- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] EUCoJ - Advocate General's Opinion on Safe Harbor (Case C-362/14)

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Link al PDF: http://t.co/thfRzFvGeP On 23/09/15 12:15, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > > Court of Justice of the European Union > > PRESS RELEASE No 106/15 > > Luxembourg, 23 September 2015 > > Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-362/14 Press and Information > Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner > > *According to Advocate General Bot, the Commission decision finding > that the protection of personal data in the United States is adequate > does not prevent national authorities from suspending the transfer of > the data of European Facebook subscribers to servers located in the > United States * > > The Advocate General considers furthermore that the Commission > decision is invalid > > The Data Protection Directive1 provides that the transfer of personal > data to a third country may take place only if the third country in > question ensures an adequate level of data protection. The directive > also provides that the Commission may find that a third country > ensures an adequate level of protection. If the Commission adopts a > decision to that effect, the transfer of personal data to the third > country concerned may take place. > > Maximillian Schrems, an Austrian citizen, has been a Facebook user > since 2008. As is the case with other subscribers residing in the EU, > some or all of the data provided by Mr Schrems to Facebook is > transferred from Facebook’s Irish subsidiary to servers located in the > United States, where it is kept. Mr Schrems lodged a complaint with > the Irish data protection authority (the Data Protection > Commissioner), taking the view that, in the light of the revelations > made in 2013 by Edward Snowden concerning the activities of the United > States intelligence services (in particular the National Security > Agency ‘the NSA’), the law and practices of the United States offer no > real protection against surveillance by the United States of the data > transferred to that country. The Irish authority rejected the > complaint, on the ground, in particular, that in a decision of 26 July > 20002 the Commission considered that, under the ‘safe harbour’ > scheme,3 the United States ensures an adequate level of protection of > the personal data transferred. > > The High Court of Ireland, before which the case has been brought, > wishes to ascertain whether that Commission decision has the effect of > preventing a national supervisory authority from investigating a > complaint alleging that the third country does not ensure an adequate > level of protection and, where appropriate, from suspending the > contested transfer of data. > > In today’s Opinion, Advocate General Yves Bot takes the view that the > existence of a Commission decision finding that a third country > ensures an adequate level of protection of the personal data > transferred cannot eliminate or even reduce the national supervisory > authorities’ powers under the directive on the processing of personal > data. He considers furthermore that the Commission decision is invalid. > > The Advocate General states first of all that, in the light of the > importance of the role played by the national supervisory authorities > with regard to data protection, their powers of intervention must > remain intact. If the national supervisory authorities were absolutely > bound by decisions adopted by the Commission, which would inevitably > limit the total independence to which they are entitled > > 1 Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of > 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the > processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ > 1995 L 281, p. 31). > 2 Commission Decision 2000/520/EC of 26 July 2000 pursuant to > Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on > the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy > principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US > Department of Commerce (OJ 2000 L 215, p. 7). > > 3 The safe harbour scheme includes a series of principles concerning > the protection of personal data to which American undertakings may > subscribe voluntarily. > > www.curia.europa.eu > > under the directive. The Advocate General thus draws the conclusion > that, if a national supervisory authority considers that a transfer of > data undermines the protection of citizens of the EU as regards the > processing of their data, it has the power to suspend that transfer, > irrespective of the general assessment made by the Commission in its > decision. The power conferred by the directive on the Commission does > not affect the powers which the directive has conferred on the > national supervisory authorities. In other words, the Commission is > not empowered to restrict the powers of the national supervisory > authorities. > > While the Advocate General acknowledges that the national supervisory > authorities are legally bound by the Commission decision, he > considers, however, that such a binding effect cannot require > complaints to be rejected summarily, that is to say, immediately and > without any examination of their merits, in particular as the > competence to find that a level of protection is adequate is one that > is shared between the Member States and the Commission. A Commission > decision does, admittedly, play an important role in ensuring > uniformity in the conditions governing transfers that are applicable > within the Member States, but that uniformity can continue only while > that finding is not called into question, including in the context of > a complaint which the national supervisory authorities must deal with > under the investigative and banning powers that they are granted by > the directive. > > Furthermore, according to the Advocate General, where systemic > deficiencies are found in the third country to which the personal data > is transferred, the Member States must be able to take the measures > necessary to safeguard the fundamental rights protected by the Charter > of Fundamental Rights of the EU, which include the right to respect > for private and family life and the right to the protection of > personal data. > > Given the doubts expressed during the present proceedings as to the > validity of Decision 2000/520, the Advocate General considers that the > Court should determine this issue and he comes to the conclusion that > the decision is invalid. It is apparent from the findings of the High > Court of Ireland and of the Commission itself that the law and > practice of the United States allow the large-scale collection of the > personal data of citizens of the EU which is transferred, without > those citizens benefiting from effective judicial protection. Those > findings of fact demonstrate that the Commission decision does not > contain sufficient guarantees. Owing to that lack of guarantees, that > decision has been implemented in a manner which does not satisfy the > requirements of the directive or the Charter. > > The Advocate General considers furthermore that the access enjoyed by > the United States intelligence services to the transferred data > constitutes an interference with the right to respect for private life > and the right to protection of personal data, which are guaranteed by > the Charter. Likewise, the inability of citizens of the EU to be heard > on the question of the surveillance and interception of their data in > the United States amounts, in the Advocate General’s view, to an > interference with the right of EU citizens of the to an effective > remedy, protected by the Charter. > > According to the Advocate General, that interference with fundamental > rights is contrary to the principle of proportionality, in particular > because the surveillance carried out by the United States intelligence > services is mass, indiscriminate surveillance. Indeed, the access > which the United States intelligence authorities may have to the > personal data covers, in a generalised manner, all persons and all > means of electronic communication and all the data transferred > (including the content of the communications), without any > differentiation, limitation or exception according to the objective of > general interest pursued. The Advocate General considers that, in > those circumstances, a third country cannot in any event be regarded > as ensuring an adequate level of protection, and this is all the more > so since the safe harbour scheme as defined in the Commission decision > does not contain any appropriate guarantees for preventing mass and > generalised access to the transferred data. Indeed, no independent > authority is able to monitor, in the United States, breaches of the > principles for the protection of personal data committed by public > actors, such as the United States security agencies, in respect of > citizens of the EU. > > www.curia.europa.eu > > Given such a finding of infringements of the fundamental rights of > citizens of the Union, according to the Advocate General the > Commission ought to have suspended the application of the decision, > even though it is currently conducting negotiations with the United > States in order to put an end to the shortcomings found. The Advocate > General indeed observes that, if the Commission decided to enter into > negotiations with the United States, that is because it considered > beforehand that the level of protection ensured by that third country, > under the safe harbour scheme, was no longer adequate and that the > decision adopted in 2000 was no longer adapted to the reality of the > situation. > > NOTE: The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of > Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General to propose to the > Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for > which they are responsible. The Judges of the Court are now beginning > their deliberations in this case. Judgment will be given at a later date. > > NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and > tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought > before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the > interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European > Union act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It > is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in > accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on > other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is > raised. > > Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice. > The full text of the Opinion is published on the CURIA website on the > day of delivery. > Press contact: Christopher Fretwell(+352) 4303 3355 > Pictures of the delivery of the Opinion are available from "Europe by > Satellite"(+32) 2 2964106 > > According to Advocate General Bot, the Commission decision finding > that the protection of personal data in the United States is adequate > does not prevent national authorities from suspending the transfer of > the data of European Facebook subscribers to servers located in the > United States > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Sept. 23, 2015

EUCoJ - Advocate General's Opinion on Safe Harbor (Case C-362/14)

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 106/15 Luxembourg, 23 September 2015 Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-362/14 Press and Information Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner *According to Advocate General Bot, the Commission decision finding that the protection of personal data in the United States is adequate does not prevent national authorities from suspending the transfer of the data of European Facebook subscribers to servers located in the United States * The Advocate General considers furthermore that the Commission decision is invalid The Data Protection Directive1 provides that the transfer of personal data to a third country may take place only if the third country in question ensures an adequate level of data protection. The directive also provides that the Commission may find that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection. If the Commission adopts a decision to that effect, the transfer of personal data to the third country concerned may take place. Maximillian Schrems, an Austrian citizen, has been a Facebook user since 2008. As is the case with other subscribers residing in the EU, some or all of the data provided by Mr Schrems to Facebook is transferred from Facebook’s Irish subsidiary to servers located in the United States, where it is kept. Mr Schrems lodged a complaint with the Irish data protection authority (the Data Protection Commissioner), taking the view that, in the light of the revelations made in 2013 by Edward Snowden concerning the activities of the United States intelligence services (in particular the National Security Agency ‘the NSA’), the law and practices of the United States offer no real protection against surveillance by the United States of the data transferred to that country. The Irish authority rejected the complaint, on the ground, in particular, that in a decision of 26 July 20002 the Commission considered that, under the ‘safe harbour’ scheme,3 the United States ensures an adequate level of protection of the personal data transferred. The High Court of Ireland, before which the case has been brought, wishes to ascertain whether that Commission decision has the effect of preventing a national supervisory authority from investigating a complaint alleging that the third country does not ensure an adequate level of protection and, where appropriate, from suspending the contested transfer of data. In today’s Opinion, Advocate General Yves Bot takes the view that the existence of a Commission decision finding that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection of the personal data transferred cannot eliminate or even reduce the national supervisory authorities’ powers under the directive on the processing of personal data. He considers furthermore that the Commission decision is invalid. The Advocate General states first of all that, in the light of the importance of the role played by the national supervisory authorities with regard to data protection, their powers of intervention must remain intact. If the national supervisory authorities were absolutely bound by decisions adopted by the Commission, which would inevitably limit the total independence to which they are entitled 1 Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31). 2 Commission Decision 2000/520/EC of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce (OJ 2000 L 215, p. 7). 3 The safe harbour scheme includes a series of principles concerning the protection of personal data to which American undertakings may subscribe voluntarily. www.curia.europa.eu under the directive. The Advocate General thus draws the conclusion that, if a national supervisory authority considers that a transfer of data undermines the protection of citizens of the EU as regards the processing of their data, it has the power to suspend that transfer, irrespective of the general assessment made by the Commission in its decision. The power conferred by the directive on the Commission does not affect the powers which the directive has conferred on the national supervisory authorities. In other words, the Commission is not empowered to restrict the powers of the national supervisory authorities. While the Advocate General acknowledges that the national supervisory authorities are legally bound by the Commission decision, he considers, however, that such a binding effect cannot require complaints to be rejected summarily, that is to say, immediately and without any examination of their merits, in particular as the competence to find that a level of protection is adequate is one that is shared between the Member States and the Commission. A Commission decision does, admittedly, play an important role in ensuring uniformity in the conditions governing transfers that are applicable within the Member States, but that uniformity can continue only while that finding is not called into question, including in the context of a complaint which the national supervisory authorities must deal with under the investigative and banning powers that they are granted by the directive. Furthermore, according to the Advocate General, where systemic deficiencies are found in the third country to which the personal data is transferred, the Member States must be able to take the measures necessary to safeguard the fundamental rights protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, which include the right to respect for private and family life and the right to the protection of personal data. Given the doubts expressed during the present proceedings as to the validity of Decision 2000/520, the Advocate General considers that the Court should determine this issue and he comes to the conclusion that the decision is invalid. It is apparent from the findings of the High Court of Ireland and of the Commission itself that the law and practice of the United States allow the large-scale collection of the personal data of citizens of the EU which is transferred, without those citizens benefiting from effective judicial protection. Those findings of fact demonstrate that the Commission decision does not contain sufficient guarantees. Owing to that lack of guarantees, that decision has been implemented in a manner which does not satisfy the requirements of the directive or the Charter. The Advocate General considers furthermore that the access enjoyed by the United States intelligence services to the transferred data constitutes an interference with the right to respect for private life and the right to protection of personal data, which are guaranteed by the Charter. Likewise, the inability of citizens of the EU to be heard on the question of the surveillance and interception of their data in the United States amounts, in the Advocate General’s view, to an interference with the right of EU citizens of the to an effective remedy, protected by the Charter. According to the Advocate General, that interference with fundamental rights is contrary to the principle of proportionality, in particular because the surveillance carried out by the United States intelligence services is mass, indiscriminate surveillance. Indeed, the access which the United States intelligence authorities may have to the personal data covers, in a generalised manner, all persons and all means of electronic communication and all the data transferred (including the content of the communications), without any differentiation, limitation or exception according to the objective of general interest pursued. The Advocate General considers that, in those circumstances, a third country cannot in any event be regarded as ensuring an adequate level of protection, and this is all the more so since the safe harbour scheme as defined in the Commission decision does not contain any appropriate guarantees for preventing mass and generalised access to the transferred data. Indeed, no independent authority is able to monitor, in the United States, breaches of the principles for the protection of personal data committed by public actors, such as the United States security agencies, in respect of citizens of the EU. www.curia.europa.eu Given such a finding of infringements of the fundamental rights of citizens of the Union, according to the Advocate General the Commission ought to have suspended the application of the decision, even though it is currently conducting negotiations with the United States in order to put an end to the shortcomings found. The Advocate General indeed observes that, if the Commission decided to enter into negotiations with the United States, that is because it considered beforehand that the level of protection ensured by that third country, under the safe harbour scheme, was no longer adequate and that the decision adopted in 2000 was no longer adapted to the reality of the situation. NOTE: The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General to propose to the Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible. The Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case. Judgment will be given at a later date. NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised. Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice. The full text of the Opinion is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery. Press contact: Christopher Fretwell(+352) 4303 3355 Pictures of the delivery of the Opinion are available from "Europe by Satellite"(+32) 2 2964106 According to Advocate General Bot, the Commission decision finding that the protection of personal data in the United States is adequate does not prevent national authorities from suspending the transfer of the data of European Facebook subscribers to servers located in the United States

Sept. 23, 2015

Fwd: rapporto OCSE

by meo

molto gentilmente Marco Ajmone Marsan mi ha mandato questo rapporto che mi pare, molto interessante. Raf -------- Messaggio Inoltrato -------- Oggetto: rapporto OCSE Rispedito-Data: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:40:02 +0200 Rispedito-Da: d000704(a)polito.it Data: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:39:38 +0200 Mittente: Marco Ajmone Marsan <ajmone(a)polito.it> Organizzazione: Dip. Elettronica - Politecnico di Torino A: meo(a)polito.it in allegato. ciao. marco

Sept. 23, 2015

Re: [nexa] Computers 'do not improve' pupil results, says OECD

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Sull'argomento ICT e didattica (incluso l'ultimo report OECD) consiglierei vivamente di leggere quello che scrive Larry Cuban, uno dei massimi esperti del settore, sul suo blog: https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/ juan carlos On 23/09/15 10:24, meo wrote: > sarebbe interessante conoscere il rapporto ed i dati riportati e le > modalità di estrazione. Infatti altre fonti dicono il contrario. > Comunque, quel che conta non è l'investimento in hardware ma come lo > si fa. L'importante è insegnare l'informatica e non a usare il PC. Ad > esempio, il rapporto costi/benefici delle LIM mi sembra bassino. > Raf > > Il 22/09/2015 23:29, Alessandro Mantelero ha scritto: >> Computers 'do not improve' pupil results, says OECD >> >> http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34174796 >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Avv. Alessandro Mantelero >> Full-Tenured Aggregate Professor, Politecnico di Torino >> Director of Privacy and Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet and >> Society >> Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law, >> Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University of Shanghai >> Visiting Professor, Internet Interdisciplinary Institute - >> Universitat Oberta de Catalunya >> >> http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero >> http://nexa.polito.it/people/amantelero >> >> EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri) >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Sept. 23, 2015

Re: [nexa] Computers 'do not improve' pupil results, says OECD

by Giorgio Ventre

Se mi consentite io la metterei anche su un altro piano. In primo luogo, seguendo quanto dice Raffaele, altre fonti indicano esattamente il contrario per cui occorre capire bene cosa si misura e come lo si fa, incluso quali tecnologie sono state usate. La LIM, per esempio, non mi piace ma ha un discreto potenziale. Tuttavia viene di norma usata come un normale schermo per proiettare slide. In secondo luogo, la domanda che ci dobbiamo porre è se possiamo permetterci di non usare queste tecnologie nella didattica se comunque nella vita di tutti i giorni le usiamo? E' come se dicessimo che dato che il passaggio dalla penna ad inchiostro liquido alla BIC non cambia le prestazioni degli studenti allora ci teniamo pennini e boccette di inchiostro. L'ultima riflessione è che comunque la mia percezione è che tutte queste tecnologie vengono usate con una approccio che rimane basato sul classico modello lezione frontale/libro cartaceo con una mera trasposizione al digitale . Ovviamente non entro nella questione insegnamento dell' informatica e del pensiero computazionale che come sapete mi vede molto impegnato e su posizioni molto nette. Si deve fare e basta !-)) Un caro saluto a tutti Giorgio ======================================================================== Prof. Ing. Giorgio Ventre Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica e Tecnologie dell'Informazione Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II Via Claudio 21 80125, Napoli, Italy Tel: +39 081 7683908 Fax: +39 081 7683816 Mob: +39 3807679372 E-mail: giorgio(a)unina.it http://www.comics.unina.it http://www.docenti.unina.it/giorgio.ventre ======================================================================== On 23/09/2015 10:24, meo wrote: > sarebbe interessante conoscere il rapporto ed i dati riportati e le > modalità di estrazione. Infatti altre fonti dicono il contrario. > Comunque, quel che conta non è l'investimento in hardware ma come lo > si fa. L'importante è insegnare l'informatica e non a usare il PC. Ad > esempio, il rapporto costi/benefici delle LIM mi sembra bassino. > Raf > > Il 22/09/2015 23:29, Alessandro Mantelero ha scritto: >> Computers 'do not improve' pupil results, says OECD >> >> http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34174796 >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Avv. Alessandro Mantelero >> Full-Tenured Aggregate Professor, Politecnico di Torino >> Director of Privacy and Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet and >> Society >> Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law, >> Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University of Shanghai >> Visiting Professor, Internet Interdisciplinary Institute - >> Universitat Oberta de Catalunya >> >> http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero >> http://nexa.polito.it/people/amantelero >> >> EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri) >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

Sept. 23, 2015

Re: [nexa] Computers 'do not improve' pupil results, says OECD

by Alessandro Mantelero

qui il rapporto: http://www.oecd.org/education/new-approach-needed-to-deliver-on-technologys… Il titolo della BBC era un po' sintetico. Come sempre vi sono diverse sfumature di grigio e mi pare che anche l'articolo ne di conto. AM On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:24:28 +0200 meo <meo(a)polito.it> wrote: > sarebbe interessante conoscere il rapporto ed i dati >riportati e le modalità di estrazione. Infatti altre >fonti dicono il contrario. > Comunque, quel che conta non è l'investimento in >hardware ma come lo si fa. L'importante è insegnare >l'informatica e non a usare il PC. Ad esempio, il >rapporto costi/benefici delle LIM mi sembra bassino. > Raf > > Il 22/09/2015 23:29, Alessandro Mantelero ha scritto: >> Computers 'do not improve' pupil results, says OECD >> >> http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34174796 >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Avv. Alessandro Mantelero >> Full-Tenured Aggregate Professor, Politecnico di Torino >> Director of Privacy and Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for >>Internet and Society >> Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP >>Law, Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University of Shanghai >> Visiting Professor, Internet Interdisciplinary Institute >>- Universitat Oberta de Catalunya >> >> http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero >> http://nexa.polito.it/people/amantelero >> >> EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri) >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa -- Avv. Alessandro Mantelero Full-Tenured Aggregate Professor, Politecnico di Torino Director of Privacy and Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet and Society Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law, Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University of Shanghai Visiting Professor, Internet Interdisciplinary Institute - Universitat Oberta de Catalunya http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero http://nexa.polito.it/people/amantelero EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri)

Sept. 23, 2015

Re: [nexa] Computers 'do not improve' pupil results, says OECD

by meo

sarebbe interessante conoscere il rapporto ed i dati riportati e le modalità di estrazione. Infatti altre fonti dicono il contrario. Comunque, quel che conta non è l'investimento in hardware ma come lo si fa. L'importante è insegnare l'informatica e non a usare il PC. Ad esempio, il rapporto costi/benefici delle LIM mi sembra bassino. Raf Il 22/09/2015 23:29, Alessandro Mantelero ha scritto: > Computers 'do not improve' pupil results, says OECD > > http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34174796 > > > > > > -- > Avv. Alessandro Mantelero > Full-Tenured Aggregate Professor, Politecnico di Torino > Director of Privacy and Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet and > Society > Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law, > Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University of Shanghai > Visiting Professor, Internet Interdisciplinary Institute - Universitat > Oberta de Catalunya > > http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero > http://nexa.polito.it/people/amantelero > > EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri) > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Sept. 23, 2015

Computers 'do not improve' pupil results, says OECD

by Alessandro Mantelero

Computers 'do not improve' pupil results, says OECD http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34174796 -- Avv. Alessandro Mantelero Full-Tenured Aggregate Professor, Politecnico di Torino Director of Privacy and Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet and Society Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law, Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University of Shanghai Visiting Professor, Internet Interdisciplinary Institute - Universitat Oberta de Catalunya http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero http://nexa.polito.it/people/amantelero EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri)

Sept. 22, 2015

Re: [nexa] R: "Austria plans 10 new spy agencies with vast surveillance powers"

by Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) - lists

On 9/22/15 5:51 PM, Blengino wrote: [snip] > Spionaggio, sorveglianza, operazioni sottocopertura –che integrano reato > se non autorizzate, come la captazione di reti e inserimento di malware > vari- per indagini “preventive” (ovvero senza reato) sono previste e > normate con garanzie. [snip] Dovremmo concordare che il mondo dei captatori informatici non è particolarmente regolamentato e questa situazione da' spazio sia ad abusi procedurali con implicite violazioni del cpp oltre a problematiche costituzionali nel loro uso. In mancanza di una regolamentazione specifica sia i servizi di informazione che l'autorità giudiziaria operando in un clima di incertezza giuridica (in quanto strumenti atipici, non normati dal cpp). Allora questa situazione determina: - la mancanza di forme di tutela specifiche per i cittadini (definitive nel cpp) da applicarsi quando vengono impiegati i captatori - maggiore libertà di azione e di interpretazione da parte di AG/PG/Servizi circa quali siano i limiti e le modalità con cui fare indagini utilizzando i captatori - rischi di validità giuridica delle modalità di acquisizione dei dati operati a mezzo captatore (vedi sentenza cassazione recente) Fabio p.s. Non sono un avvocato ma un "giurista della domenica"(c), chiedo scusa per castronerie giuridiche eventualmente presenti

Sept. 22, 2015

Re: [nexa] "Austria plans 10 new spy agencies with vast surveillance powers"

by Andrea Glorioso

Caro Carlo, grazie mille per la risposta e le informazioni, ma forse non mi sono spiegato: se gia` esistono leggi che regolamentano in maniera efficiente ed efficace le attivita` di intelligence, ottimo (io ho sempre qualcosa dubbio quando si tratta del rapporto tra lo Stato di Diritto e gli arcana imperii, ma ho passato troppo tempo nella Fabbrica delle Salsicce :). Ma il fatto che ci sia una "nuova" legge che norma un fenomeno non significa che sia la legge a creare il fenomeno; a volte, anzi, avere la legge serve quanto meno a cominciare una discussione piu` trasparente sul fenomeno medesimo. Non sono certo di essere stato piu` chiaro, ma devo scappare al mio prossimo meeting prima che la Papamobile blocchi tutto. :) Ciao, Andrea 2015-09-22 11:51 GMT-04:00 Blengino <blengino(a)penalistiassociati.it>: > Andrea, > > non conosco le legislazioni in materia di intelligence e di sicurezza > nazionale degli altri paesi, ma in Italia la regolamentazione c’è, con > norme anche abbastanza chiare per quanto concerne sorveglianza ed > intercettazioni varie (e forse non è un caso che NSA avesse escluso > l’Italia dal programma ristretto di sorveglianza). Dal 2007 (L.124/2007) il > DIS è strutturato in modo (abbastanza) trasparente, e teoricamente sotto > stretta vigilanza del COPASIR che è organo parlamentare. Spionaggio, > sorveglianza, operazioni sottocopertura –che integrano reato se non > autorizzate, come la captazione di reti e inserimento di malware vari- per > indagini “preventive” (ovvero senza reato) sono previste e normate con > garanzie. Teoricamente AISE e AISI non fanno quel che gli pare, e se lo > fanno operando al di fuori delle c.d. “garanzie funzionali”, delinquono > come chiunque altro, anzi peggio. > > Non è che la captazione di dati sulle reti o l’infezione di un PC targhet > non è regolamentata: lo è eccome! E’ vietata e viola norme ordinarie (cfr > codice penale) e Costituzionali, salvo in rare eccezionali e tassative > ipotesi, con stringenti modalità esecutive, previste da leggi > democraticamente approvate. Normare queste eccezioni non può esser utile > per sanare (o regolarizzare) una patologia (tutti lo fanno):non è che la > malattia scompare e il tumore diventa fisiologica condizione se tradotto in > una legge e reso noto al paziente (che per altro già lo sa ma se ne frega). > > Quindi no. Quelle leggi sono un disastro, non sono utili affatto: > l’esistenza di queste attività dovremmo venirla a sapere perché qualcuno > ha applicato le norme vigenti ed ha messo sotto processo coloro che si son > fatti lecito violare diritti costituzionalmente garantiti al di fuori delle > tassative ipotesi oggi disciplinate. Poi discutiamo pure delle possibili > nuove tecniche di captazione e sorveglianza, della loro utilità e di > possibili nuove “garanzie funzionali” per chi opera nel settore della > prevenzione. Ma la prospettiva deve esser rovesciata. > > Così penso. > > Un abbraccio > > Carlo > > > > *Da:* nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it [mailto: > nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it] *Per conto di *Andrea Glorioso > *Inviato:* martedì 22 settembre 2015 16:41 > *A:* Stefano Quintarelli > *Cc:* Antonio Casilli; nexa > *Oggetto:* Re: [nexa] "Austria plans 10 new spy agencies with vast > surveillance powers" > > > > Un'osservazione al volo, perché ahimé tutti i Commissari Europei vogliono > visitare Washington esattamente nella settimana in cui vengono pure il Papa > e il Presidente Cinese (sembra l'apertura di una barzelletta ma è l'amara > realtà...). > > > > Quando queste leggi non esistevano, le attività di spionaggio e > sorveglianza erano forse meno presenti? O forse erano comunque ben > presenti, ma prive di qualsivoglia tipo di regolamentazione, per quanto > vaga e debole? E in questo caso, e` meglio o peggio che esistano delle > leggi che almeno riconoscano l'esistenza di queste attivita`? > > Ciao, > > Andrea > > > On Tuesday, September 22, 2015, Stefano Quintarelli < > stefano(a)quintarelli.it> wrote: > > mmh.. la francia e' l'unico paese non anglosassone... > in francia c'e' qualche ricorso a corte costituzinale ? > > > On 22/09/2015 14:10, Antonio Casilli wrote: > > Tra il 2013 e il 2015, queste proposte sono già arrivate in fondo in > Canada (C-51 Bill), Regno Unito (DRIP), Francia (LPM et Loi Renseignement), > Australia (NSLAA), Nouva Zelanda (GCSB). > Perfino il pessimismo comincia a prendere le distanze dalla situazione > attuale. > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Stefano Quintarelli" <stefano(a)quintarelli.it> > À: "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it>, "nexa" < > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > Envoyé: Mardi 22 Septembre 2015 13:09:35 > Objet: Re: [nexa] "Austria plans 10 new spy agencies with vast > surveillance powers" > > saro' ottimista, ma spero che poi queste proposte non arrivino in fondo > (lo spero, anche se stanno spuntando come funghi ovunque). > temo molto di piu' sistemi (che arriveranno) che analizzano il traffico > senza uno specifico bersaglio per rilevare pattern di comunicazione e > indichino possibili target da attenzionare. (sistemi non programmati, > basati su reti neurali) > un po' come uno che osserva una folla da lontano e vede che si formano > delle perturbazioni e a quel punto un operatore zooma su quelle. > ciao, s. > > On 22/09/2015 12:48, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > > Durante la lettura di notizie come questa > si consiglia l'ascolto, per esempio, del seguente brano: > https://youtu.be/zR2P-5J-2MA > > Anzi, apriamo un filone: > "Musiche per regimi sempre meno democratici". > > juan carlos > > > *Austria plans 10 new spy agencies with vast surveillance powers* > /"Justified suspicion" enough to spy on citizens; no warrant needed, > little oversight allowed./ > > by Glyn Moody - Sep 10, 2015 2:00pm CEST > > […] > > Continua qui: > > http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/09/austria-plans-ten-new-spy-agen… > > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > > > Nessun virus nel messaggio. > Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> > Versione: 2015.0.6140 / Database dei virus: 4419/10678 - Data di > rilascio: 22/09/2015 > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > > ----- > Nessun virus nel messaggio. > Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com > Versione: 2015.0.6140 / Database dei virus: 4419/10678 - Data di > rilascio: 22/09/2015 > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro

Sept. 22, 2015