- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

WP: "Independent review board says NSA phone data program is illegal and should end"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 23, 2014

Jan. 23, 2014

*Independent review board says NSA phone data program is illegal and should end** * By Ellen Nakashima, Thursday, January 23, 6:19 AM E-mail the writer An independent executive branch board has concluded that the National Security Agency's long-running program to collect billions of Americans' phone records is illegal and should end. In a strongly worded report to be issued Thursday, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) said that the statute upon which the program was based, Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, "does not provide an adequate basis to support this program." The board's conclusion goes further than President Obama, who said in a speech Friday that he thought the NSA's database of records should be moved out of government hands but did not call for an outright halt to the program. The board had shared its conclusions with Obama in the days leading up to his speech. The divided panel also concluded that the program raises serious threats to civil liberties, has shown limited value in countering terrorism and is not sustainable from a policy perspective. "We have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the telephone records program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation," said the report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. "Moreover, we are aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack." [...] Continua qui: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/independent-review-bo…

1 0

Fwd: [discuss] The Global Commission on Internet Governance
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 22, 2014

Jan. 22, 2014

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Pranesh Prakash* <pranesh(a)cis-india.org <mailto:pranesh@cis-india.org>> Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:31 AM Subject: [discuss] The Global Commission on Internet Governance To: discuss(a)1net.org <mailto:discuss@1net.org> CIGI and Chatham House have a new project. https://www.ourinternet.org/#about Frequently Asked Questions What is the Global Commission on Internet Governance? The Global Commission on Internet Governance is a two-year initiative that will present a comprehensive stand on the future of multi-stakeholder Internet governance. Chaired by Sweden?s Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, the commission will include about 25 members drawn from various fields and from around the world, including policy and government, academia and civil society. All commissioners are listed at the commission?s website, www.ourinternet.org <http://www.ourinternet.org> The commission will address four key themes, within which are a number of sub-themes: Enhancing governance legitimacy ? including regulatory approaches and standards; Preserving innovation ? including critical Internet resources, infrastructure and competition policy; Ensuring rights online ? including establishing the principle of technological neutrality for human rights, privacy, cyber-crime and free expression; Avoiding systemic risk ? including establishing norms regarding state conduct, cybercrime cooperation, and proliferation and disarmament issues. Why is the commission important? The current mechanism of Internet governance, colloquially called the ?multi-stakeholder? model, is under threat. This threat to a free, open, and universal Internet comes from two principal sources. First, a number of authoritarian states are waging a campaign to exert greater state control over critical Internet resources. Second, revelations about the nature and extent of online surveillance have led to a loss of trust. Collectively, these circumstances have created a need to update legacy mechanisms for Internet governance; but deadlocks in international dialogue means the potential exists for the fragmentation of the Internet. Accordingly, a significant and timely opportunity exists to feed innovative new ideas into these negotiations through the establishment of the Global Commission on Internet Governance. What is Internet governance and the multi-stakeholder model? The Internet?s architecture is constantly changing. The content and computing devices which end users see are only the surface of a massive underlying infrastructure of networks, services, and institutions that keep the Internet operational. This architecture comprises private information intermediaries such as network operators, exchange points, search engines, hosting services, e-commerce platforms, and social media providers. Despite the privatized and somewhat autonomous nature of these network components, global coordination is necessary to keep the Internet operational. For example, global technical standardization ensures interoperability; cybersecurity governance maintains stability and authentication; and centralized coordination ensures that each Internet name and number is globally unique. These, and other, tasks necessary to keep the Internet operational, are collectively referred to as ?global Internet governance.? As the Internet becomes increasingly enmeshed with vital aspects of everyday life, actors that perform these various Internet governance functions are also being called upon to provide expert knowledge on the governance of human behaviour online. This trend complicates an already difficult governance terrain. For the majority of its history, the Internet has been governed in an organic and piecemeal fashion by a variety of standard-setting and other technical bodies and by private companies performing key roles as network operators and information intermediaries. Multi-stakeholder governance means governance involving more than one of the four categories of participants: firms, states, intergovernmental organizations, and civil society (including technical experts acting in their individual capacities). It typically utilizes relatively non-hierarchical procedural rules. Rather than hard law and regulatory enforcement, governance is accomplished by means of voluntary compliance with technical standards, codes of conduct, and industry best practices. How will the Global Commission on Internet Governance influence the debate on Internet governance? The Global Commission?s goal is two-fold. First, it will encourage globally inclusive public discussions on the future of Internet governance. It will do this through public outreach activities, including accessible research as well as public consultation. Second, through its comprehensive policy-oriented report, and the subsequent promotion of this report, the Commission will communicate its findings with senior stakeholders at key Internet governance events, including, for example, the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)+10 review process, the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in spring 2014, and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Plenipotentiary Meeting in fall 2014. Although the commission will formally begin its program of work at the conclusion of ICANN?s High Level Panel on Internet Cooperation, which concludes its work in May 2014, planning and research are well underway. The commission will tackle a broad range of issues through an intensive program of research and consultation over an extended, two-year period. Commissioners Carl Bildt - Chair Gordon Smith - Deputy Chair Dominic Barton Pablo Bello Dae-Whan Chang Moez Chatchouk Michael Chertoff Anriette Esterhuysen Hartmut Glaser Dorothy Gordon Dame Wendy Hall Fen Osler Hampson Melissa Hathaway Patricia Lewis Mathias Müller von Blumencron Beth Simone Noveck Joseph S. Nye Sir David Omand Nii Quaynor Latha Reddy Marietje Schaake Tobby Simon Michael Spence Paul Twomey Pindar Wong -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 <tel:%2B91%2080%2040926283> | W: http://cis-india.org ------------------- Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School M: +1 520 314 7147 <tel:%2B1%20520%20314%207147> | W: http://yaleisp.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

1 0

finalmente c’è fermento sopra il diritto d’autore
by Simone Aliprandi Jan. 21, 2014

Jan. 21, 2014

Ho scritto un commento/panoramica sul fermento che si sta registrando in queste settimane attorno al diritto d'autore: la copyright week, il lancio della consultazione UE, le ipotesi di riforma a livello nazionale... Tutti segnali che finalmente questo argomento non è più relegato nella nicchia degli addetti ai lavori. http://aliprandi.blogspot.it/2014/01/finalmente-ce-fermento-sopra-il-diritt… Un caro saluto. -- Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org

1 0

17° Nexa Lunch Seminar - 22 gennaio 2014
by Giuseppe Futia Jan. 20, 2014

Jan. 20, 2014

Se non visualizzi correttamente questo messaggio clicca qui <http://nexa.polito.it/lunch-17> NEXA 17° Nexa Lunch Seminar Mercoledi 22 Gennaio 2014, ore 13.00 - 14.00 Via Boggio 65/a, Torino (primo piano) http://nexa.polito.it/lunch-17 Aprire i bilanci pubblici: un'opportunità per le amministrazioni e per i cittadini Speaker Aline Pennisi Ingresso libero - Saranno disponibili panini e bibite per coloro che si saranno registrati su http://lunch17.eventbrite.com/ entro il 20 gennaio. This event will be webcast live: http://nexa.polito.it/upcoming-events La trasparenza fiscale è uno dei fondamenti del patto tra governi e cittadini, nonché tra governi di diversi paesi, banche e imprese a livello internazionale. La disponibilità e comunicazione di informazioni su come e a chi vengono prelevate risorse, su come e a chi viene destinata la spesa e sull'effettivo patrimonio pubblico, sono principi sanciti nelle norme. Tuttavia, è sempre più pressante la richiesta che tali dati siano pubblicati in maniera comprensibile sui siti istituzionali, in formato /open/ e al massimo livello di dettagliato. Attraverso l'esplorazione di alcune delle fonti di dati facilmente accessibili in un formato elaborabile (anche se non sempre tecnicamente open) in Italia, *Aline Pennisi*, dirigente del Ministero dell'economia e delle finanze, *fornirà alcuni elementi per capire i bilanci a livello centrale e locale a vari livelli di aggregazione*, passando dal documento effettivamente votato in Parlamento o in Consiglio, alle informazioni sugli interventi finanziati, fino alle singole "fatture". Per non correre il rischio di suggerire che la mera pubblicazione di dati risolva la questione della trasparenza fiscale e migliori - sotto i vari punti di vista -- l'allocazione delle risorse pubbliche, si *segnaleranno alcuni requisiti per rendere gli /open data/ sui bilanci pubblici un'opportunità per le amministrazioni e i cittadini*. La richiesta di pubblicazione di tali dati sui siti istituzionali è collegata alla nozione che controllare e partecipare all'attività di governo sia un diritto e abbia effetti benefici sulla collettività. Nel caso del controllo si fa generalmente riferimento alla maggiore /accountability/ e alla capacità di arginare fenomeni di corruzione. Nel caso della partecipazione, all'opportunità di ridefinire il rapporto tra cittadini e lo Stato per rendere l'azione pubblica più rispondente ai bisogni, più efficace ed efficiente. Che la diffusione su larga scala di dati sui conti, sugli interventi finanziati e sui singoli atti di pagamento migliori l'azione pubblica rimane ancora da tutto dimostrare. Ciò detto, *diverse esperienze segnalano come attorno a questi dati si siano sviluppate iniziative con un impatto sulle decisioni collettive*. Speaker - e informazioni supplementari [aline pennisi] ALINE PENNISI è analista di politiche pubbliche. Ha studiato Scienze statistiche ed economiche e conseguito un dottorato in Ricerca Operativa presso l'università di Roma 'La Sapienza'. E'attualmente dirigente del Ministero dell'economia e delle finanze dove si occupa di analisi e valutazione della spesa. Ha coordinato la realizzazione di progetti di open data nell'ambito della pubblica amministrazione, tra cui i database sulla spesa delle amministrazioni centrali dello Stato (http://www.rgs.mef.gov.it/VERSIONE-I/Servizio-s/Studi-e-do/La-spesa-d/) e il portale OpenCoesione (www.opencoesione.gov.it) E' vice-presidente dell'associazione Openpolis dove promuove iniziative di monitoraggio civico tramite i dati aperti. Letture consigliate: * T.G. Davies (2012), The Promises and Perils of Open Government Data (OGD) <http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/929/926%20>, /The Journal of Community Informatics/, 2012 * A. Grönlund (2010), Using ICT to combat corruption -- tools, methods and results <http://spidercenter.org/sites/default/files/Increasing%20transparency%20and…>. In C. Strand (Ed.), /Increasing transparency and fighting corruption through ICT: empowering people and communities/ (pp. 7--26). SPIDER ICT4D Series no. 3 |2010 * IBM Center for The Business of Government report (2012) <http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/Recovery%20Act%20Tr…>, /Recovery Act Transparency: Learning from States' Experience/ Ulteriori letture consigliate sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/lunch-17 Che cosa sono il Centro Nexa e i cicli di incontri "Mercoledì di Nexa" e "Nexa Lunch Seminar" Il Centro Nexa su Internet & Società del Politecnico di Torino (Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica) è un centro di ricerca indipendente che studia da diversi punti di vista le varie componenti di Internet, la "più grande invenzione del secolo" (Rita Levi Montalcini), e il suo effetto sulla società. Maggiori informazioni all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it. Durante i "*Mercoledì di Nexa*", che si tengono *ogni 2° mercoledì del mese* alle *ore 18 in punto*, il Centro di ricerca Nexa su Internet e Società apre le sue porte non solo agli esperti e a tutti coloro i quali lavorano con Internet, ma anche a semplici appassionati e cittadini. Il ciclo di incontri intende approfondire, con un linguaggio preciso ma divulgativo, i temi legati alla Rete: motori di ricerca, Creative Commons, social networks, open source/software libero, neutralità della rete, libertà di espressione, privacy, file sharing, big e open data, smart cities e molto altro. Al centro di quasi tutti gli incontri un ospite pronto a dialogare e confrontarsi sugli argomenti scelti per il dibattito, insieme con i direttori del Centro Nexa, il Prof. Juan Carlos De Martin del Politecnico di Torino e il Prof. Marco Ricolfi dell'Università di Torino, nonché lo staff e i Fellows del Centro Nexa. Maggiori informazioni sui Mercoledì di Nexa, incluso un elenco di tutti i "Mercoledì" passati, sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi. Si segnala inoltre che dal maggio 2012 *ogni 4° mercoledì* del mese *dalle ore 13 alle ore 14* il Centro Nexa organizza anche i "*Nexa Lunch Seminar*". Una lista di tutti i "Lunch Seminar" passati è disponibile all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/lunch-seminars. See our events calendar <http://nexa.polito.it/events> if you're curious about future luncheons, discussions, lectures, and conferences not listed in this email. Our events are free and open to the public, unless otherwise noted. Maggiori informazioni sui Nexa Lunch Seminar e i Mercoledì di Nexa, sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/events. Weekly Events Newsletter. Sign up <http://nexa.polito.it/mailing-lists> to receive this newsletter if this email was forwarded to you. To manage your subscription preferences, please click here <https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa>. Connect & get involved: Jobs, internships, and more <http://nexa.polito.it/get-involved> Nexa Center for Internet and Society Newsletter

1 1

Rating Obama’s NSA Reform Plan: EFF Scorecard
by gianluca Jan. 18, 2014

Jan. 18, 2014

January 17, 2014 | byCINDY COHN <https://www.eff.org/about/staff/cindy-cohn>andPARKER HIGGINS <https://www.eff.org/about/staff/parker-higgins> on Electronic Froniter Foundation blog Rating Obama’s NSA Reform Plan: EFF Scorecard Explained Earlier today, President Obama announced a series of reforms to address abuses by the National Security Agency. We were heartened to see Obama recognized that the NSA has gone too far in trampling the privacy rights of people worldwide. In his speech, the President ensured that National Security Letters would not come with perpetual gag orders, brought new levels of transparency and fairness to the FISA court, and ended bulk collection of telephone records by the NSA. However, there is still much more to be done. We’ve put together a scorecard showing how Obama’s announcements stack up against 12 common sense fixes that should be a minimum for reforming NSA surveillance. Each necessary reform was worth 1 point, and we were willing to award partial credit for steps in the right direction. On that scale, President Obama racked up 3.5 points out of a possible 12. 1. Stop mass surveillance of digital communications and communication records. *Score: .2* There are three types of mass surveillance that we know about that we were using to evaluate Obama’s promises in this category: surveillance of millions of phone records under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act; surveillance of Internet communications internationally under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act; and surveillance of communications overseas under Executive Order 12333. In order to score a full point in this category, Obama would have needed to declare that the executive branch would no longer be using any of these authorities to engage in mass surveillance. He tackled only one of these issues somewhat: the surveillance of telephony metadata under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Specifically, he acknowledged the recommendations of his review group that the government cease to collect and maintain a database of all Americans’ telephone records. He is ending that program, which is laudable. However, he left open the door to having telecom companies or another third party maintain a similar set of mass data, so even as to 215, we could not give him the full 1/3 of the point. 2. Protect the privacy rights of foreigners. *Score: .3* All too often, the NSA’s official position is that foreigners—or anybody deemed sufficiently likely to not be a “U.S. person”—are not given any legal protections under surveillance laws. This situation is unacceptable and out of line with international human rights law, as we’ve put forth in ourNecessary and Proportionate Principles, <https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/text>now supported by over 300 organizations worldwide. We demanded that individualized targeting be conducted for non-US persons. Obama nodded a bit to this situation, and proposed that some reforms be made, but did not give real specifics. While he also did not acknowledge any legal obligations, he did recognize a “special obligation” on U.S. intelligence agencies, and specifically called out a new, higher standard on eavesdropping on foreign leaders. But that’s not enough: privacy consideration should not be a privilege afforded only to top officials. Given these small steps forward but ongoing problems, we’ve given Obama .3 points in this category. continua qui https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/rating-obamas-nsa-reform-plan-eff-sco…

1 0

Le virtù democratiche della sfiducia digitale d Ilvo Diamanti
by gianluca Jan. 18, 2014

Jan. 18, 2014

*Le virtù democratiche della sfiducia digitale d Ilvo Diamanti* Non è la prima volta che mi capita. Di essere letto in senso contrario o, almeno, diverso dalle intenzioni. Capiterà ancora. Eppure mi ha sorpreso un poco di vedermi, da qualche giorno, catalogato fra i nemici della rete da alcuni specialisti del settore. Perché fatico a entrare in una parte che mi è estranea. Vero: il titolo della miaMappa dello scorso 14 gennaio <http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2014/01/13/news/la_sfiducia_digitale_che_…>evoca "la sfiducia digitale", particolarmente elevata fra i giovani-adulti (25-35 anni) e, soprattutto, fra coloro che utilizzano la rete come "mezzo" di partecipazione politica. Quanto alla sfiducia nelle istituzioni e nei partiti, è un dato consolidato. Anche (e di più) fra i militanti informatici. I Cives.net. D'altra parte, i partiti - per primi - hanno fatto e continuano a fare molto per meritarsi tanta sfiducia. E per indebolire il consenso verso la democrazia rappresentativa. Che, nel corso del tempo, ha subìto una metamorfosi profonda. Da ultimo, si è trasformata in "democrazia del pubblico" (per citare Bernard Manin). Personalizzata e mediatizzata. Im-mediata. Istantanea. Leader e popolo, pardon, pubblico, uno di fronte all'altro. Ma a senso unico. Perché il pubblico non può re-agire. Contro questo modello muove la "democrazia della rete". Per usare le parole di Nadia Urbinati in un recente volume (del Mulino):come "reazione della democrazia in-diretta, o via web, contro quella indiretta" (mediata dai partiti e dai giornalisti). Anche se i dubbi sull'effettiva capacità della democrazia in-diretta di realizzare i suoi fini restano. Come mostra, da ultimo, il referendum del M5S sull'abolizione del reato di clandestinità. Convocato e votato in fretta, senza possibilità di discussione e di confronto. Né di verificarne con rigore il risultato. Il che rivela i limiti dell'Agorà trasferita nella rete. A cui non tutti possono accedere. Perché oltre un terzo della popolazione non frequenta ancora la rete. Dove, inoltre, discutere e confrontarsi risulta complicato. Senza dimenticare il problema, non risolto, dei rapporti fra la rete e il potere - economico e politico (una questione su cui si è esercitato lo sguardo scettico e acuminato di Evgeny Morozov). continua qui http://www.repubblica.it/rubriche/bussole/2014/01/18/news/le_virt_democrati…

1 0

"Caro Renzi, ti Scrivo (ma non in Word)"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 18, 2014

Jan. 18, 2014

Scommetto che l'abbiamo pensato in molti :) Nel posto viene citato il Garante Nexa, prof. Angelo Raffaele Meo. juan carlos *Caro Renzi, ti Scrivo (ma non in Word)** *14 gennaio 2014 Egregio Dott. Renzi, mi permetto di distoglierla per qualche minuto dall'analisi e dallo studio delle ben note emergenze che affliggono il nostro -- dopotutto -- amato Paese per muovere qualche modesta e spero costruttiva osservazione. Del resto, essendo l'Italia una nazione di lamentoni, puo' non risultare del tutto strano che qualcuno si risenta di una affermazione che, nell'intento, sicuramente voleva invece essere stimolo all'innovazione, alla trasparenza e al cambiamento. Mi riferisco qui alla oramai celebre frase da lei pronunciata l'altro ieri, come sempre rimbalzata ed amplificata dai media: "Proporremo che il patto di coalizione sia un file Excel". [...] Continua qui: http://madbob.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/caro-renzi-ti-scrivo-ma-non-in-word/

2 1

'A FEMA-level fail': The law professor who coined 'net neutrality' lashes out at the FCC's legal strategy
by Stefano Quintarelli Jan. 18, 2014

Jan. 18, 2014

A FEMA-level fail: The law professor who coined net neutrality lashes out at the FCCs legal strategy By BRIAN FUNG Jan 14 2014 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/14/a-fema-level-f…> Back in 2003, when he was a law professor at the University of Virginia, Tim Wu wrote the definitive paper on net neutrality. The information scholar coined the term in an essay proposing how regulations could keep the Internet free and open for everybody. On Tuesday, a U.S. appeals courtstruck down the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules. Wu, now a professor at Columbia Law School, spoke with The Washington Post about the ruling and its effect on Internet access and about what the FCC should do next. Brian Fung: The D.C. Circuit court has struck down net neutrality. What does that mean for consumers? Tim Wu: It leaves the Internet in completely uncharted territory. There's never been a situation where providers can block whatever they want. For example, it means AT&T can block people from reaching T-Mobile's customer service site if it wanted. They can do whatever they want. What else did the opinion say? The slightly more subtle thing is they upheld some FCC authority under the FCC's Title I or "auxiliary" authority. Under that provision, the court said that the FCC has some authority to regulate broadband. But the court [also] said that the FCC can't impose common carriage rules using its Title I authority. [The FCC's "Title I" authority allows the agency to lightly regulate "information services," but not to the same extent as the FCC is allowed to regulate telecom companies under what is called Title II authority.] Where did regulators go wrong in defending the rules? This was a huge legal error on the FCC's part. The FCC's legal strategy put it in the position of arguing that its rules are not common carrier rules when the two components of the regulation anti-blocking and anti-discrimination have been at the center of common carrier regulation since medieval times, around 1450. [Wu is referring to the English law of public callings and common carriage, which required -- and still require -- certain businesses, such as ferry operators, innkeepers and blacksmiths, to serve all customers without discrimination.] Seems like the agency boxed itself in. They blew it on the legal strategy. It's a big fail. It's like, FEMA-level fail. Every legal expert told the FCC they're going to lose this case, and they did. It reminds me of the Bush administration, where everyone said the problem in Iraq isn't going to be the invasion it's going to be in the aftermath. Think of it this way: The FCC is like a battleship, and it has these enormous guns. But it decided to use a water pistol for this particular issue. Or, put differently: The FCC is like a car with a massive engine, and they decided not to use the engine but rather the bicycle that was attached to the car. What could the FCC have done differently? The obvious alternative would have been to do what the FCC should have done and in the future tense now should do, which is to reclassify broadband under Title II authority. Other observers seem to think that'll be hard to do, politically. There's an effort to define it that way by the carriers, and to get people in Congress excited about that. But if the FCC doesn't try, as an agency it'll basically be left to allocating spectrum. Striking down the anti-blocking rule forces the agency's hands, despite it being a politically challenging proposition. Do you think FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will follow through with an appeal? I think he has to appeal. You never know -- other judges might see it differently. [snip]

1 0

NYTimes: "Technology Is Not Driving Us Apart After All"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 17, 2014

Jan. 17, 2014

Ricerca di grande interesse, molto ben raccontata. Dedicata a Eugenio Scalfari e a tutti gli altri "sanno" (per rivelazione divina? per deduzione logica? per fede nelle verità auto-evidenti?) che la tecnologia ci rende necessariamente soli, anzi, asociali. E al diavolo la ricerca. juan carlos *T*echnology Is Not Driving Us Apart After All** By MARK OPPENHEIMERJAN*.* 17, 2014 In September 2008, two graduate students working for Keith Hampton, a professor at Rutgers, raised a camera atop a 16-foot tripod to film down into Bryant Park, the sprawling green space behind the main branch of the New York Public Library*.* They hit record, then milled about nearby pretending they had nothing to do with the rig, as it semi-surreptitiously filmed the comings and goings of hundreds of New Yorkers*.* The charade didn't last*.* After an hour, Lauren Sessions Goulet, the more senior of the pair, found herself talking to the park's private security force, which sent her to see their bosses, the Bryant Park Corporation*.* She was nervous*.* Across the street and up 11 floors, in the corporation's Fifth Avenue office near the park, Goulet explained what Hampton had sent her there to do*.* "Look, we were just trying to refilm Whyte," she said, pleading with them*.* To her relief, the corporation offered to help. In the late 1960s and '70s, working with the New York City Planning Commission, the sociologist William H. Whyte conducted groundbreaking granular studies of the city's public spaces, spending hours filming and photographing and taking notes about how people behave in public*.* Where do they like to sit? Where do they like to stand*?* When they bump into people they know, how long do their conversations last*?* The Street Life Project, as it was called, was revolutionary in urban planning, changing not only the way we think about public spaces but also what can be learned in this kind of close observational research of human interaction*.* Whyte believed that if we knew how, say, the placement of benches, or a plaza's orientation to the sun, affected people's enjoyment of a public space, then we could go beyond mere observation into the realm of smarter policy*.* We could make people happier*.* [...] Continua qui: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/magazine/technology-is-not-driving-us-apa…

2 1

Innovazione e semplificazione nella PA
by Diego Giorio Jan. 17, 2014

Jan. 17, 2014

Dalle ore 10 su un sito di un'Agenzia Pubblica dedicato alle amministrazioni pubbliche, di cui per pietà umana taccio il nome, per registrare un operatore. Prima sembra non funzionare, dopo un po' proviamo con altro browser e si scopre che funziona esclusivamente con IE: firefox, chrome, opera sono inutili. Almeno dirlo? Non procede se non si inserisce la PEC, ma non consente di inserire la PEC finchè non si è creato il profilo operatore. Cirolo vizioso. Lasciamo perdere e proviamo con la scheda Ente. Quella funziona, al ritmo di un click ogni 5-10 minuti. Ci butta fuori per superamento tempo massimo, rientriamo e sbagliamo la password. Segnalazione di errore? No, pur col nostro codice fiscale finiamo direttamente nel menù principale dell'amministratore. E qui la voglia di fargli qualche scherzo è davvero forte. Sono le 13:24 e rinunciamo. Se la via della PA è questa temo ci attendano tempi tristi. Saluti a tutti Diego

3 2