- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

To Help Cool a Hot Planet, the Whitest of White Coats
by Luigi Scorca July 13, 2023

July 13, 2023

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/12/climate/white-paint-climate-cooling.html

1 0

New Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework largely a copy of "Privacy Shield". noyb will challenge the decision.
by Alberto Cammozzo July 13, 2023

July 13, 2023

Conformità ottenuta tramite ingegneria semantica del termine 'proportionate'. <https://noyb.eu/en/european-commission-gives-eu-us-data-transfers-third-rou…> Third attempt of the European Commission to get a stable agreement on EU-US data transfers will be likely back at the Court of Justice (CJEU) in a matter of months. The allegedly "new" Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework is largely a copy of the failed "Privacy Shield". Despite the European Commission's public relations efforts, there is little change in US law or the approach taken by the EU. The fundamental problem with FISA 702 was not addressed by the US, as the US still takes the view that only US persons are worthy of constitutional rights. Comparison of the change in US law since 2014: * o "Old" PPD-28 (2014) <https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/17/presidenti…> o "New" EO 14086, replacing PPD-28 (2022) <https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-10-14/pdf/2022-22531.pdf> * Comparison with previous public relation efforts: o "Rebuilding Trust in EU-US Data Flows" and the "Umbrella" from 2013 <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:4d874331-784a-11e3-b889-…> o Press Statement on the "Privacy Shield" from 2016 <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_16_2461> o Media FAQs on the "Privacy Shield" from 2016 <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_16_2462> o Single Page "Agreement in Principle" between Biden and von der Leyen from 2022 <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/872132/Tra…> * European Commission Draft Adequacy Decision (December 2022) <https://noyb.eu/en/European Commission Draft Adequacy Decision (December 2022)> *Background.* In 2013 Edward Snowden disclosed that the US government used "big tech" companies and programs like "PRISM <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM>" or "Upstream <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstream_collection>" under FISA 702 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978…> and EO 12.333 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12333> to spy on the rest of the world without the need for probable cause or judicial approval. This was not limited to crime or terrorism, but also included espionage on "partners" of the US. Since a 1995 EU law, personal data may generally not be sent outside of the EU unless there is a "essentially equivalent" protection in the destination country. The US industry heavily relied on a European Commission Decision called "Safe Harbor" that declared the US "essentially equivalent" in 2000. The CJEU has annulled the Commission Decision in C-362/14 ("Schrems I") <https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?nat=or&mat=or&pcs=Oor&jur=C%2CT%2CF…> in 2015, given the vase US surveillance laws. In 2016 the European Commission has passed largely the same Decision on EU-US Data Transfers again, under the new name "Privacy Shield", which was invalidated by the CJEU in C-311/18 ("Schrems II") <https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?nat=or&mat=or&pcs=Oor&jur=C%2CT%2CF…> in 2020 largely on the same grounds. *Ursula's and Joe's "Magic" Tricks. *After the annulment of the "Privacy Shield" the negotiations between the EU and the US saw little progress. The US insisted that EU data would stay subject to US mass surveillance and "non-US" persons will /not /have the same protections as US persons. After little movement for more than 1.5 years, the US has reportedly used the war in Ukraine to put pressure on the EU on sharing personal data <https://www.politico.eu/article/us-eyes-breakthrough-on-data-dispute-with-e…>. Soon thereafter, Joe Biden and Ursula von der Leyen met on 25 March 2022. The same day, the two have suddenly "solved" what the lawyers were unable to solve and presented an "agreement in principle <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/872132/Tra…>", a one pager which in essence contained two "tricks" that should calm the public: * /First/, the CJEU found that*FISA 702 bulk surveillance being not "proportionate"* within the meaning of Article 52 of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR). The "new" US Executive Order 14086 <https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-10-14/pdf/2022-22531.pdf> (which is largely equivalent to PPD-28 from 2014 <https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/17/presidenti…>) would now include the word "proportionate". The "trick" here: *the US will attribute another meaning to the word "proportionate" than the CJEU*. EO 14086 declares FISA 702 bulk surveillance to be "proportionate" under an undisclosed "US understanding" of the word and contrary to the two findings by the CJEU. This way the EU and the US were able to claim that they agreed on the same word ("proportionate") - even when there is no agreement on the meaning of the word. * /Secondly/, the CJEU found that *redress via the Privacy Shield "Ombudsperson"* was not even remotely complying with Article 47 CFR**- even when the Ombudsperson was hailed by the Commission public relations in 2016 as an "/independent/" form of "/redress in the area of national security/" <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_16_2462>. The "trick" on redress: the Ombudsperson mechanism was*renamed and split to a Civil Liberties Protection Officer (CLPO) and a so-called "Court"* (which is not a court, but a partly independent executive body). While there are some minor improvements over the Ombudsperson, the individual will not have any direct interaction with the new bodies (they will have to send a complaint to an EU data protection authority and not be heard by the US) and they will give the exact same response as the previous "Ombudsperson". Under EO 14086 the CLPO and the Court must in any case respond by saying: "/Without confirming or denying that the complainant was subject to United States signals intelligence activities, the review either did not identify any covered violations or the Data Protection Review Court issued a determination requiring appropriate remediation/" (see here <https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-22531/p-107>). The "judgment" of this "Court" is therefore known even before a case is brought. There are many additional problem with the mechanism, that will largely ensure that complaints will not even be admitted. It seems unthinkable that the Court of Justice would accept this as "judicial redress" under Article 47 CFR. * /Finally/, the*US has refused to reform FISA 702* to give non-US persons reasonable privacy protections. There is agreement on both sides of the Atlantic that FISA 702 and EO 12.333 violate fundamental rights under the 4th Amendment in the US and Articles 7, 8 and 47 CFR in the EU - but the US continues to insist that non-US persons do not have constitutional rights in the US - hence a violation of their right to privacy is not covered by the 4th Amendment. * *FISA 702 will have to be prolonged by the end of 2023*, given that there is a "sunset clause" in US law. This would have been the perfect opportunity to improve US law, but given the new deal with the EU, there will be little reason for the US to reform FISA 702. Overall the new "Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework" is a copy of Privacy Shield (from 2016), which in turn was a copy of "Safe Harbor" (from 2000). Given that this approach has failed twice before, there was no legal basis for the change of course - only logic of having a deal was political. Max Schrems, chair of /noyb/: "/They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Just like 'Privacy Shield' the latest deal is not based on material changes, but by political interests. Once again the current Commission seems to think that the mess will be the next Commission's problem. FISA 702 needs to be prolonged by the US this year, but with the announcement of the new deal the EU has lost any power to get a reform of FISA 702."/ *Fool me Thrice? *Already in the wake of the Snowden disclosures in 2013, the European Commission announced that it will "rebuild" trust <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:4d874331-784a-11e3-b889-…> and "/make Safe Harbor safer/" and come up with an "/umbrella agreement/".**In 2016 journalists were told that <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_16_2462> the "Privacy Shield" would mean that /"for the first time, the US has given the EU written assurance",/ that there would be /"clear limitations, safeguards and oversight mechanisms" /and even/"no indiscriminate mass surveillance". /None of these claims and systems has prove stable when put before the CJEU. In the current version of the Commission's public relations efforts, the same (ever-repeating) claims are entertained. Max Schrems: "/We now had 'Harbors', 'Umbrellas', 'Shields' and 'Frameworks' - but no substantial change in US surveillance law. The press statements of today are almost a literal copy of the once from the past 23 years. Just announcing that something is 'new', 'robust' or 'effective' does not cut it before the Court of Justice. We would need changes in US surveillance law to make this work - and we simply don't have it./" *CJEU challenge ready to be filed. *Anyone who's personal data will be transferred under the new deal can bring a challenge with Data Protection Authorities or Courts. /noyb /has prepared various procedural options to bring the new deal back before the CJEU. We expect the new system to be implemented by the first companies within the next months, which will open the path towards a challenge by a person who's data is transferred under the new instrument. It is not unlikely that a challenge would reach the CJEU by the end of 2023 or beginning of 2024. The CJEU would then even have the option to suspend the "Framework" for the time of the procedure. A final decision by the CJEU would be likely by 2024 or 2025. No matter if such a challenge will be successful, this will bring clarity to the "Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework" within about two years. Max Schrems:/"We have various options for a challenge already in the drawer, although we are sick and tired of this legal ping-pong. We currently expect this to be back at the Court of Justice by the beginning of next year. The Court of Justice could then even suspend the new deal while it is reviewing the substance of it. For the sake of legal certainty and the rule of law we will then get an answer if the Commission's tiny improvements were enough or not./ /For the past 23 years all EU-US deals were declared invalid retroactively, making all past data transfers by business illegal - we seem to just add another two years of this ping-pong now./" *EU Commission shows little care for rule of law and citizens' privacy. *This third attempt to pass largely the same unlawful decision also raises questions as to the larger role of the European Commission being the guardian of the EU treaties. Instead of upholding the 'rule of law' the Commission simply passes an invalid decision over and over again, despite clear rulings by the CJEU. Despite large outrage after the Snowden disclosures in the EU and repeated calls by the European Parliament to take action, the Commission seems to give the diplomatic relations with the US and business pressure on both side of the Atlantic the priority over the rights of Europeans and the requirements of EU law. Max Schrems: "/The Commission is meant to be the 'guardian of the treaties' and the defender or the 'rule of law'. It loves that role when it comes to Member States violating EU law. Now the Commission itself simply ignores the Court of Justice for the third time./"

3 4

China finalizes first-of-its-kind rules governing generative A.I. services like ChatGPT
by Zulu July 13, 2023

July 13, 2023

Di solito leggo i digest quotidiani, ma per la prima volta contribuisco anche io. Giusto scrivendo una parte su due casi di copyright infringement in Cina, notizie su generative AI! https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/13/china-introduces-rules-governing-generative… Buona giornata! Francesco M. -- *Francesco Mittica* Future Graduate, Global Law and Transnational Legal Studies MSOI Member AI Aficionado

1 0

AI revolution puts skilled jobs at highest risk, OECD says
by Luigi Scorca July 12, 2023

July 12, 2023

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/11/ai-revolution-puts-skill… Luigi

3 2

Pricing Algorithms Aren’t Colluding, Yet
by Luigi Scorca July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

"Axel Gautier, Ashwin Ittoo, and Pieter van Cleynenbreugel write that the practice of pricing algorithms tacitly colluding remains theoretical for now, and technological obstacles render it very unlikely in the short term. However, regulators must still prepare for a future in which artificial intelligence achieves the necessary sophistication to collude." https://www.promarket.org/2023/07/11/pricing-algorithms-arent-colluding-yet/

1 0

proposte di collaborazione
by Angelo Raffaele Meo July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

carissimi, colgo l'opportunità dell'incontro di domani, 12 luglio, per rinnovare una proposta di collaborazione a tutti gli amici di Nexa. Sicuramente domani non avremo il tempo necessario per discutere questa mia proposta, ma potremo approndire la questione durante le vacanzze estive via mail o videoconferenze remote. I capitoli più importanti della proposta hanno per oggetto: a) il nostro portale FARE; b) l'archivio nazionale delle O.E.R. (o "Open Education Resources", secondo la definizione di UNESCO). a). Il nostro prodotto "FARE". come "Free Architecture for Remote Education", sviluppato negli ultimi dieci anni da una gruppo di ricercatori e insegnanti operanti prevalentemente presso il Politecnico di Torino, , attualmente contiene: a) un archivio di oltre 2000 OER, che spero diventi il punto di partenza di un progetto nazionale che ho appena proposto all'Accademia delle Scienze e ad altri enti di ricerca; b) gli strumenti per creare o comporre nuove OER; c) gli strumenti per produrre nuovi MOOC ("Massive Open Online Courseware") che hanno vinto il secondo premio al concorso nazionale "TalentItaly" del MIUR; d) altri strumenti per l'attuazione dei nuovi modelli didattici come la "Flipped Classroom"; e) una linea di strumenti per la didattica a distanza che a noi pare superiore ai noti prodotti del mercato come Google o Microsoft. Queste funzionalità possono essere facillmente verificate con un collegamento a "testfare.polito.it". Se vi interessasse potrei inviarvi un documento tecnico analitico e il filmato di un mio intervento che ho avuto l'onore di fare a conclusione del progetto nazionale "Programmailfuturo", rivolto a tutte le scuole italiane da CINI e MIUR. In questo momento stiamo concludendo una fase della progettazione che consente ad una scuola una facile installazione di FARE sul proprio server in modo che la scuola possa fornire i servizi della "didattica a distanza" non soltanto ai propri allievi e insegnanti ma anche ad allievi e insegnanti di altre scuole. Inoltre stiamo avviando la ricerca per l'attuazione dell'integrazione di FARE nel nuovo innovativo modello della PDND,, ossia "Piattaforma Digitale Nazionale dei Dati", fortemente raccomandato dal Dipartimento della Funzione Pubblica. Inoltre, ovviamente, i nuovi strumenti per la didattica basati su intelligenza artificiale e robotica potranno essere integrati nel nostro portale. Per una felice circostanza, il modello del "Connected Learning Environment" descritto nel documento del PNRR "Scuola 4.0" ha esattamente le funzionalità di FARE. Di conseguenza, una scuola che adotti FARE può con piccole integrazioni candidarsi alla collaborazione con il PNRR. b) Alcuni autorevoli responsabili dell'Accademia delle Scienze di Torino e del Politecnico di Torino hanno manifestato grande interesse per la proposta di attuare in grande archicio nazionale dellle Open Education Resources. Ha manifestato grande interesse anche il noto giurista Marco Ciurcina che si è candidato alla guida del progetto con particolare attenzione agli aspetti della proprietà intellettuale e della "privacy". Il server dove sarà allocato l'archivio non avrà particolare esigenze dal punto di vista della banda trasmissiva e quindi potrà essere una macchina di basso costo. Il software necessario per la gestione del progetto è già disponibile, poichè è esattamente quello che attualmente gestisce l'archivio di FARE. Il lavoro più difficile è l'identificazione di almeno una ventina di "responsabili di area scientifica". Quando un operatore della scuola o, al limite, un autore, vorrà aggiungere all'archivio un nuovo "learning object", lo dovrà inviare al responsabile di quella area scientifica. Questo ultimo, dopo un'analisi del valore di quell'oggetto, lo installerà direttamente sull'archivio. A differenza del precedente punto a), agli amici di Nexa chiediamo ora non una collaborazione alla ricerca, ma all'insegnamento. Chiudo questa mail con una domanda finale (chiara manifestazione di "interesse privato in atti di ufficio"). Qualche amico ha letto o fatto leggere ad altri amici la mia dimostrazione sul "problema del millennio"? Con moltissimo affetto Raf

1 0

[CFP] ITC35 PhD Workshop - Travel Grants Available
by Martino Trevisan July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

[Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this mail] **ITC35 PhD Workshop, co-located with the *35th International Teletraffic Congress “/Network Traffic Engineering in the TLC networks of the future/”* *Wednesday, October 4, 2023, Turin* *Website: https://itc35.itc-conference.org/* /_*CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS*_/ /Re-thinking fundamental networking functions, their modeling and their performance evaluation in the framework of the evolving Internet and cellular networks, in the era of cloud and content providers, is a target for the ITC community. The PhD workshop aims at fostering contributions and fresh ideas from young researchers, pursuing their PhD or having just completed their PhD. Discussion of their PhD ideas and progress, proposition of research challenges and directions is welcome during a dedicated workshop./ /_*TRAVEL GRANTS *_/ The International Advisory Committee (IAC) of the ITC has decided to offer a number of _/*travel grants*/_ (STG) that will be available to support full-time students for attending ITC 35th. The amount of each grant is *EUR 600* that can be used to cover student travel expenses related to attending ITC 35th conference, such as student registration fee, airline ticket, and hotel accommodation expenses./_* *_/ /_*SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS *_/ With respect to the presentation to be given during the Workshop, two contribution formats are solicited: * more *mature* research works, in the form of a long presentation (up to 20 min each); * short *in-progress* research work discussion, with a short presentation (up to 10 min each). Correspondingly, Authors proposing a long presentation are invited to submit an *extended abstract* (max 3 pages plus references, using the same format as for regular contributions to the main conference). Extended abstracts will be *published* along with conference proceedings. The best contribution will be invited for submission as a full paper to be *fast-track* reviewed for potential publication in a journal (to be determined). Authors proposing a short presentation are solicited to submit a title, list of Authors and a short abstract (up to 400 words), to help set up the workshop program. *Contribution should be sent in PDF format via email to:* * *Andrea Baiocchi:* andrea.baiocchi(a)uniroma1.it * *Lea Skorin-Kapov: *Lea.Skorin-Kapov(a)fer.hr /_*IMPORTANT DATES*_/* * * <https://itc35.itc-conference.org/> *Submission deadline*: August 10, 2023 (Extended) * *Notification of acceptance:* August 20, 2023 (Extended) * *Submission of camera-ready extended abstracts:* September 16, 2023 (Extended) Camera-ready versions should be uploaded as indicated with respect to camera-ready instructions /_*WORKSHOP CHAIRS*_/* * * *Andrea Baiocchi*, University of Rome, Italy * *Lea Skorin-Kapov*, University of Zagreb, Croatia For any questions do not hesitate to contact the conference organization under***itc35_oc(a)tlc.polito.it* /Best Regards,/ /*ITC 35 *//Organizing Team/

1 0

Mercoledì di Nexa del 12 luglio 2023, ore 17.00 | Aperitivo insieme al MixTo, Corso Castelfidardo, 34/A
by Nexa Media July 10, 2023

July 10, 2023

Gentilissime, gentilissimi, Vi segnaliamo che l'incontro di *mercoledì 12 luglio*, dedicato alla riflessione condivisa sull'anno accademico trascorso e al brindisi per salutarci in vista della pausa estiva, si terrà al *MixTo, in Corso Castelfidardo, 34/A*, a Torino, dalle *17.00* in avanti. Ricordiamo che per questo incontro non sarà prevista la modalità di partecipazione online. Vi chiederemmo anche la cortesia di farci sapere, tra oggi e domani, chi vorrà partecipare, così da segnalare al locale scelto il numero indicativo di persone presenti. Per maggiori informazioni:https://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-brindisi-chiusura-anno-accademico Cordiali saluti, -- Anita Botta Communication Manager Nexa Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino – DAUIN Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 - 10129 Torino web: https://nexa.polito.it/ mail: anita.botta(a)polito.it tel: 011 090 7219

1 0

Facebook is the "true employer" of its content moderators in Kenya – not Sama, its outsourcing company
by Antonio July 10, 2023

July 10, 2023

Titolo delle (buona) notizia: Huge ruling in Kenyan court threatens global model of outsourced content moderation – and says that Facebook is the "true employer" of its key safety workers Link: https://www.foxglove.org.uk/2023/06/06/kenyan-court-ruling-outsourced-conte… I "moderatori di contenuti" sono persone come Kauna Malgwi: "Kauna Malgwi, 29, is among the former Sama workers whose lives are in limbo right now. A trained clinical psychologist, Malgwi worked at Sama for four years, starting in 2019. Her job involved reviewing and flagging content that violated Facebook’s guidelines. She would typically start her day at 7 a.m., sifting through thousands of posts daily, many of which contained disturbing content such as videos depicting murders, road accidents, rape, beheadings, and suicides. She earned around $600 per month. Five months after losing her job, Malgwi told Rest of World, she continues to struggle with mental health issues from the moderation work." [1] Sama è una delle tante outsourcing company che al primo problema con l'opinione pubblica chiude (o cambia committente) e licenzia tutti. Altri riferimenti alla "Content Moderators Union" qui [2][3]. Antonio [1] https://restofworld.org/2023/meta-content-moderators-kenya-fired-unionize/ [2] https://africasolutionsmediahub.org/2023/05/01/workers-at-facebook-tiktok-a… [3] https://superrr.net/2023/05/10/Report-Content-Moderators-Summit-Kenya.html

1 0

The AI Dividend: a _modest_ proposal by Bruce Schneier and Barath Raghavan
by 380° July 8, 2023

July 8, 2023

Buongiorno, «Aò: "Big Data is the new oil"; perché nun famo come 'aamo fatto pe' l'Alaska?!?» https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2023/07/the-ai-dividend.html «The AI Dividend» aka «Artificial Intelligence Can’t Work Without Our Data - We should all be paid for it» Date: 2023.06.29 --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- For four decades, Alaskans have opened their mailboxes to find checks waiting for them, their cut of the black gold beneath their feet. This is Alaska’s Permanent Fund, funded by the state’s oil revenues and paid to every Alaskan each year. We’re now in a different sort of resource rush, with companies peddling bits instead of oil: generative AI. Everyone is talking about these new AI technologies—like ChatGPT—and AI companies are touting their awesome power. But they aren’t talking about how that power comes from all of us. Without all of our writings and photos that AI companies are using to train their models, they would have nothing to sell. Big Tech companies are currently taking the work of the American people, without our knowledge and consent, without licensing it, and are pocketing the proceeds. You are owed profits for your data that powers today’s AI, and we have a way to make that happen. We call it the AI Dividend. Our proposal is simple, and harkens back to the Alaskan plan. When Big Tech companies produce output from generative AI that was trained on public data, they would pay a tiny licensing fee, by the word or pixel or relevant unit of data. Those fees would go into the AI Dividend fund. Every few months, the Commerce Department would send out the entirety of the fund, split equally, to every resident nationwide. That’s it. [...] The bottom line for Big Tech is that if their AI model was created using public data, they have to pay into the fund. If you’re an American, you get paid from the fund. Under this plan, hobbyists and American small businesses would be exempt from fees. Only Big Tech companies—those with substantial revenue—would be required to pay into the fund. [...] Using today’s numbers, here’s what it would look like. The licensing fee could be small, starting at $0.001 per word generated by AI. A similar type of fee would be applied to other categories of generative AI outputs, such as images. That’s not a lot, but it adds up. Since most of Big Tech has started integrating generative AI into products, these fees would mean an annual dividend payment of a couple hundred dollars per person. The idea of paying you for your data [isn’t new], and some companies have tried to do it themselves for users who opted in. And the idea of the public being repaid for use of their resources goes back to well before Alaska’s oil fund. But generative AI is different: It uses data from all of us whether we like it or not, it’s ubiquitous, and it’s potentially immensely valuable. It would cost Big Tech companies a fortune to create a synthetic equivalent to our data from scratch, and synthetic data would almost certainly result in worse output. They can’t create good AI without us. Our plan would apply to generative AI used in the US. It also only issues a dividend to Americans. Other countries can create their own versions, applying a similar fee to AI used within their borders. Just like an American company collects VAT for services sold in Europe, but not here, each country can independently manage their AI policy. Don’t get us wrong; this isn’t an attempt to strangle this nascent technology. Generative AI has interesting, valuable, and possibly transformative uses, and this policy is aligned with that future. Even with the fees of the AI Dividend, generative AI will be cheap and will only get cheaper as technology improves. There are also risks—[both every day and esoteric]—posed by AI, and the government may need to develop policies to remedy any harms that arise. Our plan can’t make sure there are no downsides to the development of AI, but it would ensure that all Americans will share in the upsides—particularly since this new technology isn’t possible without our contribution. This essay was written with Barath Raghavan, and [previously appeared] on Politico.com. [isn’t new] <https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/23/opinion/data-privacy-jaron-l…> [both every day and esoteric] <https://www.wired.com/story/large-language-model-phishing-scams/> [previously appeared] <https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/29/ai-pay-americans-data-001…> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Tralasciando _ogni_ considerazione di storia più o meno contemporanea in merito all'Alaska e gli interi USA *e* _ogni_ considerazione in merito alla fiscalità applicata alle multinazionali... ...in rigoroso ordine di importanza: Neanche un accenno al fatto che una grossa quantità dei dati ingollati da quei sistemi di machine learning non sono stati prodotti da cittadini statunitensi, molti dati addirittura sono precedenti ai primi insediamenti dei coloni nelle americhe... ma ogni bit, ogni pixel, deve contribuire al WAWOIF (We are Americans and We Owe It Fund) Neanche un accenno al fatto che la _stragrande_ quantità di /quei/ dati sono **personali** - molti di cittadini EU, raccolti in violazione del GDPR, ma che gliè frega a loro - e sono impiegati precisamente per profilare e schedare le persone. Neanche un accenno ai lavoratori para-schiavizzati che sono indispensabili per "taggare" le tonnellate di dati ingollate dai sistemi di machine learning delle multinazionali che questa proposta vorrebbe tassare, lavoratori che quelle stesse multinazionali remunerano con cifre scandalose e fregandosene dei loro diritti ("non siamo noi, sono i governi dei rispettivi paesi a doverci pensare"); quel lavoro semplicemente non è contemplato, quel lavoratori **non esistono**. Per non parlare della qualità di quel lavoro di "tagging". Saluti, 380° -- 380° (Giovanni Biscuolo public alter ego) «Noi, incompetenti come siamo, non abbiamo alcun titolo per suggerire alcunché» Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>.

1 0