- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

La scuola al bivio - Quali prospettive per la scuola italiani
by Eleonora Panto Sept. 18, 2014

Sept. 18, 2014

Segnalo quest'incontro che si svolgera' oggi a Torino, organizzato da ITCS Sommeiller di Torino e l'Associazione Dschola *La Scuola al Bivio -- Quali Prospettive per la Scuola Italiana*" - 18 settembre a Torino dalle 14.30 alle 17.00 presso la sala conferenze Social Fare - in c.so Palestro 14 Quest'incontro sul futuro dell'educazione in Italia si concentra sulla possibile attuazione delle linee-guida della riforma/La buona scuola/, cui il governo ha lavorato fin dal suo insediamento. L'incontro è l'occasione per favorire uno scambio di punti di vista tra insegnanti, dirigenti scolastici e autorevoli esperti d'innovazione circa le sfide che attendono il mondo della scuola. Se è chiara a tutti la necessità di una svolta, non lo sono altrettanto le direttive lungo le quali muoversi e le modalità con cui far spazio al cambiamento nelle aule delle nostre scuole. Attraverso il confronto con un pool di esperti, l'evento vuole contribuire all'elaborazione di proposte concrete per una didattica più attuale. Ne discuteranno con*Francesca Salvadori:* *Juan Carlos De Martin*, editorialista de "La Stampa" e fondatore del/Nexa Center for Internet and Society/. *Sergio Duret**ti* - Direttore Generale del CSP Giulia Gianti, Emanuele Gallo ed Eugenio Quarello - Studenti dell'ITCS Sommeiller *Salvatore Giuliano,* preside dell'ITIS Majorana di Brindisi e ideatore di/Book in Progress/; *Francesco Luccisano* capo della Segreteria tecnica del Ministro Giannini e coordinatore del Cantiere per la scuola 2.0 *Emanuele Gallo, Giulia Gianti, Eugenio Quarello:* studenti introduce *G**iovanni Paciariello *- Dirigente Scolastico ITCS Sommeiller, torino L'incontro è pensato in forma di conversazione aperta e collettiva, per dare ampio spazio ai contributi e alle domande di chi siede tra il pubblico Per partecipare, è possibile registrarsi qui http://www.eventbrite.it/e/registrazione-la-scuola-al-bivio-quali-prospetti…<https://www.eventbrite.it/e/registrazione-la-scuola-al-bivio-quali-prospett…> Buona giornata Eleonora -- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Eleonora Pantò Learning, Inclusion and Social Innovation Program Developer CSP - Innovazione nelle ICT s.c.a r.l. http://www.csp.it Sede: Via Nizza, 150 - 10126 - Torino - Italy Ingresso: Via Alassio, 11/C tel. +390114815111 - cell +393486086090 skype/twitter: epanto Follow CSP on social media: http://www.youtube.com/cspscarl http://www.facebook.com/cspscarl http://www.twitter.com/cspscarl -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Associazione Dschola http://www.associazionedschola.it http://www.dschola.it http://www.youtube.com/dscholatv http://www.facebook.com/groups/dschola -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Medea - Media&Learning Association http://www.media-and-learning.eu http://www.medea-awards.com -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to

1 0

Consultation on ‘Science 2.0’: Science in Transition
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 17, 2014

Sept. 17, 2014

*http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/science-2.0/consultation_en.htm Consultation on ‘Science 2.0’: Science in Transition* (This consultation is run jointly by DG Research & Innovation and DG for Communications Networks, Content and Technology) Policy field(s) Science Policy Target group(s) Groups to be mainly targeted with the consultation are: * Universities and university associations * Research Performing Organisations * Research Funding Organisations * Scientific Libraries * Academies * Learned society * Scholarly Publishers and intermediaries * Businesses in the field of ‘Science 2.0’ Period of consultation From *03.07.2014* to *30.09.2014 * Objective of the consultation ‘Science 2.0’ describes the on-going evolution in the modus operandi of doing research and organising science. These changes in the dynamics of science and research are enabled by digital technologies and driven by the globalisation of the scientific community, as well as the need to address the Grand Challenges of our times. They have an impact on the entire research cycle, from the inception of research to its publication, as well as on the way in which this cycle is organised. The goal of the consultation is to better understand the full societal potential of 'Science 2.0' as well as the desirability of any possible policy action. The three main objectives of the consultation are: (1) to assess the degree of awareness amongst the stakeholders of the changing modus operandi; (2) to assess the perception of the opportunities and challenges and (3) to identify possible policy implications and actions to strengthen the competitiveness of the European science and research system by enabling it to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by Science 2.0. How to submit your contribution We welcome contributions from citizens, organisations and public authorities. * If you are answering this consultation as a *citizen*, please click here <http://www.consultation-science20.eu/> to submit your contribution. * If you are answering this consultation on behalf of an *organisation*, please click here <http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/science-2.0/submit_contrib_en.cfm> to submit your contribution. * If you are answering this consultation on behalf of a *public authority*, please click here <http://www.consultation-science20.eu/> to submit your contribution. Contributions will be published on the Internet. It is important to read the specific privacy statement attached to this consultation for information on how your personal data and contribution will be dealt with. View the questionnaire You can preview/print a PDF version of the online questionnaire <http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/science-2.0/questionnaire.pdf> ( 204 KB) to help you to prepare your response. To submit a valid questionnaire you must at least answer all the compulsory questions (Block A) *and* click the "submit" button on the final page of the questionnaire. Partially completed questionnaires which have not been submitted will not be analysed but will be counted for statistical reasons. Reference documents Important information can be found in the *background Paper*: Public Consultation: ‘Science 2.0’: Science in Transition <http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/science-2.0/background.pdf> ( 138 KB) *Please read this before answering the questionnaire.* Contact details Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Unit A6, Science Policy, Foresight and Data Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, Unit C3, Digital Science E-mail: RTD-SCIENCE-2.0(a)ec.europa.eu <mailto:RTD-SCIENCE-2.0@ec.europa.eu> Postal addresses: European Commission DG Research & Innovation - Unit A6 Science Policy, Foresight and Data B-1049 Brussels Belgium European Commission DG for Communications Networks, Content and Technology - Unit C3 B-1049 Brussels Belgium Results of consultation and next steps The outcomes of this consultation will subsequently be validated during multi-stakeholder activities, such as workshops, in the autumn of 2014.

1 0

"Internet e TV: modelli a confronto, lezioni per il futuro" - Keynote del Prof. De Martin a Prix Italia 2014 (25 settembre)
by Giuseppe Futia Sept. 17, 2014

Sept. 17, 2014

Gentilissimi, abbiamo il piacere di informarvi che in occasione dell'edizione 2014 di Prix Italia il Prof. Juan Carlos De Martin terrà un keynote dal titolo: "Internet e TV: modelli a confronto, lezioni per il futuro". L'incontro si svolgerà il 25 settembre alle ore 15 presso "RAI, Museo della Radio e TV (Museum Hall)", in via Verdi 16 a Torino. Maggiori informazioni sull'iniziativa sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://www.prixitalia.rai.it/2014/It/grids/Appuntamenti.aspx. Cordiali saluti, -- ------------------------------------------------- Giuseppe Futia Communication Manager Nexa Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino - DAUIN Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 - 10129 Torino web: http://nexa.polito.it mail: giuseppe.futia(a)polito.it tel. +39 011 090 7219

1 0

Le BIBLIOTECHE possono digitalizzare i libri e farli scaricare su USB -
by Diego Giorio Sept. 17, 2014

Sept. 17, 2014

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30d60… Ovviamente sotto alcune condizioni Saluti e buon WE a tutti Diego

2 1

"African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 16, 2014

Sept. 16, 2014

*African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms** * Posted by Mike Palmedo <http://infojustice.org/archives/author/admin> on September 9, 2014 Add comments <http://infojustice.org/archives/33243#respond> URL: http://infojustice.org/archives/33243 Last week, 23 civil society groups released the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms at the Internet Governance Forum. The Declaration was drafted by a committee led by Edetean Ojo , Executive Director of Media Rights Agenda, which announced the Declaration <http://mediarightsagenda.net/web/african-declaration-on-internet-rights-and…> as “a Pan-African initiative to promote human rights standards and principles of openness in internet policy formulation and implementation on the continent. The Declaration is intended to elaborate on the principles which are necessary to uphold human and people’s rights on the internet, and to cultivate an internet environment that can best meet Africa’s social and economic development needs and goals.” The African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms is organized around twelve key principles, including Freedom of Expression and the Right to Information and Open Data. Excerpt from the section on Freedom of Expression: /Filtering, blocking, removal and other technical or legal limits on access to content constitute serious restrictions on freedom of expression and can only be justified if they strictly comply with international human rights standards relating to limitations and due process requirements. No one should be held liable for content on the Internet of which they are not the author. Furthermore, the State should not use or force intermediaries to undertake censorship on its behalf and intermediaries should not be required to prevent, hide or block content or disclose information about Internet users, or to remove access to user-generated content, including those that infringe copyright laws, unless they are required to do so by an order of a court./ Excerpt from the section on the Right to Information and data: /Data and information held by government should be made publicly accessible, including being released proactively and routinely, except where legitimate grounds for restricting access to such information exists in the relevant access to information legislation… Copyrighted materials held by public bodies should be licensed for re-use in accordance with relevant access to information laws and licensing frameworks./ The full African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms is available at http://africaninternetrights.org/declaration/

1 0

Berkman Center Webcast live oggi ore 18.30 - Drone Warfare and the Public Imagination
by Giuseppe Futia Sept. 16, 2014

Sept. 16, 2014

Drone Warfare and the Public Imagination http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2014/09/kaag <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2014/06/sigal> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2014/06/sigal> *John Kaag, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Massachusetts Lowell* Today, 6.30 pm Webcast live: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/webcast http://nexa.polito.it/berkman-webcast-live In 2012, U.S. drone strikes occurred most often in which nation? If you don't know, don't feel too bad. You're not alone. You could just admit it and join the 27 percent of Americans who report that they haven't a clue. Or you could guess, give the wrong answer, and join the 60 percent of Americans who just plain get it wrong. Many people know this answer first-hand, but they tend not to be Americans, and for them the answer has a non-trivial significance. A large majority (65 percent) of Americans claimed that they had heard a lot about the U.S. drone program in 2013. This is a significant increase from the year before. But what they'd heard hadn't furnished the answer to this most basic question about the purpose and nature of targeted killings. This makes sense, since the media often focuses on what is most important to its readers: namely, themselves. This is why the death of Americans in targeted killings dominated early discussion of drone warfare, why the mere prospect of domestic surveillance has taken center stage in the drone debate, and why commercial uses of drones has gained more attention in 2014. So what should the media cover when it comes to drones and military robotics? What is worth reporting? And what responsibility do journalists have to focus in on the most pressing moral and legal questions when it comes to drone technologies? At what point should reportage blend into legal commentary and moral argumentation? What are the dangers associated with this sort of public discourse? About John Kaag John Kaag is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Massachusetts Lowell and Director of the Doctoral Program in Global Studies. He recently co-authored Drone Warfare (Polity, 2014) with Sarah Kreps, and is author of A Wilderness of Books: A Study of American Philosophy (forthcoming with Farrar, Straus and Giroux in 2015).

1 0

Cultural Content and Open Data Strategies - Milan October 10th
by Cristiana Sappa Sept. 15, 2014

Sept. 15, 2014

Dear All, We are pleased to announce that a workshop jointly organized by LAPSI 2.0 and ePSIplatform on Cultural Content Exploitation and Open Data Strategies will take place in Milan on October the 10th. Please save the date: we would very much like to have you with us! Feel free to register: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/exploitation-of-cultural-content-open-data-str… More information is available here: http://www.epsiplatform.eu/content/exploitation-cultural-content-open-data-… Do not hesitate to share this information with anyone that could be interested. Kind Regards and see you in Milan! Cristiana Sappa Project Manager, LAPSI 2.0, www.lapsi-project.eu

1 0

interessante sentenza della Cassazione su assenza dell'obbligo di accettare il sistema operativo
by Mauro Alovisio Sept. 15, 2014

Sept. 15, 2014

gent.me/mi segnalo recente sentenza della Cassazione di interesse per molti della lista sull'assenza di obbligo di accettare il sistema operativo nel caso di acquisto di pc In attesa dei relativi approfondimenti e del testo della sentenza e dei relativi contributi in lista, invio cordiali saluti http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/tecnologie/2014-09-11/la-sentenza-nessun-obb… La Cassazione ha bocciato il ricorso della multinazionale dell'informatica Hewlett Packard Italiana stabilendo che «l'acquisto del computer non implica l'obbligo di accettare il sistema operativo, pena lo scioglimento della vendita e l'azzeramento dell'intera operazione». Insomma, chi acquista un pc con sistema operativo installato di serie - in bundle - ha diritto al rimborso del costo del software, anche quello applicativo, se non clicca sull'accettazione della licenza d'uso. Il consumatore acquirente può in questo caso tenersi l'hardware e avere diritto al rimborso. La sentenza entra nel merito della pratica commerciale di vendere i personal computer con il sistema operativo (e quindi con il software che serve per farlo funzionare). «Chi acquista un computer sul quale sia stato preinstallato dal produttore un determinato software di funzionamento (sistema operativo) ha il diritto, qualora non intenda accettare le condizioni della licenza d'uso del software propostegli al primo avvio del computer, di trattenere quest' ultimo restituendo il solo software oggetto della licenza non accettata, a fronte del rimborso della parte di prezzo ad esso specificamente riferibile», ha stabilito la Cassazione, confermando 140 euro di rimborso a un consumatore fiorentino. Nel mondo pc sistemi operativi alternativi a Windows sono pochi (Linux e software opern source). Sarà interessante capire se il consumatore potrà scegliere una versione di sistema operativo più vecchia di quella pre-installata. C'è chi, per esempio, rimpiange ancora Windows Xp nonostante non sia più supportato da Microsoft.

4 7

Annual Report on Net Neutrality
by Luca Belli Sept. 15, 2014

Sept. 15, 2014

Dear all (apologies for cross-posting), FYI, the 2014 Report of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality “Network Neutrality: an Ongoing Regulatory Debate” is available at http://www.networkneutrality.info/sources.html Outline of the Annual Report: Preface (Vint Cerf)Introduction - Network Neutrality: an Unfinished Debate (Luca Belli & Primavera De Filippi)The net neutrality service model and specialized services (Frode Sørensen)Net Neutrality: an overview of enacted laws in Latin America (Patricia Vargas-Leon)Network Neutrality debates in Telecommunications Reform –Actors, Incentives, Risks (Alejandro Pisanty)Net Neutrality in Australia: an emerging debate (Angela Daly)A New Way Forward for Net Neutrality (Chris Riley)There’s no economic imperative to reconsider on open Internet (Benoît Felten)Net Neutrality Regulation and Broadband Infrastructure Investment: How to Make an Empirical Assessment (Roslyn Layton) Best regards, Luca Belli

1 0

UNHRC: Joint statement on privacy in the digital age
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 13, 2014

Sept. 13, 2014

Joint Civil Society Statement on Privacy in the Digital Age Submitted to the 27th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, September 11, 2014 <http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/HRC27%20joint%20wri…> https://www.ifex.org/international/2014/09/12/privacy_digital_age/ This week's discussion of the report on surveillance by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights at the Human Rights Council is a critical moment in the global understanding of the human rights challenges raised by unlawful and arbitrary surveillance. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights will present a report on the right to privacy in the digital age (A/HRC/27/37). As the report states, "the technological platforms upon which global political, economic and social life are increasingly reliant are not only vulnerable to mass surveillance, they may actually facilitate it" on an unprecedented scale (para 2). It is imperative that the Council and Member States continue to promote and protect the right to privacy as technologies evolve and surveillance and data gathering capabilities become more powerful. In this context, the Human Rights Council has the opportunity to demonstrate leadership, promote global understanding of the right to privacy, and ensure robust state implementation of that right. We ask the Council to create a new special procedures mandate on the right to privacy to ensure sustained attention to the issues raised by the High Commissioner's report within the UN's human rights institutions. *KEY REPORT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS* The report confirms that "international human rights law provides a clear and universal framework for the promotion and protection of the right to privacy, including in the context of domestic and extraterritorial surveillance, the interception of digital communications and the collection of personal data" (para 47). This finding reaffirms the Council's recognition in A/HRC/RES/20/8 that "the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online." The right to privacy is well-established in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The report recognizes that the challenges posed by new digital surveillance capabilities do not confound human rights standards, but rather require re-examination of and renewed attention to state implementation of established standards. Critically, the High Commissioner found that many governments have failed to meet their obligations under the right to privacy. Practices in many states have revealed "a lack of adequate national legislation and/or enforcement, weak procedural safeguards, and ineffective oversight." Combined with a "disturbing lack of governmental transparency," these failings have “contributed to a lack of accountability for arbitrary or unlawful interference in the right to privacy” (paras 47-48). The research of many of the undersigned organizations confirms this finding. As an immediate measure, the High Commissioner called on all states to "review their own national laws, policies and practices to ensure full conformity with international human rights law" and address any shortcomings. To facilitate national review, the report elaborated on several issues: * Digital surveillance may engage a state's human rights obligations extraterritorially, regardless of the nationality or location of individuals whose communications are under surveillance. * A state's obligations can be engaged if that surveillance involves the exercise of power or effective control in relation to communications infrastructure. The same is true where regulatory jurisdiction over a third party that controls data is exercised, including where jurisdiction is asserted over the data of private companies as a result of the incorporation of those companies in the state in question (para 34). In a globalized world where data is routinely held in various jurisdictions and can travel across multiple borders in seconds, this point underlines the importance of the principle of non-discrimination in ensuring meaningful respect for privacy. * States should adopt a clear, precise, accessible, comprehensive, and non-discriminatory legislative framework to regulate all surveillance conducted by law enforcement or intelligence agencies (para 50)*. Surveillance should be undertaken under accessible law with foreseeable effects in accordance with the rule of law, including the right to an effective remedy. In many states, the legal frameworks governing surveillance fail to meet this standard, generating consequent accountability and transparency concerns. *The overarching principles in determining whether an interference is permissible are legality, necessity, and proportionality (para 23)*. In particular, it is essential to reiterate proportionality as a foundational principle. Mass surveillance is by nature disproportionate and large-scale collection practices often fall afoul of this principle. As the High Commissioner notes, "Mass or 'bulk' surveillance programmes may thus be deemed to be arbitrary, even if they serve a legitimate aim and have been adopted on the basis of an accessible legal regime. In other words, it will not be enough that the measures are targeted to find certain needles in a haystack; the proper measure is the impact of the measures on the haystack, relative to the harm threatened; namely, whether the measure is necessary and proportionate" (para 25). *Metadata merits stronger protection than it currently enjoys under national legal frameworks (paras 19-20)*. The interception of data about a communication ("metadata") can be as sensitive as the interception of the content of a communication. There is growing recognition that metadata cannot reasonably be afforded weaker protections than communications content. Such data is storable, accessible, and searchable, and access to and analysis of the data can be revelatory and highly invasive. * The interception, acquisition, and retention of data amounts to an interference with the right to privacy, regardless of whether data is subsequently consulted or used (para 20)*. In the context of mass surveillance programs, "[e]ven the mere possibility of communications information being captured creates an interference with privacy, with the potential chilling effect on rights," including free expression and association (para 20). It also follows that mandatory third-party data retention requirements, where governments require Internet or mobile service providers to store data about all customers, "appears neither necessary nor proportionate" (para 26). *A range of other rights may also be affected by communications surveillance and the collection of personal data, beyond the right to privacy.* The report cites freedom of opinion and expression; the right to peaceful assembly and association; to family life; and to health as illustrative examples. Although beyond the scope of the report, the High Commissioner stated that the linkages between mass surveillance and effects on other rights merit further consideration. *States must ensure effective oversight and remedy for violations of privacy through digital surveillance (paras 37-41)*. The report states that oversight by all branches of government and an independent civilian agency is essential to ensure effective protection of law. Effective remedies can come in a variety of forms, but must meet criteria that are well-established in human rights law. *The private sector should respect human rights if asked to facilitate surveillance or data collection or when providing surveillance technology to states (paras 42-46).* Where Internet or telecommunications companies comply with government requests for user data or surveillance assistance without adequate safeguards, they risk complicity in resulting violations. The report calls on companies to "assess whether and how their terms of service, or their policies for gathering and sharing customer data, may result in an adverse impact on the human rights of their users," implicitly drawing a connection between company data collection practices and government access to data companies hold (para 44). When companies provide surveillance technology to states that do not have adequate legal safeguards, companies risk complicity in violations of the right to privacy and other human rights (para 43). *A NEW SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY* The High Commissioner's report applies well established standards of international human rights law and provides a robust and universal foundation for examining state implementation of human rights obligations to surveillance and data collection activities. However, new surveillance capabilities and technologies raise complex and fast evolving issues. As a result, the High Commissioner urged "ongoing, concerted multi-stakeholder engagement" to address challenges related to the right to privacy (para 49). The report also called for "further discussion and in-depth study of issues relating to the effective protection of the law, procedural safeguards, effective oversight, and remedies," as well as the responsibility of businesses (para 51). We urge the Council to follow up on the High Commissioner's work, including by establishing a dedicated special procedure mandate on the right to privacy for the following reasons: * A dedicated mandate holder would play a critical role in developing common understandings and furthering a considered and substantive interpretation of the right across a variety of settings, as recommended by the report. A dedicated mandate holder would also be an independent expert, allowing for a neutral articulation of the application of the right to privacy that draws on the input of all stakeholders. * Establishing a separate mandate for privacy would allow for the development of a coherent and complementary approach to the interaction between privacy, freedom of expression, and other rights. * A dedicated mandate holder would help assess the implementation by state and non-state actors of their applicable international responsibilities and obligations in a sustained and systematic way. Functions should include carrying out country visits; collecting best practices; receiving and seeking information from states, businesses, and other stakeholders; and issuing recommendations. Submitted by Human Rights Watch Endorsed by: ARTICLE 19 Access American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Amnesty International Association for Progressive Communications Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) Electronic Frontier Foundation International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) Privacy International

1 0