- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Fwd: [e-privacy] La chiusura di Lavabit e Silent Circle
by lilo Aug. 9, 2013

Aug. 9, 2013

tanto per aggiungere info alla mail di Matteo, vi inoltro questa sotto da lista E-privacy. ciao, lilo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [e-privacy] La chiusura di Lavabit e Silent Circle Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 11:55:03 +0200 Ciao a tutti, http://feeds.ilpost.it/~r/ilpost/~3/Iepvo2ot68k/ Ancora chiusure di sistemi di e-mail sicuri. Giovedì 8 agosto due tra le più importanti società statunitensi che offrono caselle email “sicure” hanno annunciato la chiusura di una parte dei loro servizi. Lavabit e Silent Circle, che sono rispettivamente del Texas e del Maryland, hanno spiegato – più o meno esplicitamente – di avere preso la decisione per non dover fornire al governo, e in particolare alla National Security Agency (NSA), informazioni private sui loro clienti. Le due società utilizzavano sistemi basati sulla crittografia, che aumentano notevolmente la sicurezza delle caselle mail – uno dei fondatori di Silent Circle è Phil Zimmermann, l’inventore del programma Pretty Good Privacy (PGP), il crittosistema più usato al mondo. Lavabit, la prima delle due società ad annunciare la chiusura del servizio, è la stessa usata da Edward Snowden, la fonte delle inchieste su PRISM e sui sistemi di sorveglianza della NSA. Lavabit ha fornito servizi a più di 140mila utenti, incluse 70 società. Il suo proprietario, Ladar Levison, ha pubblicato sul sito della società un breve comunicato, in cui dice implicitamente di avere ricevuto un ordine di collaborazione con la NSA dal tribunale federale FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court), lo stesso che concede le autorizzazioni alla NSA per chiedere informazioni riservate alle grandi aziende informatiche, come Microsoft, Yahoo, Google e Facebook. Nel comunicato di Levison si legge: «Sono stato costretto a prendere una decisione difficile: diventare complice di crimini contro gli americani o rinunciare a dieci anni di duro lavoro chiudendo Lavabit. Dopo una profonda riflessione, ho deciso di sospendere le operazioni. Speravo di poter condividere con voi, legalmente, gli elementi che mi hanno portato a decidere così. Ma non posso. Credo che abbiate il diritto di sapere cosa sta succedendo – il Primo emendamento dovrebbe garantirmi la libertà di parola in situazioni come questa. Sfortunatamente il Congresso ha approvato una legge che dice altro. Alla stato attuale non posso condividere con voi le cose successe nelle ultime sei settimane, anche se ne ho fatto richiesta, due volte» La decisione di Silent Circle, che aveva iniziato le sue attività meno di un anno fa, è stata invece “preventiva”, come ha spiegato la società sul suo sito. Silent Circle non ha ricevuto alcun ordine federale, a differenza di Lavabit. Mike Janke, amministratore delegato della società, ha spiegato al New York Times che Silent Circle ha distrutto i suoi server per proteggere le informazioni private dei suoi clienti. A luglio la società aveva aumentato le sue entrate del 400 per cento: molte persone, dopo la diffusione delle inchieste su PRISM e sulle attività di sorveglianza della NSA, erano passate a Silent Circle per assicurarsi la sicurezza e riservatezza delle proprie caselle email. La società ha detto che i servizi sulle chiamate telefoniche e sulla messaggistica continueranno. Diverse società fornitrici di servizi internet hanno collaborato, più o meno intensamente, alle attività della NSA: alcune di queste, come Yahoo, già in passato avevano fatto richiesta formale di poter spiegare con precisione ai loro clienti quali informazioni erano state costrette a passare all’agenzia federale, ma per ora non hanno ottenuto nulla. I casi conosciuti di società internet e di telecomunicazioni che si sono rifiutate di collaborare con la NSA, scrive il Guardian, sono molto pochi. Nel frattempo la Electronic Frontier Foundation, organizzazione internazionale no profit formata da avvocati che si occupa di diritti e libertà legate al mondo digitale, ha ribadito di nuovo la necessità di “maggiore trasparenza” sugli ordini di sorveglianza emessi dal tribunale federale e indirizzati alle aziende informatiche. _______________________________________________ e-privacy mailing list

1 0

pubblicate on line Agenda nazionale per la strategia di valorizzazione del patrimonio pubblico e Le Linee guida per valorizzazione del patrimonio pubblico
by Mauro Alovisio Aug. 9, 2013

Aug. 9, 2013

Gent.me/mi segnalo che l’Agenzia per l’Italia Digitale ha pubblicato ai primi di agosto le prime bozze di: - Agenda nazionale per la strategia di valorizzazione del patrimonio pubblico<http://www.digitpa.gov.it/sites/default/files/allegati_tec/AgendaNazionaleO…>(link al pdf). Il documento, in linea con le indicazioni contenute nell’Agenda digitale italiana ed europea, individua i principi, gli obiettivi e il piano di implementazione per la produzione e il rilascio di dati pubblici di tipo aperto. - Le Linee guida per valorizzazione del patrimonio pubblico<http://www.digitpa.gov.it/sites/default/files/allegati_tec/LG_Val_PSI_v1.0.…>(link al pdf), propongono schemi operativi e organizzativi, identificano standard tecnici e “*best practice*” di riferimento, suggeriscono aspetti di costo e di licencing che la PA dovranno tenere in considerazione per l’esposizione dei propri dati - Il Rapporto sullo stato di avanzamento del processo di valorizzazione del patrimonio pubblico: rappresenta lo stato di quanto attuato dalle amministrazioni rispetto all’agenda nazionale e alle linee guida, sulla base di indicatori qualitativi e quantitativi e delle conseguenti attività di monitoraggio effettuate dall'Agenzia. Agenzia per l’Italia Digitale, come previsto dalla normativa, aggiornerà i tre documenti con cadenza annuale, il prossimo rilascio è previsto per è previsto per gli inizi del 2014. E per lo stesso periodo è stata quindi pianificata la predisposizione del primo Rapporto annuale, relativo allo stato di attuazione a fine 2013. per approfondimenti http://www.dati.gov.it/content/agenzia-l%E2%80%99italia-digitale-pubblica-l… Mi scuso qualora fossero già state segnalate in lista a presto per gli ulteriori approfondimenti Cordiali saluti Mauro Alovisio

1 0

Fwd: [report-release-list] "Citizen-Centered Governance: The Mayor's Office of New Urban Mechanics and the Evolution of CRM in Boston" - A Case Study
by J.C. DE MARTIN Aug. 8, 2013

Aug. 8, 2013

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [report-release-list] "Citizen-Centered Governance: The Mayor's Office of New Urban Mechanics and the Evolution of CRM in Boston" - A Case Study Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 12:17:15 -0400 From: Rebecca Tabasky <rtabasky(a)cyber.law.harvard.edu> To: report-release-and-press-list(a)eon.law.harvard.edu Hello, The Berkman Center is pleased to announce the release of a new case study, "Citizen-Centered Governance: The Mayor's Office of New Urban Mechanics and the Evolution of CRM in Boston <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2307158>" by Susan Crawford and Dana Walters. You can download this case study at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2307158 <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2307158>* From the Executive Summary:* Over the last three years, the Boston Mayor's Office of New Urban Mechanics <http://www.newurbanmechanics.org/>, the innovative, collaborative ethos within City Hall fostered by Mayor Menino and his current chief of staff, Mitchell Weiss, and Boston's launch of a CRM system and its associated Citizens Connect smartphone app have all attracted substantial media attention. In particular, the City of Boston's strategy to put citizen engagement and participation at the center of its efforts, implemented by Chris Osgood and Nigel Jacob as co-chairs of the Mayor's Office of New Urban Mechanics, has drawn attention to the potential power of collaboration and technology to transform citizens' connections to their government and to each other. Several global developments have combined to make Boston's collaborative efforts interesting: First, city managers around the world confront shrinking budgets and diminishing trust in the role of government; second, civic entrepreneurs and technology innovators are pressuring local governments to adopt new forms of engagement with citizens; and third, new digital tools are emerging that can help make city services both more visible and more effective. Boston's experience in pursuing partnerships that facilitate opportunities for engaging citizens may provide scalable (and disruptive) lessons for other cities. During the summer of 2013, in anticipation of Mayor Menino's retirement in January 2014, Prof. Susan Crawford and Project Assistant Dana Walters carried out a case study examining the ongoing evolution of the Boston Mayor's Hotline into a platform for civic engagement. We chose this CRM focus because the initial development of the system provides a concrete example of how leaders in government can connect to local partners and citizens. In the course of this research, we interviewed 21 city employees and several of their partners outside government, and gathered data about the use of the system. (Exhibit A is a list of interviewees.) We found a traditional technology story---selection and integration of CRM software, initial performance management using that software, development of ancillary channels of communication, initial patterns of adoption and use---that reflects the commitment of Mayor Menino to personalized constituent service. We also found that that commitment, his long tenure, and the particular personalities of the people on the New Urban Mechanics team make this both a cultural story as well as a technology story. *From Prof. Susan Crawford's blogpost <http://scrawford.net/new-case-study-the-mayors-office-of-new-urban-mechanic…>:* In 2012, when I was a visiting professor at HKS and HLS, I taught a course called Solving Problems Using Technology. (For the second term, my co-teacher was the wonderful Mike Hooper of Harvard's Graduate School of Design.) The class provided an overview of the use of technology in governance and put students to work with the residents of Dudley (a neighborhood in Boston) designing applications and systems that could be useful in solving particular problems on which the neighborhood wanted to focus -- like "How do we involve residents in urban planning processes?" and "How do we get more young adults involved in neighborhood governance?" There were many great and memorable things about that class for me, and I think for some of the students too. (At least that's what they told me.) And the whole thing simply would not have happened without the active engagement of the co-chairs of the Boston Mayor's Office of New Urban Mechanics, Chris Osgood and Nigel Jacob. Their open, collaborative, energetic presence was essential. Clearly, something special was going on in Boston's City Hall. This summer, Berkman Center for Internet & Society intern (and Project Assistant) Dana Walters and I were given the opportunity to explore the ecosystem of City Hall in some detail. We were tasked with finding out how Boston's call center had evolved since its introduction in October 2008, and asked to present this work to a meeting of mayoral chiefs of staff from around the country that took place last week at HKS. Having such a specific subject to work on was in many ways helpful: We had a clear framework within which to work. But in other ways it was frustrating because we found a significant cultural story about innovation and collaboration in City Hall that went beyond the attributes and history of Boston's CRM system. We ended up telling both stories in the form of a case study (available via SSRN <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2307158>) that we hope will be useful to the government innovation field. Here are five high points: * Key Boston City Hall staff built relationships across City Hall and out into academia and industry that led to the introduction of several new interfaces and systems for constituent service requests, including Citizens Connect (mobile app for constituent requests, soon to be updated to allow for civic engagement points) and City Worker (app for use in the field to manage queues of requests and close them when finished). All of these interfaces and systems continue to evolve. * It seems critical to have staff tasked with encouraging innovation physically and virtually located in the mayor's offices rather than isolated in a particular department. Even without substantial budgetary authority or staff resources, the Mayor's Office of New Urban Mechanics succeeded in cajoling and facilitating useful cross-City Hall efforts as well as collaborations between people inside and outside government. The mayor's imprimatur (and their own personalities) made these staffers fearless. * The focus of technology-oriented staff members has been on constituent engagement and the personalization of services. Five-term Mayor Menino's leadership in this regard has been crucial. He does not want to allow technology to be used to keep constituents at a distance. In turn, the staff believes that increased responsiveness to residents has created substantial political capital that can be harnessed when needed -- in the form of support for big ideas that will make a difference, or in the form of civic trust during difficult times (e.g., the Boston Marathon bombing). * The launch of Boston's CRM system triggered the creation of trustworthy data about departmental performance. (In the past, departments didn't believe in the data.) It also required service-providing departments (Public Works, Parks) to work much more closely together. The CRM system had helpfully disruptive institutional effects; people who hadn't been data-focused became much more so, and a fractured bureaucracy became less fractured. * There is much more that could be done to make the city an active listener, able to hear and internalize feedback -- and pivot (as a policy matter) in response to what it learns. Unlike New York and Chicago, Boston has not been focused on predictive analytics or opening data for its own sake. But Boston's emphasis on personalization and engagement provides useful lessons for the future nonetheless. Many thanks to the Knight Foundation <http://www.knightfoundation.org/>, the Open Societies Foundations <http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/>, HKS's Ash Center <http://www.ash.harvard.edu/>, the Data Smart Cities Solutions initiative <http://datasmart.ash.harvard.edu/about/data-smart-city-solutions>, and the Berkman Center <https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/>.

1 0

2013 University of California Open Access Policy
by Stefano Quintarelli Aug. 7, 2013

Aug. 7, 2013

FYI 2013 University of California Open Access Policy The Academic Senate of the University of California passed an Open Access Policy on July 24, 2013, ensuring that future research articles authored by faculty at all 10 campuses of UC will be made available to the public at no charge. The policy covers more than 8,000 UC faculty and as many as 40,000 publications a year. By granting a license to the University of California prior to any contractual arrangement with publishers, faculty members can now make their research widely and publicly available, re-use it for various purposes, or modify it for future research publications. Faculty on three campuses (UCLA, UCI and UCSF) will begin depositing articles in eScholarship on November 1, 2013. Progress on deposit implementation will be reviewed during the following year. Deposit of articles by faculty on the remaining campuses is expected to begin on November 1, 2014. <http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/openaccesspolicy/>

1 0

saggio di Schneier su fiducia e sicurezza
by Stefano Quintarelli Aug. 7, 2013

Aug. 7, 2013

saggio di Schneier su fiducia e sicurezza lettura consigliata http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/08/restoring_trust.html Trust is essential in our society. And if we can't trust either our government or the corporations that have intimate access into so much of our lives, society suffers. Study after study demonstrates the value of living in a high-trust society and the costs of living in a low-trust one. Rebuilding trust is not easy, as anyone who has betrayed or been betrayed by a friend or lover knows, but the path involves transparency, oversight and accountability. Transparency first involves coming clean. Not a little bit at a time, not only when you have to, but complete disclosure about everything. Then it involves continuing disclosure. No more secret rulings by secret courts about secret laws. No more secret programs whose costs and benefits remain hidden. -- my calendar: http://doodle.com/quinta http://blog.quintarelli.it

1 0

F*cking Egoes aka "Ethics and Power in the Long War" Eleanor Saitta (OHM2013)
by Matteo G.P. Flora Aug. 6, 2013

Aug. 6, 2013

Sono poche ore in cui sono back from OHM2013 (http://ohm2013.org) forse il più vasto evento Hacker mondiale con oltre 3000 hacker da tutto il mondo (e una ampia rappresentanza della Italian Hackers' Embassy). Dopo una 5 giorni di fuoco con il Centro Hermes e una quantità sbalorditiva di attivisti digitali che hanno partecipato al Noisy Square (http://noisysquare.com) evento attivista nell'evento hacker, volevo condividere con voi il talk forse più coinvolgente, la chiamata alle armi di Eleanor Saitta, direttore tecnico dell'International Modern Media Institute Islandese, Principal Security Engineer presso l'Open Internet Tools project. <https://noisysquare.com/ethics-and-power-in-the-long-war-eleanor-saitta-dym…> If you think that people are fundamentally good, then your life is in some case much simpler. Because you don’t have to worry about people being tainted by the reality of things. You can simply assume: if you build all these structures that let people coordinate and collaborate, it will probably work out OK. (...) Security people, hackers. We also have a problem: we have massive fucking egos and they are getting in the way. I don’t care about your egos. My friend Siena, who is trying to keep her seven year old daughter from getting the shit beaten out of her by Moroccan riot cops does not care about your egos. When I don’t have any tools because I get told “Oh yeah! GPG is totally something that you can totally teach in the field.” Fuck you! (...) But we cannot build a free world, on an unfree Internet. You cannot build functionally decentralized Internet-centric democratic structures on an unfree Internet. It is like the CIA trying to build a free democracy on a legacy of treachery and murder. It just doesn’t work. So yeah, let’s fight. Leggetelo e/o ascoltatelo. Subito. :) <https://noisysquare.com/ethics-and-power-in-the-long-war-eleanor-saitta-dym…> MgpF -- Matteo G.P. Flora - The Fool srl - CEO & Founder Via Merano, 16 | 20127 Milano | http://thefool.it off. +39.02-00613665 | mob. +39.347.9676430 Direzione e Coordinamento Giacomini Investimenti S.p.a.

1 0

chi danneggia il mancato rispetto del copyright?
by Simone Aliprandi Aug. 6, 2013

Aug. 6, 2013

Segnalo questo articolo di Glyn Moody, che mi tocca da vicino: "Survey: Most Italian Internet Users Think Ignoring Copyright Harms Publishers, But Not Society As A Whole" http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130731/12352524022/survey-most-italian-i… Un cordiale saluto. -- Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org

1 0

Assessore Vinti, Regione Umbria, su regolamento copyright AGCOM.
by G.Battista Frontera Aug. 6, 2013

Aug. 6, 2013

http://www.regione.umbria.it/mediacenter/FE/articoli/copyright-per-vinti-del ibera-agcom-e-mannaia-su-li.html Ciao. Gb -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

1 0

Fwd: [IP] Internet Society Board of Trustees Calls on the Global Internet Community to Stand Together to Support Open Internet Access, Freedom, and Privacy
by J.C. DE MARTIN Aug. 4, 2013

Aug. 4, 2013

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [IP] Internet Society Board of Trustees Calls on the Global Internet Community to Stand Together to Support Open Internet Access, Freedom, and Privacy Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 17:43:04 +0200 From: DAVID J. FARBER <farber(a)gmail.com> Reply-To: dave(a)farber.net To: ip <ip(a)listbox.com> Internet Society Board of Trustees Calls on the Global Internet Community to Stand Together to Support Open Internet Access, Freedom, and Privacy Fundamental ideals of the Internet are under threat [Berlin, Germany, 4 August 2013] – The Internet Society Board of Trustees during its meeting in Berlin, Germany today called on the global Internet community to stand together in support of open Internet access, freedom, and privacy. Recently exposed information about government Internet surveillance programs is a wake-up call for Internet users everywhere – the fundamental ideals of the Internet are under threat. The Internet Society Board of Trustees believes that government Internet surveillance programs create unacceptable risks for the future of a global, interoperable, and open Internet. Robert Hinden, Chair of the Board of Trustees, stated, “Berlin is a city where freedom triumphed over tyranny. Human and technological progress are not based on building walls, and we are confident that the human ideals of communication and creativity will always route around these kinds of attempts to constrain them. We are especially disappointed that the very governments that have traditionally supported a more balanced role in Internet governance are consciously and deliberately hosting massive Internet surveillance programs.” In the brief period since these surveillance programs were revealed to the general public, the Internet Society Board stated there are already chilling effects on global trust and confidence on the Internet ecosystem. The fact that information about surveillance programs is emerging primarily from countries with a long history of supporting the open Internet is particularly disturbing. As the next billion people come online, these countries should be expected to demonstrate leadership in support of the values that underpin the global Internet. In the wake of these announcements, the Internet Society encourages a return to multistakeholder cooperation to preserve the benefits of the Internet ecosystem for all. The Internet Society Board of Trustees expects governments to fully engage with their citizens in an open dialogue on how to reconcile national security and the fundamental rights of individuals. Security should not be at the cost of individual rights and, in this context, the Board welcomes the initiative by some civil society organizations to promote "International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance." The Internet Society endorses these principles, and emphasizes the importance of proportionality, due process, legality, and transparent judicial oversight. The Internet Society believes that surveillance without any such safeguards risks undermining the sustainability of the open Internet. “In the spirit of the pioneers and early innovators of the Internet that were honored this week at the 2013 Internet Hall of Fame ceremony, we urge the global Internet community to defend against attempts by governments to fragment the Internet either through overt regulation or hidden surveillance programs,” commented Lynn St. Amour, President and CEO of the Internet Society. “We must reassert the global spirit of community that is at the heart of the Internet’s growth and success, and stand firm in our belief that openness and collaboration is the best path forward.” _______________________________________________ ISOC-trustees mailing list ISOC-trustees(a)elists.isoc.org <mailto:ISOC-trustees@elists.isoc.org> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/14798382-eb93fc78> | Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=14798382&id_secret=14798382-58a8a…> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=14798382&id_secret=14798382-…> [Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>

1 0

Sharing science is a crime
by gianluca Aug. 4, 2013

Aug. 4, 2013

Opinion *Sharing science is a crime* The more one shares, the more one undermines a future patent application and a system that encourages privatisation. by Charles Davis [...]"All publicly funded research should be in the public domain - no patents, no copyrights, no restrictions on use, period," says Eisen, the UC Berkeley biologist and co-founder of the Public Library of Science, which supports the free distribution of scientific work. For that to be the case, there needs to be a serious change in the way research is funded. And the politicians who created the current system would have to change it, which could anger the defence contractors and patent holders who give them money. But there are things scientists can start doing today to begin the process of change.[...] continua qui http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/07/2013715133717569407.html qgl

1 0