- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] BigBlueButton e OVirt al Politecnico di Torino
by Giuseppe Attardi Nov. 3, 2022

Nov. 3, 2022

Ci sono le presentazioni di Enrico Venuto al Workshop GARR: https://www.eventi.garr.it/it/ws20/programma/materiali-workshop-2020/494-es… <https://www.eventi.garr.it/it/ws20/programma/materiali-workshop-2020/494-es…> — Beppe > On 2 Nov 2022, at 11:26, <nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it> <nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it> wrote: > > From: Giacomo Tesio <giacomo(a)tesio.it <mailto:giacomo@tesio.it>> > To: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> > Subject: [nexa] BigBlueButton e OVirt al Politecnico di Torino > Message-ID: <20221102103123.0000030f(a)tesio.it <mailto:20221102103123.0000030f@tesio.it>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Salve Nexa, > > vi riporto una ottima domanda che mi è stata posta durante una > recente tavola rotonda al Linux Day di Bari [1], cui purtroppo non > ho saputo rispondere con riferimenti puntuali. > > Esistono pubblicazioni scientifiche sull'esperienza del Politecnico di > Torino con Big Blue Button e OVirt? > > Per la precisione mi è stato chiesto un Case Study su questa > esperienza, in modo da poterla riprodurre in altre Università. > > > Io purtroppo non avevo riferimenti da offrire, ma questo non significa > che tali articoli non esistano! > > Qualcuno può indicarmi studi in proposito? > > > Giacomo > > [1] https://es.sonicurlprotection-fra.com/click?PV=2&MSGID=20221102102641028359… <https://es.sonicurlprotection-fra.com/click?PV=2&MSGID=20221102102641028359…>

1 0

Censorship and Suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy: Tactics and Counter-Tactics
by 380° Nov. 3, 2022

Nov. 3, 2022

Buongiorno, Shir-Raz, Y., Elisha, E., Martin, B. et al. Censorship and Suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy: Tactics and Counter-Tactics. Minerva (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09479-4 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11024-022-09479-4 «Censorship and Suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy: Tactics and counter-Tactics» (si scrive eterodossia, si legge dissenso, n.d.r.) Davvero niente di nuovo, come sanno benissimo coloro che hanno studiato storia e filosofia della scienza (la meta-scienza non è altro che metafisica, dopotutto). In tutto questo i "GAFAM" hanno avuto un ruolo /apparentemente/ nuovo, per questo scrivo anche qui. Segue un luuuuuuungo estratto, perché sintetizzare ulteriormente impedirebbe di comprendere la vera natura della questione. --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- * Abstract The emergence of COVID-19 has led to numerous controversies over COVID-related knowledge and policy. To counter the perceived threat from doctors and scientists who challenge the official position of governmental and intergovernmental health authorities, some supporters of this orthodoxy have moved to censor those who promote dissenting views. The aim of the present study is to explore the experiences and responses of highly accomplished doctors and research scientists from different countries who have been targets of suppression and/or censorship following their publications and statements in relation to COVID-19 that challenge official views. Our findings point to the central role played by media organizations, and especially by information technology companies, in attempting to stifle debate over COVID-19 policy and measures. In the effort to silence alternative voices, widespread use was made not only of censorship, but of tactics of suppression that damaged the reputations and careers of dissenting doctors and scientists, regardless of their academic or medical status and regardless of their stature prior to expressing a contrary position. In place of open and fair discussion, censorship and suppression of scientific dissent has deleterious and far-reaching implications for medicine, science, and public health. [...] * Introduction [...] Since the beginning of the pandemic, while governments and health authorities argued that restrictive lockdown policies were necessary to deal with the pandemic and prevent deaths, many scientists and medical practitioners questioned the ethics and morality of such tactics, including Nobel laureates and leading physicians and scholars (e.g., AIER 2020; Abbasi 2020; Bavli et al. 2020; Brown 2020; Ioannidis 2020a; Lenzer 2020; Levitt 2020). Furthermore, from early 2020, increasing numbers of scientists and doctors argued that the pandemic, as well as morbidity and mortality figures, were being inflated and exaggerated (Ioannidis 2020; Brown 2020); that the extreme policies and restrictions violated fundamental rights (Biana and Joaquin 2020; Stolow et al. 2020); and that governments were using fear campaigns based on speculative assumptions and unreliable predictive models (Brown 2020; Dodsworth 2021). Some scholars, medical practitioners and lawyers have pointed to biases, concealment and distortions of vital information regarding COVID-19 morbidity and mortality rates that misled policymakers and the public (AAPS 2021; Abbasi 2020; AIER, 2020; Fuellmich 2020; King 2020). [...] Some governments and tech corporations, such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and LinkedIn, have taken measures to censor contrary viewpoints, arguing that views challenging government policies are dangerous misinformation, and therefore censorship is justified to protect public health (Martin 2021). [...] The present study explores the phenomenon of censorship of dissent from the point of view of well-known scientists and doctors who were censored for their heterodox views on COVID-19, in order to learn about the range of tactics that have been used to censor and silence them, as well as the counter-tactics they have used to resist these attempts. [...] * Censorship of COVID-19 Heterodoxy [...] Many instances involve social media censorship, including the removal of accounts (“deplatforming”) or blocking the visibility of a user’s content without informing them (“shadow banning”) (Martin 2021). While complaints regarding scientific censorship and suppression preceded the pandemic (Elisha et al. 2021, 2022; Martin 2015), a new feature of the COVID era is the prominent role played by information technology companies such as Facebook and Google (Martin 2021). [...] * Findings [...] Silencing Dissent: Censoring and Suppressing Tactics Tactics of censorship and suppression described by our respondents include exclusion, derogatory labelling, hostile comments and threatening statements by the media, both mainstream and social; dismissal by the respondents’ employers; official inquiries; revocation of medical licenses; lawsuits; and retraction of scientific papers after publication. ** Exclusion Respondents reported how, at a very early stage of the epidemic, when they just began to express criticism or their different position, they were surprised to discover that the mainstream media, which until then had seen them as desirable interviewees, stopped interviewing them and accepting opinion pieces from them: [...] ** Denigration Respondents reported that exclusion was only the first step: shortly after that they started being subjected to defamation by the media, and disparaged as “anti-vaxxers,” “Covid deniers,” “dis/misinformation spreaders” and/or “conspiracy theorists”: [...] Recruiting “Third Parties” to Assist in Discrediting One prominent tactic our respondents claim was used by the media to discredit them was the use of seemingly independent “third party sources,” such as other doctors, to undermine them, for example by writing defamatory articles: [...] Another “third party” source used by the media, according to our respondents, was “fact-checking” organizations, a practice that is ostensibly meant to verify published information to promote the veracity of reporting. However, some respondents alleged that the fact-checking groups were recruited and operated by corporate or other stakeholders to discredit them and try to discredit the information they presented: [...] Some respondents said that the media persecuted them to the point of blackening their name at their workplace, resulting in their dismissal, or that they were forced to resign: [...] ** Online Censorship Some respondents reported being censored on social media networks (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, Google, LinkedIn), and said some of their posts, tweets, videos or even accounts were taken down by the networks. [...] As can be seen in the above examples, respondents noted that the removal of their materials from social networks was accompanied by a notice claiming they had violated the “community rules.” They emphasized that these were academic materials, backed up scientifically: [...] One of the respondents reported on censorship even in Google Docs, which means that even private communications are being censored: [...] ** Censorship and Suppression by the Medical and Academic Establishment Some of the respondents reported that they were subjected to defamation by their own institution, with the apparent intention to harm their reputation and careers. [...] Some participants also said that they had received a clear message from the institution where they worked that they were not allowed to identify themselves with the institution when giving an interview or a testimony or expressing their views—in some cases as a condition of renewing their contract. [...] In some cases, respondents reported that following a position or criticism they expressed, they were dismissed from their institution, or were notified that their contract would not be renewed. [...] Similarly, respondents said they were summarily dismissed or disqualified from prestigious positions, such as serving on leading health or scientific committees, or editing medical journals, without due process or transparency: [...] In one case, the respondent had learned that his country’s parallel to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) intervened and asked the university to “examine” his “case”: [...] ** Official Inquiries Some doctors reported on official inquiries launched against them, such as investigating or threatening to withdraw their medical license: [...] [...] One of the respondents reports that a million-dollar lawsuit was filed against him: [...] Another respondent reports on a police search conducted at his private clinic in his home: ** Retraction of Scientific Papers Some researchers and doctors recounted how their research had been retracted by the journal after publication: [...] Another theme that arose repeatedly during the interviews was that research critical of COVID-19 policies and orthodoxy were treated in ways the interviewees had never encountered before in their careers. This included having papers rejected from journals (often multiple times) without peer review, the journal review and publication process taking many months longer than typical for the journal, and even having papers rejected from pre-print servers such as MedRXiv: [...] In one case, an interviewee said he felt so threatened by the medical establishment that he refrained from putting his name on papers he co-authored with other researchers, and that those whose names do appear on the papers were trying to hide or stay under the radar until the paper was published: [...] * Counter-reaction: Fighting Back [...] ** Using Alternative Channels [...] Some of the respondents said that to protect themselves, they were forced to open “secret” telegram or anonymous Twitter accounts. Although they express frustration, they are still doing it in order to spread information. For example, one participant noted it is absurd that scientists should keep secret telegram accounts so that the government does not revoke their licenses or damage their reputations: * Discussion [...] The sampling method was unlikely to pick up doctors and scientists who kept a low profile or who quickly became silent at the first sign of danger, which may partly explain why all the interviewees resisted attacks. It will also not capture doctors and scientists who disagree with aspects of the official orthodoxy but are too afraid to speak out. [...] the censorship tactics reported by our respondents are consistent with those identified in Jansen and Martin’s (2015) [2] framework on the dynamics of censorship, including: 1. Cover-Up [,,,] 2. Devaluation [...] 3. Reinterpretation [...] 4. Official Channels [...] 5. Intimidation [...] Our findings regarding how the study participants responded to censorship tactics are also consistent with the counter-tactics described by Jansen and Martin (2015). 1. Exposure [...] 2. Validation [...] 3. Interpretation [...] 4. Redirection [...] 5. Resistance [...] [...] Our findings echo arguments made in previous studies on the suppression of dissent in controversial areas, [...] Yet, there are three main differences. First, when it comes to COVID-related knowledge, the censorship tactics used against dissenters are extreme and unprecedented in their intensiveness and extensiveness, with scientific journals, and academic and medical institutions taking an active and involved part in censoring critical voices. In fact, as one of our respondents indicates, even pre-print servers and academic social networking sites censor scientific papers that do not align with the mainstream narrative, and this seems to be a growing trend. [...] Second [...] the current study shows that in the case of COVID, censoring doctors and researchers of this stature has become a regular phenomenon. [...] Most of them are leading figures: researchers and doctors who prior to the COVID-19 era had a respectable status, with many publications in the scientific literature, some of them with books and hundreds of publications, some headed academic or medical departments, some of them were editors of medical journals, and some had won significant awards. [...] This fact indicates that the message is that no one is exempt from censorship and no academic or medical status, senior as it may be, is a guaranteed shield against it. The third prominent difference found in our study is the significant role played by media organizations during the COVID pandemic, and especially tech information companies, in censoring contrary positions. On a practical level, those who hold the power have greater ability and opportunities to control knowledge and information dissemination, and through this, to set and control the agenda. [...] Recently released documents from court cases indicate that at least some of this censorship is orchestrated by government officials (Lungariello and Chamberlain2022; Ramaswamy and Rubenfeld 2022). Our findings also indirectly point to other stakeholders involved in the censorship phenomenon evident in the current crisis, especially pharmaceutical companies. [...] For example, as some of our participants indicated, one of the main unresolved COVID-19 controversies is related to early treatment with repurposed drugs, and it has been claimed that highly unusual measures were taken to prevent physicians from using them (Physicians’ Declaration 2021). As Cáceres (2022) notes, this alleged unwarranted termination of that initial debate may have had enormous economic (e.g. green light for vaccines and new drugs under emergency use authorization), financial (e.g. huge gains for the largest corporations) and political consequences (e.g. global restrictions of individual freedoms). [...] The tech information companies also have strong interests in controlling the discourse regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, in June 2021, it was revealed that Google, which was accused of silencing the theory the SARS-CoV-2 virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, has funded virus research carried out by a Wuhan-linked scientist, Peter Daszak, through its charity arm, Google.org, for over a decade. Google has also invested one million dollars in a company that uses epidemiologists and big-data analytics to forecast and track disease outbreaks. The British Medical Journal has revealed that Facebook and YouTube’s “fact-checking” process relies on partnerships with third-party fact-checkers, convened under the umbrella of the International Fact-Checking Network (Clarke 2021). This organization is run by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a non-profit journalism school whose main financial supporters include Google and Facebook. [...] censorship and manipulation of information are inconsistent with the essence of science, since scientific inquiry requires discourse and vigorous debate. Indeed, researchers have warned that instead of being debated, COVID controversies are being used to fuel polarization, often leading to the demonization and censorship of alternative perspectives and the imposition of mainstream views as if they were absolute truth (Cáceres 2022; Marcon and Caulfield 2021). [...] The drive to censor and dismiss dissenting opinions by labeling them as “misinformation” shares close similarities with scientific “boundary work,” wherein scientific power and authority is maintained by demarcating certain fields of scientific inquiry as out of bounds and discrediting them as essentially unscientific (Gieryn 1999; also see Harambam 2014). Creating a false consensus by censoring information and preventing scientific debates might lead scientists, and thus also policymakers, to sink into the ruling paradigm, causing them to ignore other, more effective options to cope with the crisis or perhaps even prevent it. Such a “consensus” leads to a narrow worldview, which impairs the public’s ability to make informed decisions and erodes public trust in medical science and in public health (Cernic 2018; Delborne 2016; Martin 2014, 2015; Vernon 2017). The main limitation of the study is that the findings are based on the subjective perspectives of interviewees. It is possible that if we included more heterogeneous groups, we would come to somewhat different interpretations. Therefore, we recommend conducting further studies among larger groups of professionals who suffered censorship, to expand our knowledge and perhaps suggest effective ways to mediate the struggle over freedom of information in general and especially in times of crisis. [...] --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Buonanotte. [1] https://www.springer.com/journal/11024 [2] Jansen, Sue Curry, and Brian Martin. 2015. The Streisand effect and censorship backfire. International Journal of Communication 9:656–671. https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/15ijc.pdf -- 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

156° Mercoledì di Nexa | 9 Novembre 2022, ore 17.00
by Nexa Media Nov. 3, 2022

Nov. 3, 2022

Gentilissime, gentilissimi, Vi invitiamo a partecipare al *156° Mercoledì di Nexa*, che si terrà *mercoledì 9 novembre, alle ore 17.00*, con la presentazione del nuovo *progetto Europeo H2020 SIFIS-Home *di cui il Centro Nexa è partner, progetto che riflette sulle garanzie di privacy, affidabilità e sicurezza nelle smart home di ultima generazione. L'incontro, dal titolo /*"Sicurezza e Privacy nelle Smart Home di Ultima Generazione - Il progetto SIFIS-Home"*/, sarà condotto dal Coordinatore del progetto *Andrea Saracino*, ricercatore presso l'Istituto di Informatica e Telematica del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche a Pisa, ed esperto di sicurezza dei sistemi mobili e distribuiti, con focus su applicazioni di intelligenza artificiale e modelli di fiducia distribuita. _L'incontro si terrà IN PRESENZA e ONLINE._ _SEDE FISICA_ dell'incontro: Centro Nexa su Internet e Società, Politecnico di Torino, Via Boggio 65/a, Torino (1° piano). QUI <https://nexa.polito.it/contatti> maggiori informazioni su come raggiungerci. _STANZA VIRTUALE_ dell'incontro: https://didattica.polito.it/VClass/NexaEvent Di seguito maggiori dettagli sull'evento: Nexa Center for Internet and Society Newsletter Se non visualizzi correttamente questo messaggio clicca qui <https://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-156> NEXA 156° Mercoledì di Nexa Mercoledì 9 novembre 2022, ore 17.00 - 19.00 Politecnico di Torino https://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-156 /Sicurezza e Privacy nelle Smart Home di Nuova Generazione - Il progetto SIFIS-Home/ *Andrea Saracino (CNR - Istituto di Informatica e Telematica, Coordinatore del progetto SIFIS-Home)* This event will be webcast live: https://nexa.polito.it/nexa-hangout-on-air *L'INCONTRO SI TERRÀ IN PRESENZA E ONLINE* *SEDE FISICA*: Centro Nexa su Internet e Società, Politecnico di Torino, Via Boggio 65/a, Torino (1° piano) (Per maggiori informazioni su come raggiungerci clicca QUI <https://nexa.polito.it/contatti>) *STANZA VIRTUALE*: https://didattica.polito.it/VClass/NexaEvent I *dispositivi smart* si stanno diffondendo largamente nelle nostre case, semplificandoci operazioni quotidiane, aumentando la sicurezza e la comodità del nostro ambiente più vissuto. Tuttavia, i fornitori di servizi dietro a questi dispositivi collezionano quante più informazioni possibili per tentare di profilare gli utenti e ottenere informazioni di valore sulle nostre abitudini, informazioni che possono essere poi rivendute a terzi. Inoltre, l'assenza di piattaforme standard per la produzione di software e hardware per smart home, insieme alla rapida evoluzione del mercato, favoriscono l'introduzione di vulnerabilità e la presenza di errori o condizioni di inconsistenza che possono portare, se sfruttate da un attaccante, a pericoli per la propria *privacy*, oltre che all'integrità dei dispositivi e incolumità delle persone fisiche. In questo evento, parleremo nel dettaglio di questi rischi e di come si applicano alle *smart home di nuova generazione*, basate sulla cooperazione automatizzata di più dispositivi. Introdurremo poi il *progetto Europeo SIFIS-Home*, presentando gli approcci proposti *per garantire privacy, affidabilità e sicurezza nelle smart home*. BIOGRAFIA e informazioni supplementari: [mercoledì156] *Andrea SARACINO* è un ricercatore presso l'Istituto di Informatica e Telematica del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche a Pisa. Si occupa di sicurezza dei sistemi mobili e distribuiti, con un focus su applicazioni di intelligenza artificiale e modelli di fiducia distribuita. È il coordinatore del progetto H2020 SIFIS-Home ed è stato coinvolto nelle attività dei progetti europei C3ISP, CoCo-Cloud, Cybersure e Cybersane. È Dottore di Ricerca in Ingegneria dell'Informazione e coautore di oltre 70 articoli su sicurezza, privacy e controllo accessi in ambienti mobili e distribuiti. *Lettura consigliata:* * Luca Ardito, Luca Barbato, Paolo Mori, Andrea Saracino, /Preserving Privacy in the Globalized Smart Home: The SIFIS-Home Project/, IEEE, 2021, LINK <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9592697> Che cosa sono il Centro Nexa e i cicli di incontri “Mercoledì di Nexa” e “Nexa Lunch Seminar” <https://www.facebook.com/nexa.center/> <https://twitter.com/nexacenter> <https://www.youtube.com/user/NexaCenter> <https://www.instagram.com/nexa_center/> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3054864/admin/> #nexawednesday <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23nexawednesday&src=typd> #AndreaSaracino <https://twitter.com/iorisecurity> #SifisHome <https://twitter.com/SifisHome> Il Centro Nexa su Internet & Società del Politecnico di Torino (Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica) dal 2006 è un centro di ricerca indipendente e interdisciplinare che, in collaborazione con l'Università di Torino, studia Internet (e più in generale le Tecnologie digitali) e i suoi rapporti con la società. Maggiori informazioni all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/about. Durante i “*Mercoledì di Nexa*”, che si tengono *ogni 2° mercoledì del mese* alle *ore 17 in punto*, il Centro Nexa su Internet e Società apre le sue porte non solo agli esperti e a tutti coloro i quali lavorano con Internet, ma anche a semplici appassionati e cittadini. Il ciclo di incontri intende approfondire, con un linguaggio preciso ma accessibile, i temi legati alla Rete: motori di ricerca, Creative Commons, social networks, open source/software libero, neutralità della rete, libertà di espressione, privacy, file sharing, big e open data, smart cities e molto altro. Al centro di quasi tutti gli incontri un ospite pronto a dialogare con i direttori del Centro Nexa, il Prof. Juan Carlos De Martin del Politecnico di Torino e il Prof. Marco Ricolfi dell'Università di Torino, nonché lo staff e i Fellows del Centro Nexa. Maggiori informazioni sui Mercoledì di Nexa, incluso un elenco di tutti i “Mercoledì” passati, sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi. Si segnala inoltre che dal maggio 2012 *ogni 4° mercoledì* del mese *dalle ore 13 alle ore 14* il Centro Nexa organizza anche i "*Nexa Lunch Seminar*". Una lista di tutti i “Lunch Seminar” passati è disponibile all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/lunch-seminars. See our events calendar <http://nexa.polito.it/events> if you're curious about future luncheons, discussions, lectures, and conferences not listed in this email. Our events are free and open to the public, unless otherwise noted. Responsabile Comunicazione Centro Nexa su Internet & Società: *Anita Botta*, tel: +39 011 090 7219, Mob: +39 347 131 3903, anita.botta(a)polito.it. Maggiori informazioni sui Mercoledì di Nexa e i Nexa Lunch Seminar, sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/events. Weekly Events Newsletter. Sign up <http://nexa.polito.it/mailing-lists> to receive this newsletter if this email was forwarded to you. To manage your subscription preferences, please click here <https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa>. Connect & get involved: Jobs, internships, and more <http://nexa.polito.it/get-involved>. Grazie per l'attenzione, 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

EPIC Report - Screened & Scored in District of Columbia
by Diego.Latella Nov. 2, 2022

Nov. 2, 2022

Dal sito web del report (https://epic.org/screened-scored-in-dc/ ): "The D.C. government outsources critical governmental decisions to automated decision-making systems in areas such as public benefits, healthcare, policing, and housing. As a result, District residents are surveilled, screened, and scored every day. But because of weak government transparency laws, opaque procurement processes, the power and influence of tech vendors, and the decline in local journalism, it has been difficult to uncover the details of how many automated decision-making systems are used in government programs. EPIC spent 14 months investigating the D.C. government's use of automated decision-making systems. This report aims to shed light by providing as comprehensive a view as possible of the many automated decision-making systems that shape the course of District residents' lives." EPIC (Electronic Privacuy Information Center, https://epic.org/ ) e' una delle organizzazioni piu' autorevoli sul diritto alla tutela della privacy. Diego -- Dott. Diego Latella - Senior Researcher CNR/ISTI, Via Moruzzi 1, 56124 Pisa, Italy (http:www.isti.cnr.it [1]) FM&&T Lab. (http://fmt.isti.cnr.it) CNR/GI-STS (http://gists.pi.cnr.it) https://www.isti.cnr.it/People/D.Latella - ph: +390506212982, fax: +390506212040 =================== I don't quite know whether it is especially computer science or its subdiscipline Artificial Intelligence that has such an enormous affection for euphemism. We speak so spectacularly and so readily of computer systems that understand, that see, decide, make judgments, and so on, without ourselves recognizing our own superficiality and immeasurable naivete with respect to these concepts. And, in the process of so speaking, we anesthetise our ability to evaluate the quality of our work and, what is more important, to identify and become conscious of its end use. […] One can't escape this state without asking, again and again: "What do I actually do? What is the final application and use of the products of my work?" and ultimately, "am I content or ashamed to have contributed to this use?" -- Prof. Joseph Weizenbaum ["Not without us", ACM SIGCAS 16(2-3) 2--7 - Aug. 1986] Links: ------ [1] http://www.isti.cnr.it

2 1

Seminario "Algorithmic Fairness Datasets: Supporting Principled Data Practices" | Sala Ciminiera - DAUIN | 7 Novembre 2022, ore 10.30
by Nexa Media Nov. 2, 2022

Nov. 2, 2022

Gentilissime, gentilissimi, Vi invitiamo a partecipare al seminario: /*"Algorithmic Fairness Datasets: Supporting Principled Data Practices"*/, che si terrà *lunedì 7 novembre*, alle ore *10.30*, presso la *Sala Conferenze "Luigi Ciminiera**"* del Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica (*DAUIN*) del Politecnico di Torino, in Corso Castelfidardo, 34/A, Torino. OSPITE DELL'INCONTRO: *Alessandro Fabris* (PhD candidate presso l'Università di Padova). DISCUSSANT: *Gian Antonio Susto* (assistant professor presso l'Università di Padova). Per maggiori informazioni sull'evento consulta la pagina: https://nexa.polito.it/Algorithmic-Fairness-Datasets Grazie per l'attenzione, 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

BigBlueButton e OVirt al Politecnico di Torino
by Giacomo Tesio Nov. 2, 2022

Nov. 2, 2022

Salve Nexa, vi riporto una ottima domanda che mi è stata posta durante una recente tavola rotonda al Linux Day di Bari [1], cui purtroppo non ho saputo rispondere con riferimenti puntuali. Esistono pubblicazioni scientifiche sull'esperienza del Politecnico di Torino con Big Blue Button e OVirt? Per la precisione mi è stato chiesto un Case Study su questa esperienza, in modo da poterla riprodurre in altre Università. Io purtroppo non avevo riferimenti da offrire, ma questo non significa che tali articoli non esistano! Qualcuno può indicarmi studi in proposito? Giacomo [1] http://video.linuxtrent.it/w/3StADd9bQkyaLcWwpbba4W

1 0

Utopie Digitali
by Giuseppe Attardi Nov. 2, 2022

Nov. 2, 2022

Seminario di Cultura Digitale Mercoledì 2 novembre 2022, ore 14:15 Aula PS4 Polo Fibonacci - Pisa Streaming: https://teams.microsoft.com/dl/launcher/launcher.html... <https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fteams.microsoft.com%2Fdl%2Flau…> Utopie Digitali Giuseppe Attardi Secondo il filosofo Yuval Harari la civiltà moderna si basa su realtà immaginarie, tra cui la religione, le nazioni, le aziende, le monete. Gli stati westfaliani nacquero per garantire la sovranità su un certo territorio isolandosi da influenze di altri stati e raggiunsero poteri estremi coi nazionalismi del XX secolo. Con la globalizzazione digitale e l'ideologia neoliberista i loro poteri si sono ridotti, trasferendoli alle grandi aziende private e in parte a organi sovranazionali. Sfruttando la libertà di operare al di fuori da qualunque regolamentazione statale, le Big Tech hanno oggi più potere di molti stati. L’economia delle piattaforme e il capitalismo di sorveglianza le rende in grado di controllare e a volte persino orientare i comportamenti dei loro utenti. Come nel '900 nacquero istituzioni quali sindacati e cooperative per controbilanciare i poteri delle aziende, oggi si potrebbero immaginare delle Utopie Digitali, comunità di persone extra-nazionali, i cui cittadini svolgono le proprie attività aderendo ai principi di base dell’utopia e condividendone i frutti. La registrazione del seminario sarà disponibile su: https://teams.microsoft.com/dl/launcher/launcher.html... <https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fteams.microsoft.com%2Fdl%2Flau…>

1 0

"Truth Cops - Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinformation"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Nov. 1, 2022

Nov. 1, 2022

*Truth Cops** */Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinformation// / Ken Klippenstein, Lee Fang October 31 2022, 10:00 a.m. The Department of Homeland Security is quietly broadening its efforts to curb speech it considers dangerous, an investigation by The Intercept has found. Years of internal DHS memos, emails, and documents — obtained via leaks and an ongoing lawsuit, as well as public documents — illustrate an expansive effort by the agency to influence tech platforms. The work, much of which remains unknown to the American public, came into clearer view earlier this year when DHS announced a new “Disinformation Governance Board”: a panel designed to police misinformation (false information spread unintentionally), disinformation (false information spread intentionally), and malinformation (factual information shared, typically out of context, with harmful intent) that allegedly threatens U.S. interests. While the board was widely ridiculed, immediately scaled back, and then shut down within a few months, other initiatives are underway as DHS pivots to monitoring social media now that its original mandate — the war on terror — has been wound down. Behind closed doors, and through pressure on private platforms, the U.S. government has used its power to try to shape online discourse. According to meeting minutes and other records appended to a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, a Republican who is also running for Senate, discussions have ranged from the scale and scope of government intervention in online discourse to the mechanics of streamlining takedown requests for false or intentionally misleading information. [...] continua qui: https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/

1 0

Il partito dove comanda l'intelligenza artificiale
by Antonio Oct. 31, 2022

Oct. 31, 2022

L'obiettivo di far parlare di sé è riuscito benissimo al collettivo di artisti Computer Lars [1]. I media italiani [2][3][4][5][6], come sempre attentissimi alle ultime novità in fatto di IA, non si sono fatti sfuggire questa chicca del /primo/ partito "guidato da un'intelligenza artificiale". Più interessante degli articoli nostrani è invece l'intervista ad Asker Bryild Staunaes, uno dei promotori [7]. Buona lettura [1] https://computerlars.com/ [2] https://www.lastampa.it/editoriali/lettere-e-idee/2022/08/07/news/il_partit… [3] https://www.corriere.it/tecnologia/22_ottobre_20/partito-intelligenza-artif… [4] https://www.repubblica.it/tecnologia/2022/10/19/news/altro_che_skynet_in_da… [5] https://www.fanpage.it/innovazione/tecnologia/in-danimarca-ce-un-partito-gu… [6] https://www.infodata.ilsole24ore.com/2022/10/25/perche-il-primo-partito-pol… [7] https://www.osicoplatform.com/interview-with-asker-bryild-staunaes-of-the-d…

1 0

Re: [nexa] [DKIM Failed] Re: "It’s time to admit, self-driving cars aren’t going to happen"
by Maria Chiara Pievatolo Oct. 30, 2022

Oct. 30, 2022

On 30/10/22 14:30:27, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > > On October 30, 2022 1:36:58 PM UTC, Daniela Tafani wrote: >> >> Credo però che la riduzione degli uomini a cose sia un gesto politico, più che un errore teorico. > > È naturalmente un gesto politico, ma necesita di un errore teorico per giustificarsi e normalizzarsi. > Non la metterei in termini di aut-aut, ma di et-et (come del resto sostiene anche Daniela Tafani, a leggere la sua ultima risposta). L'errore teorico consiste nel (far?) credere che sia possibile applicare regole note, o avvertire il bisogno di cercarne e trovarne di nuove perché quelle note non bastano, senza che occorra far uso della facoltà di giudicare. Questa facoltà, almeno per Kant (https://btfp.sp.unipi.it/dida/kant_7/ar01s08.xhtml) non può operare secondo regole, perché non ha regole, ma sulle regole delibera, valutando se applicarle, disapplicarle, cercarle. La sua presenza, e la sua indispensabilità, è connessa al carattere sempre prospettico e finito del nostro sapere. Detto più semplicemente, abbiamo bisogno di qualcosa come la facoltà di giudicare per orientarci secondo una mappa (o convincerci che così com'è non ci aiuta e va integrata), perché la mappa è appunto soltanto un tentativo di rappresentare il mondo dal nostro punto di vista e per quel che ne sappiamo, e per usarla - per quante regole per il suo uso possiamo aver ricevuto - alla fine dobbiamo confrontarla, da noi, con l'ambiente. L'errore teorico copre un abuso morale: la pretesa di sottomettere dei soggetti morali - disconoscendo ciò che li rende tali, la loro libertà - a regole rappresentate come applicabili e rinvenibili senza giudizio. Perché affaticarsi a pensare, se tutto funziona da sé? Sarebbe interessante provare a vedere se è possibile leggere il saggio di Kant sull'illuminismo (https://btfp.sp.unipi.it/dida/kant_7/ar01s04.xhtml) come una critica alla minorità cibernetica (*), anche se Kant aveva in mente tutori direttamente umani. Errore teorico e abuso morale si saldano perché critica teorica e libertà di critica si presuppongono a vicenda. Per smascherare l'impostura di un sistema di regole così perfetto che si può applicare senza pensare abbiamo bisogno, appunto, di essere liberi di pensare, e di poterlo fare anche quando ci viene detto che non serve farlo. Buonanotte, MCP (*) Basta guardare l'ultima frase del saggio, riferita da Kant al superamento del dispotismo...

1 0