- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] R: Spazio di libertà sicurezza e giustizia
by Andrea Glorioso Aug. 13, 2010

Aug. 13, 2010

Margherita, mi unisco ai ringraziamenti, materiale molto interessante. Marco, in attesa di una conferma da parte di chi gestisce il server di NEXA, sospetto che negli ultimi giorni ci siano stati dei "problemi tecnici". Anche la "mia" mailing list "copywhat", che NEXA molto gentilmente ospita, e` rimasta bloccata negli ultimi due-tre giorni. Ciao, Andrea 2010/8/13 Marco Ricolfi <marco.ricolfi(a)studiotosetto.it>: > Grazie margherita per entrambe le notizie; hai idea di perché la tua e-mail > risulti spedita il 9 agosto ma arrivata solo oggi? M. > > > > Da: nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it > [mailto:nexa-bounces@server-nexa.polito.it] Per conto di Margherita > Salvadori > Inviato: lunedì 9 agosto 2010 14.12 > A: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > Oggetto: [nexa] Spazio di libertà sicurezza e giustizia > > > > Segnalo che sulla G.U.U.E. 27.7.2010, n. L 195/5 è stato pubblicato > l'Accordo tra l’Unione europea e gli Stati Uniti d’America sul trattamento e > il trasferimento di dati di messaggistica finanziaria dall’Unione europea > agli Stati Uniti ai fini del programma di controllo delle transazioni > finanziarie dei terroristi > > http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOIndex.do?year=2010&serie=L&textfield2=195&Submit… > > > > > > Segnalo, inoltre, un interessante intervento a firma Leda Bargiotti su > "Unione Europea e segreto di stato: un quadro normativo ancora in > piena evoluzione" postato su un blog che vuole contribuire a rendere più > trasparenti le istituzioni > > http://slsg.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/unione-europea-e-segreto-di-stato-un-q… > > > > ms > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > >

1 0

NY Times: "Google and Verizon in Talks on Web Priority"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Aug. 13, 2010

Aug. 13, 2010

Questa mi sembra una notizia, se confermata, di quelle importanti. jc August 4, 2010 Google and Verizon in Talks on Web Priority By EDWARD WYATT <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/edward_wyatt/i…> WASHINGTON --- Google <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/google_inc/index.html…> and Verizon <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/verizon_communication…>, two leading players in Internet service and content, are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege. The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/youtube/index.html?in…>, owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation's leading Internet service providers, to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to consumers. The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users. Such an agreement could overthrow a once-sacred tenet of Internet policy known as net neutrality <http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutr…>, in which no form of content is favored over another. In its place, consumers could soon see a new, tiered system, which, like cable television, imposes higher costs for premium levels of service. Any agreement between Verizon and Google could also upend the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal…> to assert its authority over broadband service, which was severely restricted by a federal appeals court decision in April. People close to the negotiations who were not authorized to speak publicly about them said an agreement could be reached as soon as next week. If completed, Google, whose Android operating system powers many Verizon wireless phones, would agree not to challenge Verizon's ability to manage its broadband Internet network as it pleased. [...] Continua qui: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html

6 6

Notes from a Disappointed Fanboy
by Stefano Quintarelli Aug. 13, 2010

Aug. 13, 2010

David Weinberger:Notes from a Disappointed Fanboy: ... But, this compromise goes too far. For one thing, it enshrines a major shift in Google’s definition of Net neutrality that CEO Eric Schmidt casually announced last week: Google is fine with access providers deciding which services should get preferential treatment, so long as they don’t differentiate within a service. So, Verizon could decide to slow down your online video game so that other subscribers could watch high def video. But Verizon would have to treat all high def video traffic equally. That’s better than Verizon deciding that its own video library would work better than Comcast’s, but it means that those who give us access to the Internet get to decide what it’s really for. Nope. It’s our Internet. We get to decide, and then to invent new uses. That is the source of the Internet’s value. Letting the access providers decide which services and content get preference is especially worrisome since they’re also in the business of selling us those services and content. They’d get to shape the Internet to reflect their business model. ... So, Verizon could cut a deal with a company to deliver, say, a jukebox service over Verizon’s broadband connection, and charge more for delivering it faster than a competitor’s service, so long as that service is “distinguishable in scope and purpose from Internet access service.” In a posting on its Public Policy Blog (disclosure: I am friends with the author, Rick Whitt), Google notes that providers “already offer these types of services today,” and says that the compromise in fact hedges the services in. I’d be more disposed to believe that if I knew what “distinguishable in scope and purpose from Internet access service” meant. Couldn’t anything delivered as a “differentiated service” also be delivered as an Internet service? Further, the Googizon proposal would allow these differentiated services to “make use of or access Internet content, appplications or services…” Again, I’m not sure what this means, except that it sounds like a company could pay Verizon to deliver content from the Internet faster than that content would travel over the Internet connection Verizon gives you. This would (if I’m understanding it) provide a strong incentive to big companies to move their service out of the Internet, and pony up the “fast lane” fees that Net neutrality is explicitly designed to prevent. ... My growing doubts now have me looking for language that wiggles — the “it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is” moments. For example: The proposal says providers “would be prohibited from preventing users” from “sending and receiving lawful content…” So, could my access provider block me from visiting Wikileaks? How about file-sharing sites like ThePirateBay.org? Could they without penalty block my fair use of copyrighted materials? In fact, since we already have a legal system for prosecuting those who do illegal things, why are we putting the access providers in charge of this? The proposal would prevent broadband access providers from blocking any usage in a way that causes “meaningful harm to competition or to users.” Since the providers’ justification for discriminating among bits — that is, for violating Net neutrality — has always been that they’re doing it for the benefit of their users, this is a hole that could not be papered over even with the world’s entire available supply of good will. ... ------ Rick Ellrod faceva una osservazione interessante che ho riproposto sul mio blog: Reasonable network management includes any technically sound practice: . . . to address traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the provider’s network, or the Internet; . . . If this complex exception parses out to (either unwanted by or harmful) to (either users, the provider's network, or the Internet) then it would include 'traffic unwanted by the provider's network'. Interessante notare la premessa dell'articolo: Net Neutrality is a complicated issue. The recent Google/Verizon policy proposal has raised new questions about the open internet - the idea that all online content gets treated equally. To explore this issue, we’re featuring a series of guest blog posts on our site. Today, the thoughts of David Weinberger, Senior Researcher at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society E in particolare come si faccia confusione tra "open" e neutralità. Sarà perchè ho appena rivisto il film Sesso e potere... -- www.reeplay.it www.eximia.it

1 0

Google-Verizon: una proposta congiunta per una rete aperta
by Marco Pancini Aug. 13, 2010

Aug. 13, 2010

Cari Tutti, Vi segnalo questo post del nostro blog ufficiale che parla dell'accordo di policy che Google ha concluso negli Stati Uniti con Verizon sul tema dell'open internet: http://googleitalia.blogspot.com/2010/08/una-proposta-congiunta-per-una-ret… Condivido in pieno le parole con le quali David John Collins, il nostro responsabile comunicazione e public affair per l'Europa, ha introdotto questo tema: *In Google siamo convinti che sia il potere della natura dinamica ed aperta della rete a guidare l’innovazione, gli investimenti e la crescita economica. Conservare questa apertura richiede il nostro coinvolgimento nel dibattito proattivo con gli altri attori dell’ecosistema e con le Autorità, per assicurare che le regole di funzionamento di Internet offrano agli utenti la miglior esperienza online possibile. Ieri abbiamo annunciato una serie di proposte comuni con Verizon, operatore di telecomunicazioni, per raggiungere questo obiettivo negli Stati Uniti. Queste proposte mettono in luce il nostro impegno per difendere la natura aperta della rete e permettere la continuazione degli investimenti nelle infrastrutture a banda larga. Queste indicazioni sono specifiche per lo sviluppo di Internet negli Stati Uniti, ma restiamo impegnati a proseguire il dialogo su questi temi anche in Europa* Resto a vostra disposizione per maggiori informazioni. A presto. marco -- Marco Pancini European Senior Policy Counsel Google Italy Corso Europa, 2 20122 Milano, Italia Tel. +39 02 36618524 Cell. +39.348.9946222 pancini(a)google.com Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/googlepolicyit This email may be confidential or privileged. If you received this communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else, please erase all copies and attachments, and please let me know that it went to the wrong person. Thanks.

2 3

privacy e geotagging
by Alessandro Cappai Aug. 13, 2010

Aug. 13, 2010

Web Photo Geotags Can Reveal More Than You Wish - NYTimes.com http://goo.gl/8CSE *Alessandro Cappai* write me: alessandrocappai(a)gmail.com read me: http://www.passeggeri.net

1 0

Google-Verizon: una proposta congiunta per una rete aperta (aggiornamento)
by Marco Pancini Aug. 13, 2010

Aug. 13, 2010

Cari, Vi segnalo questo chiarimento in merito all'annuncio di lunedì sul tema della net neutrality: http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.com/2010/08/facts-about-our-network-neut… A presto. marco -- Marco Pancini European Senior Policy Counsel Google Italy Corso Europa, 2 20122 Milano, Italia Tel. +39 02 36618524 Cell. +39.348.9946222 pancini(a)google.com Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/googlepolicyit This email may be confidential or privileged. If you received this communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else, please erase all copies and attachments, and please let me know that it went to the wrong person. Thanks.

1 0

Tim Wu (Slate): "Evil? The alleged Google-Verizon deal that's endangering net neutrality."
by J.C. DE MARTIN Aug. 7, 2010

Aug. 7, 2010

Slate Evil? The alleged Google-Verizon deal that's endangering net neutrality. By Tim Wu Posted Friday, Aug. 6, 2010, at 4:12 PM ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Wednesday, the /New York Times/ reported that Google and Verizon <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html> "are nearing an agreement that could ... speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege." While both Google and Verizon quickly denied the /NYT/ report <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38576914/>, the newspaper says it's standing by its story <http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100805-724063.html>. If the /Times/ is right, this content-for-cash scheme would be the greatest scandal in Google's history. We could term it "Internet Payola <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola>," after the practice of record labels paying radio stations to play their songs. The plan would probably work like this: In exchange for payment or some other mutually beneficial considerations, Verizon would give special priority to sites like Google.com and YouTube, making them run faster than competitors like Yahoo.com and Hulu. Such a payola scheme would violate the precept of net neutrality, the belief that all packets that travel over the Internet should be treated equally. It would be a betrayal of the public's trust from a firm that has long sold itself as a fair broker and has tirelessly tempered its growing power with its advocacy of "open networking." It would also reveal the need for immediate federal action on net neutrality and continued oversight over all corporate monopolies that control speech and commerce. How could Google be moving away from its "open networking" values? The people I've spoken to at Google claim that no such movement is afoot---that the /New York Times/ story is "wrong." In contrast, another source with knowledge of the discussions says the /Times/ story is "generally accurate." [...] Continua qui: http://www.slate.com/id/2262952/

1 0

[Schmidt] se guardiamo la tuamail possiamo predire dove andrai
by Stefano Quintarelli Aug. 6, 2010

Aug. 6, 2010

quando si dice "tenere un basso profilo"... http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_ceo_schmidt_people_arent_ready_… -- www.reeplay.it www.eximia.it

1 0

TR: "Dissent Made Safer"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Aug. 5, 2010

Aug. 5, 2010

Non nuovo, scusate, ma me l'ero perso. Rilevante anche per lo studio di Silvia Bisi (NEXA Fellow) sull'anonimato online. jc TECHNOLOGY REVIEW May/June 2009 *Dissent Made Safer* *How anonymity technology could save free speech on the Internet.* By David Talbot "Sokwanele" means "enough is enough" in a certain Bantu dialect. It is also the name of a Zimbabwean pro-democracy website whose bloggers last year published accounts of atrocities by Robert Mugabe's regime and posted Election Day updates describing voter intimidation and apparent ballot stuffing. You can visit Sokwanele's "terror album" and see photographs: of a hospitalized 70-year-old woman who'd been beaten and thrown on her cooking fire (she later died, the site says); of firebombed homes; of people with deep wounds carved into their backs. You can find detailed, frequently updated maps describing regional violence and other incidents. You will be confronted with gruesome news, starkly captioned: "Joshua Bakacheza's Body Found." Because this horrific content is so readily available, it is easy to overlook the courage it took to produce it. The anonymous photographers and polling-station bloggers who uploaded the Sokwanele material remain very much in danger. In a place like Zimbabwe, where saying the wrong thing can get you killed or thrown in prison on treason charges, you take precautions: you're careful about whom you talk to; you're discreet when you enter a clinic to take pictures. And when you get to the point of putting your information on the Internet, you need protection from the possibility that your computer's digital address will be traced back to you. Maybe, at that point, you use Tor. [...] Continua qui: http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/22427/?a=f

1 0

NY Times: "Google Will Sell Brand Names as Keywords in Europe"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Aug. 5, 2010

Aug. 5, 2010

August 4, 2010 Google Will Sell Brand Names as Keywords in Europe By MATTHEW SALTMARSH <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/matthew_saltma…> PARIS --- The Internet giant Google <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/google_inc/index.html…> said on Wednesday that it would change its search policy for most of Europe to allow advertisers to buy and use as keywords terms that have been trademarked by others. Previously, brand owners could file a trademark complaint with Google to prevent third-party ads from being returned alongside the results of a search of a trademarked name, like Louis Vuitton or Prada. The decision will be effective Sept. 14 and extends to the rest of Europe changes that were made in Britain and Ireland in 2008. In the United States and Canada, Google has been using the policy since 2004. Google's move stems from a decision by the European Court of Justice <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/europea…> in March. The court broadly ruled that Google had respected trademark law by allowing advertisers to bid for keywords corresponding to third-party trademarks. [...] Continua qui: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05google.html

1 0