https://www.ahidaonline.com/post/guerre-6

3 2

Libro
by Daniela Tafani July 4, 2026

July 4, 2026

Buonasera, ho appena reso disponibile la versione preprint di un mio libro, Dieci miti sull'intelligenza artificiale. Un progetto reazionario e le sue storie: <https://zenodo.org/records/20708927> Vi sarò grata di qualsiasi osservazione. Un saluto, Daniela

9 13

US Supreme Court just blew up EU-US Data Transfers
by J.C. DE MARTIN June 30, 2026

June 30, 2026

US Supreme Court just blew up EU-US Data Transfers Data Transfers <https://noyb.eu/en/project/eu-us-transfers> / 29 June 2026 https://noyb.eu/en/us-supreme-court-just-blew-eu-us-data-transfers *On Monday, the US Supreme Court decided in Trump v. Slaughter that the US Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) may not be independent anymore. Since 2000, the EU has relied on the “independent” FTC as the enforcer of EU-US deals on personal data. According to EU treaty law, such oversight must be independent. In the current EU-US deal, the European Commission relies on the independent FTC 259 (!) times. Max Schrems: “*/*Given that there are no independent authorities in the US anymore, we call on the European Commission to orderly withdraw the adequacy decision on the US*/*.”* * Commission Implementing Decision EU 2023/1795 on the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (EUR-Lex) <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2023/1795/oj/eng> * US Supreme Court Decision in /Trump v. Slaughter/ <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-332_qn12.pdf> * /noyb /letter to the European Commission <https://noyb.eu/sites/default/files/2026-06/Letter_noyb_EU-US_data_transfer…> *The EU-US Data Privacy Framework. *Since 1995, the EU generally prohibits the export of personal data to third countries in order to prevent EU privacy rules from being circumvented by simply sending data abroad. While there are exceptions for necessary transfers, ranging from anything like booking a hotel to complex transactions, many EU companies simply outsourced the processing of personal data to US cloud providers. Since 2000, the European Commission has repeatedly accepted that the US is an “adequate” country when it comes to the protection of personal data – allowing free data flows between the EU and the US. The European Court of Justice (CJEU) annulled the Commission's two previous decisions in the so-called “/Schrems I/” decision (killing “Safe Harbour”) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Safe_Harbor_Privacy_Principles#…>and “/Schrems II/” decision (killing the “Privacy Shield”) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU%E2%80%93US_Privacy_Shield#Legal_challenge>because of US Surveillance Laws and the lack of judicial remedies in the US. Nevertheless, in 2023 the European Commission issued a third EU-US deal, called the “EU-US Data Privacy Framework <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2023/1795/oj/eng>”, which was largely a copy of the previously annulled deals. *EU requirement for an independent DPA. *EU treaty law (so the EU's “constitutional” framework), namely Article 16(2) TFEU <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12016E/TXT>and Article 8(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/eng>, requires that the oversight over data protection matters must be done by an “independent” authority. Because third countries must have “essentially equivalent” protections, it is necessary that any third country that wants to enjoy free flow of personal data from the EU also affords such protections. So far, the US has appointed the “independent” FTC to be the US privacy regulator to meet the EU's requirement for independent oversight. The EU, in turn, has relied on the FTC a whopping 259 (!) times in it’s EU-US data flow decision. Max Schrems: “/Crucially, the EU constitutional framework requires independent oversight. The only way to change this would be a unanimous vote by all EU Member States to change the EU treaties/.” *The requirement for an independent Court. *Furthermore, the CJEU also highlighted that the US would need to provide an independent legal redress mechanism in matters of government surveillance. Because the US was unable to pass relevant legislation, the Biden Administration created a “Data Protection Review Court <https://www.justice.gov/opcl/redress-data-protection-review-court>”. Despite being called a “Court” it is in fact an executive body within the US Justice Ministry. It is only “independent” via an Executive Order <https://www.justice.gov/opcl/executive-order-14086>(EO) by former President Biden that can be changed by Trump any moment and is not binding for the President. *The “Slaughter” decision: unitary (Trump) executive. *In a 180° turn on previous case law, the conservative majority in the US Supreme Court has now decided that the independence of the FTC is unconstitutional. This follows the “unitary executive theory" that the US President must have power over /all/US executive bodies, declaring all US laws that make various agencies independent to be unconstitutional. Given that the EU relied on the “independence” of the FTC as a privacy watchdog in almost all cases, the entire structure of the EU-US Data Privacy Framework has just collapsed. Max Schrems: “/Even in the European Commission's logic, the basis for any EU-US data transfer deal is dead. We call upon the Commission to start an orderly exit from the US cloud – which is not easy, but unfortunately unavoidable. The Commission built a legal house of cards under industry pressure. Now that it clearly collapses, it has to take responsibility/.” *Impact not unlimited. *Even if all the underpinning of the EU decision is gone, the European Commission's decision is formally in force until either the European Commission repeals it or the Court of Justice annuls it. Hence, there is no immanent effect. The GDPR also only regulated the transfer of personal data. Non-personal data can flow freely. Furthermore, Article 49 GDPR <https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=Article_49_GDPR>allows necessary data transfers to any third country. It does, however, not allow to structurally offshore data from the EU, if it is not strictly necessary. *SCCs and BCRs also affected.* While some companies may not directly rely on the EU-US Framework and instead formally use SCCs and BCRs, they usually also rely on an “impact assessment”, which in turn relies on formerly independent US executive bodies such as the PCLOB or the Data Protection Review Court. The Supreme Court decision therefore usually affects them too, even if they do not rely on the FTC. Other than controllers relying on a formal Commission Decision, they must immanently update their assessment – and logically come to the conclusion that data transfers are not legal anymore. *Next Steps: Commission must repeal EU-US deal. */noyb/has sent a formal letter to the European Commission <https://noyb.eu/sites/default/files/2026-06/Letter_noyb_EU-US_data_transfer…>today, asking it to take the appropriate steps to repeal the EU-US data deal in an orderly way. Politically, many EU Member States have already moved towards a “digital sovereignly” approach and announced to decouple from US service providers. Some US service providers also move towards separate EU data processing. However, given that the US still exercises massive pressure on the EU to keep personal data flowing, /noyb/will also file a lawsuit in the coming weeks, aiming to allow the CJEU to annul the current deal. However, such a lawsuit typically takes 2-3 years until a final decision is reached.

1 0

196° Mercoledì di Nexa | 8 luglio 2026, ore 17.00
by Nexa - Media June 30, 2026

June 30, 2026

Gentilissime, gentilissimi, Vi invitiamo a partecipare al 196° Mercoledì di Nexa, che si terrà mercoledì 8 luglio, alle ore 17.00, con un incontro dal titolo "Problemi convergenti, risposte divergenti: la regolamentazione del lavoro sulle piattaforme in Cina e nell’Unione Europea". Ospite dell'incontro: Dario Di Conzo (Università degli Studi di Napoli "L'Orientale"). L'incontro si terrà IN PRESENZA e ONLINE. SEDE FISICA Centro Nexa su Internet e Società, Politecnico di Torino, Via Boggio 65/a, Torino (1° piano). Per accedere alla sala si raccomanda di suonare al citofono Portineria e di seguire le indicazioni segnalate lungo il percorso. QUI<https://nexa.polito.it/contatti> <https://nexa.polito.it/contatti> maggiori informazioni su come raggiungerci. STANZA VIRTUALE dell'incontro: https://didattica.polito.it/VClass/NexaEvent Di seguito maggiori dettagli: https://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-196 L’incontro si concluderà con un brindisi per salutarci in vista della pausa estiva. Vi ringraziamo per l'attenzione, Cordiali saluti, -- Valeria Bergantino Communication Manager Nexa Center for Internet & Society<https://nexa.polito.it/> DAUIN - Politecnico di Torino Via Pier Carlo Boggio, 65/A - Torino Digital Communication Assistant DAUIN - Politecnico di Torino<https://www.dauin.polito.it/> Corso Castelfidardo 34/D - Torino mail: valeria.bergantino(a)polito.it<mailto:valeria.bergantino@polito.it> tel: 3473443585

1 0

ci dicono di chiedere a OPenAI come usare la sua IA
by maurizio lana June 30, 2026

June 30, 2026

nella mia Università il delegato del Rettore per la Sicurezza Informatica e la Trasformazione Digitale ieri ci ha scritto: > Desidero segnalarvi che martedì 7 luglio p.v. dalle 9:30 alle 16:30 si > terrà, presso il Politecnico di Torino, un incontro dedicato > all'adozione responsabile dell'Intelligenza Artificiale nel sistema > universitario italiano, organizzato nell'ambito della collaborazione > CRUI - OpenAI. > Trovate il programma dell'evento in calce a questo messaggio, e nella > locandina allegata, la quale contiene anche le istruzioni per la > registrazione. di primo acchito la cosa mi è parsa molto interessante. poi sono andato a guardare il programma riportato in calce al messaggio, non nella locandina (la locandina non mette 1 nome che sia 1 di chi parla: al Poli non sanno più come si fanno le locandine dei convegni e degli eventi? o l'hanno fatta fare da chatGPT e poi l'hanno pubblicata senza controllare che fosse fatta bene?) nel programma ci sono 2 soli interventi di contenuto 'pesante': > 10:15 - 11:15 - Education in the Agents Era - Carlotta Reviglio - EDU > for Countries & High Ed, OpenAI > 11:30 - 12:30 - Codex - The frontier of Agentic AI - Joe Pritchard - > GTM | Education, OpenA sembra di capire che il Politecnico si fa dire da OpenAI come usare i sistemi di IA, abdicando al suo compito di individuare e attuare in autonomia e libertà profili di avanzamento scientifico e se li faccia dire da un soggetto terzo? e questo viene promosso come formazione all'adozione responsabile dell'Intelligenza Artificiale nel sistema universitario. Maurizio ------------------------------------------------------------------------ che faresti se vivessi così? mau mau, con chi fugge ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maurizio Lana Università del Piemonte Orientale Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici Piazza Roma 36 - 13100 Vercelli

1 0

President vs Parliament: Metsola overrides MEPs in bid to force through child abuse law
by J.C. DE MARTIN June 28, 2026

June 28, 2026

La tenacia con cui insistono per approvare questa misura orwelliana, è davvero molto, molto interessante... chissà che cosa hanno letto i politici, in qualche rapporto confidenziale, per spingerli a comportarsi così.... di certo il contrasto al "child abuse" è solo uno schermo.... JC * President vs Parliament: Metsola overrides MEPs in bid to force through child abuse law */ The European Parliament president’s power play is “without precedent,” diplomats wrote in a note seen by POLITICO. / June 24, 2026 6:00 am CET By Sam Clark <https://www.politico.eu/author/sam-clark/> BRUSSELS — European Parliament President Roberta Metsola is trying to push through a controversial law on scanning child abuse content online even though it has been repeatedly slapped down by her own chamber, according to a document seen by POLITICO. In a step that diplomats deem “without precedent,” the top EU politician has asked member countries in the Council to approve a bill that her own Parliament shot down in a plenary vote in March. At stake is whether the EU allows tech platforms to voluntarily scan their services for child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The issue has been mired in controversy, with police <https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/combatting-child-se…> and child rights advocates <https://www.iwf.org.uk/news-media/statements/eu-failure-on-temporary-deroga…> and European commissioners arguing that a lack of legislation allows predators and pedophiles to operate with impunity online. Privacy campaigners <https://www.politico.eu/article/one-man-spam-campaign-ravages-eu-chat-contr…>, meanwhile, have argued the proposals could lead to unacceptable mass surveillance and the end of encryption <https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-online-child-sexual-abuse-material-csam-…>. Ambassadors on Friday will consider an “invitation of the President of the European Parliament [to] proceed with the Council’s first reading position” on the proposal to allow tech companies to choose to scan for CSAM, said a note by the Cyprus presidency of the Council of the EU dated June 22. In the note, Cyprus asked capitals to “carefully consider” the invitation, “even if this would be without precedent in the present circumstances." Talks between the Parliament and the Council collapsed in March, just days before the temporary legislation was due to expire. Lawmakers in the Parliament later resisted last-ditch pressure from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, four European commissioners, tech giants Meta, Google and Microsoft and numerous children’s charities, eventually voting down an attempt to pass the bill in March by a margin of 311 to 228 with 92 abstentions. A spokesperson for Metsola said the issue was "raised and asked for" at a meeting of heads of the Parliament's political groups. An EU parliament official said the European People's Party, the group to which Metsola belongs, raised it and no groups objected. The official was granted anonymity to disclose confidential details of the meeting. Lawmakers working on the legislation now feel Metsola has gone over their heads to invite the Council to adopt a position that the Parliament had already rejected, according to two Parliamentary aides. Markéta Gregorová, a Czech lawmaker with the Greens group in the Parliament and shadow lead lawmaker on the law, described herself as “extremely surprised” by the move and said Metsola’s invitation is “unacceptable and undermines the European Parliament position.” Hilde Vautmans, a Belgian lawmaker with the liberal Renew group and shadow lead lawmaker on the file, said reopening debate on the temporary law is a “political dead end.” “Parliament has rejected it twice, and that will not change,” she said. Spokesperson for the liberal Renew group Nick Petre said it was "concerned" the move to reopen negotiations could weaken Parliament's position to negotiate rules on child sexual abuse material. "After trilogue negotiations on the interim file failed, it is difficult to see how reviving that process now would bring us closer to a lasting solution. On the contrary, it could delay progress on the comprehensive legislation that victims, law enforcement and online platforms all need," he said. The invitation to ambassadors to proceed has not been previously reported. Close the legal gap The European Commission proposed the temporary CSAM bill as a stopgap measure to allow companies to scan while legislators agreed on a more permanent solution. As talks stalled on the latter, legislators were working to extend the former — at least until the dispute over the stopgap measure came to a head earlier this year. The Council and the Parliament couldn’t agree on terms to extend it, so the law lapsed in early April and companies were left without a legal basis for voluntary scanning. Tech firms continued to scan, despite the legal limbo. Metsola called publicly <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/resources/library/media/20260618RES45739/202…> to look at “how to find an agreement on a second reading of this file,” in an address to EU leaders last week. Cyprus in Monday’s note said there was a “pressing need” to close that legal gap. It said it “takes note of the political signal from the President of the European Parliament to encourage continuing the work on the proposal.” If capitals choose to adopt their position, the law does not automatically pass: The Parliament would need to either accept it or re-enter negotiations. “There is no certainty that [the Parliament] would adopt the legislative act in second reading in line with the Council’s first reading position,” Cyprus wrote in the note. Gregorová rejected the suggestion that lawmakers would budge. “The Parliament mandate is clear: A majority voted it down, meaning that we reject the extension.” According to EU procedures, if capitals and the Parliament continue to disagree, they could move to a rare procedure known as conciliation <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/olp/en/conciliation/overview>. Lawmakers will meet next Monday for a political negotiation on the other, permanent bill to tackle CSAM, though a deal at that meeting is unlikely, two Parliament officials and one national official involved in the process said last week. /Max Griera contributed reporting./ /This article was updated to include a comment from a spokesperson for Metsola and a Renew spokesperson and additional detail./

3 2

Technological Sovereignity, Big Tech and the Military-Digital complex
by Dario Guarascio June 25, 2026

June 25, 2026

Cari Nexiani, condivido questo lavoro appena pubblicato pensando possa essere di interesse. A presto! Dario -- *Dario Guarascio* Dipartimento di Economia e Diritto, Sapienza Università di Roma <http://www.uniroma1.it/strutture/dipartimenti> Via del Castro Laurenziano n° 9, 00161 Roma Edificio A (6° piano) -ala B, stanza n° 606 E-mail: dario.guarascio(a)uniroma1.it <nome.cognome(a)uniroma1.it> *Sito web* italiano - https://sites.google.com/a/uniroma1.it/darioguarascio/ inglese - https://sites.google.com/a/uniroma1.it/darioguarascio-eng/ -- *Fai crescere le giovani ricercatrici e i giovani ricercatori*** *con il 5 per mille alla Sapienza* Scrivi il codice fiscale dell'Università *80209930587 **Cinque per mille <https://www.uniroma1.it/it/node/23149>*

1 1

"Genova, 1,2 Petabyte di immagini per addestrare l’intelligenza artificiale. E la sovranità?"
by J.C. DE MARTIN June 25, 2026

June 25, 2026

E' successo solo Genova o per caso anche a Roma, Milano, Torino, Napoli, ecc.? JC *Genova, 1,2 Petabyte di immagini per addestrare l’intelligenza artificiale. E la sovranità? * Claudio Verzola 4 giugno 2026 Quando un comunicato aziendale arriva da Copenaghen e parla di Genova, conviene leggere oltre il titolo.L’undici giugno 2025 Milestone Systems annuncia <https://www.milestonesys.com/company/news/press-releases/project-hafnia-urb…>, con la firma di NVIDIA, l’arrivo in Europa del suo Project Hafnia, e la prima città del continente a entrarci è proprio Genova. Sulla carta è una buona notizia di innovazione urbana, di quelle che le amministrazioni amano esibire. Sotto la superficie c’è una questione che riguarda tutti, perché tocca la titolarità dei dati pubblici, la loro destinazione e il controllo di ciò che da quei dati viene generato. Il cuore tecnico dell’operazione è un Vision Language Model, un modello che impara a collegare immagini e testo per restituire interpretazioni e sintesi a partire da flussi video. Secondo il comunicato diffuso via Business Wire, l’obiettivo dichiarato è sviluppare soluzioni di intelligenza artificiale per la gestione del traffico e per città più efficienti, addestrando il modello con strumenti NVIDIA su infrastruttura cloud dedicata. Il primo servizio di Hafnia in Europa, si legge sempre nella nota ufficiale, è un modello europeo per la gestione dei trasporti addestrato su un ampio volume di dati di traffico raccolti a Genova. È qui che il discorso si fa concreto. Non si parla di una sperimentazione astratta, ma del materiale visivo prodotto dalle telecamere comunali. [...] continua qui: https://www.difesaonline.it/2026/06/04/genova-12-petabyte-di-immagini-per-a…

4 3

"Climate Goals Be Gone: Data Center Lobbyists Hard-Drilling Their Way Through EU Environmental Laws"
by J.C. DE MARTIN June 22, 2026

June 22, 2026

*Climate Goals Be Gone: Data Center Lobbyists Hard-Drilling Their Way Through EU Environmental Laws* Jun 21, 2026 The European AI Action Plan boasts the ambitious goal of tripling data center power capacity in roughly five years—a target that could clash with the actual capabilities of today’s electric grid. This limitation has become the focal point of international political clashes, with various nations vigorously debating which direction to take in building new power plants. Meanwhile, the sector’s lobby is pressuring institutions to set aside predetermined environmental objectives to focus exclusively on data center development. The European Union, like other major global powers, sees cloud computing, big data, and artificial intelligence as the future of economy, work, security, and Defense. These digital resources often intertwine with one another but all rest on infrastructures that, with the progressive evolution of technology, require an increasingly large amount of energy resources. To understand how electricity demand is evolving, financial consulting firm S&P Global estimates that European data center energy demand will double by 2030. In response to this phenomenon, the influence of the European Nuclear Alliance is growing at the same pace, an organization that Italy also officially joined last year. According to the European Data Center Association (EUDCA) lobby, neither the renewed interest in nuclear power nor that in renewables will allow Europe to meet the urgency of energy production and distribution. Or, to be precise, the group doubts that the interventions planned to meet demand will be completed within the established timelines. “Every good idea is currently hampered by the certainty, on paper, that everything will move within the predicted timelines,” lamented Lex Coors, president of EUDCA, according to Politico. [...] continua qui: https://italiantimes.substack.com/p/climate-goals-be-gone-data-center

1 0

Rapporto ONU: "Facial Recognition Technology: Protecting Human Rights in Law Enforcement, Counter-Terrorism and National Security Contexts"
by J.C. DE MARTIN June 22, 2026

June 22, 2026

*"Facial Recognition Technology: Protecting Human Rights in Law Enforcement, Counter-Terrorism and National Security Contexts"* Report issued by: Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism 19 June 2026 https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/position-papers/facial-recognition-techn…

1 0