- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

OpenAI and GEDI announce strategic partnership...

by 380°

Buongiorno, https://www.gedi.it/en/media/news/openai-and-gedi-announce-strategic-partne… --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- OpenAI and GEDI announce strategic partnership to bring Italian-language news content to ChatGPT Press releases 26/09/2024 | 13:37 *26 September, 2024 -* Italian media group, GEDI, and OpenAI, an AI research and deployment company behind ChatGPT, have today announced a strategic partnership to bring Italian-language content from GEDI's portfolio of high-quality news outlets to OpenAI's users. Under the partnership, ChatGPT users will have access to attributed quotes, content and links to GEDI's publications, including La Repubblica and La Stampa. The collaboration will incorporate GEDI's trusted journalism to improve the relevance and accuracy of OpenAI's products, including ChatGPT and the SearchGPT prototype, for users in Italy. The partnership also opens opportunities for both organisations to further collaborate on AI features and applications that can enhance the way readers access and interact with news in Italy. *John Elkann, Chairman of GEDI said:* /"The partnership signed with OpenAI is part of GEDI's digital transformation journey and recognizes its leadership in producing high-quality content within the Italian media landscape. From today, ChatGPT users will be able to rely on articles and in-depth analyses from our publications to obtain top quality information on a wide range of topics, with a special focus on the Italian context. This agreement also allows GEDI to reach a broader international audience, thanks to the advanced translation capabilities developed by ChatGPT."/ *Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI :* /“It's important we work with publishers around the world so everyone can have access to accurate, reliable information in their own language. This partnership acknowledges GEDIs high quality journalism and enhances the ChatGPT experience for millions of people in Italy and around the world“./ --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- É l'editore GEDI che fornirà accesso alle _sue_ notizie, non il contrario neh! ...almeno fino a quando OpenAI (o come lo chiamerà il military-industrial complex) non sarà /direttamente/ l'editore :-O 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>.

Sept. 27, 2024

OSI: We heard you: let’s focus on substantive discussion

by Giacomo Tesio

Salve Nexa, vi segnalo un nuovo thread [0] avviato dal community manager di OSI in cui si invita la comunità ad elencare i problemi ancora presenti nella bozza 0.0.9 della Open Source AI definition [1]. Il thread è titolato "We heard you: let’s focus on substantive discussion". [2] Si è rivelato piuttosto interessante, a tratti sorprendente, soprattutto per l'analisi dei meccanismi decisionali del gruppo di lavoro, tutt'altro che convenzionali. [3] Al momento comunque, i problemi emersi sono: - Data transparency: The data used to train an AI system should be openly available, as it’s essential for understanding and improving the model. - Pretraining dataset distribution: The dataset used for pre-training should also be accessible to ensure transparency and allow for further development. - Dataset documentation: The documentation for training datasets should be thorough and accurate to address potential issues. - Versioning: To maintain consistency and reproducibility, versioned data is crucial for training AI systems. - Open licensing: Data used to train Open Source AI systems should be licensed under an open license. - Reproducibility: an Open Source AI must be reproducible using the original training data, scripts, logs and everything else used by the original developer. - Inherent user (in)security: without access to the whole training data, it’s possible to plant undetectable backdoors in machine learning Models. - Implicit or Unspecified formal requirements: if ambiguities in the OSAID will be solved for each candidate AI system though a formal certificate issued by OSI, such formal requirement should be explicitly stated in the OSAID. - OSI as a single point of failure: since each new version of each candidate Open Source AI system world wide should undergo to the certification process again, this would turn OSI to a vulnerable bottleneck in AI development, that would be the target of unprecedented lobbying from the industry. - Open Washing AI: any definition that a black box could pass would both damage the credibility the whole open source ecosystem, and open a huge loophole in the european normative (the AI Act). Tutti i problemi in questione sono ampiamente documentati nel thread o negli altri thread collegati, tuttavia se avete osservato altri problemi o se voleste commentare su di essi, vi suggerisco di proporli al più presto. Giacomo PS: Guarda caso, tutti i problemi emersi sono risolvibili richiedendo la disponibilità dei dati di training, come proposto nel thread chiuso dallo stesso comunity manager dopo avermi silenziato [4] [0] https://discuss.opensource.org/t/we-heard-you-lets-focus-on-substantive-dis… [1] https://opensource.org/deepdive/drafts [2] dice proprio "ascoltare", ma alcuni utenti sono ancora silenziati [3] https://discuss.opensource.org/t/we-heard-you-lets-focus-on-substantive-dis… [4] https://discuss.opensource.org/t/rfc-separating-concerns-between-source-dat…

Sept. 26, 2024

FTC Announces Crackdown on Deceptive AI Claims and Schemes

by Daniela Tafani

FTC Announces Crackdown on Deceptive AI Claims and Schemes With Operation AI Comply, agency announces five law enforcement actions against operations that use AI hype or sell AI technology that can be used in deceptive and unfair ways September 25, 2024 The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against multiple companies that have relied on artificial intelligence as a way to supercharge deceptive or unfair conduct that harms consumers, as part of its new law enforcement sweep called Operation AI Comply. The cases being announced today include actions against a company promoting an AI tool that enabled its customers to create fake reviews, a company claiming to sell “AI Lawyer” services, and multiple companies claiming that they could use AI to help consumers make money through online storefronts. “Using AI tools to trick, mislead, or defraud people is illegal,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “The FTC’s enforcement actions make clear that there is no AI exemption from the laws on the books. By cracking down on unfair or deceptive practices in these markets, FTC is ensuring that honest businesses and innovators can get a fair shot and consumers are being protected.” Claims around artificial intelligence have become more prevalent in the marketplace, including frequent promises about the ways it could potentially enhance people’s lives through automation and problem solving. The cases included in this sweep show that firms have seized on the hype surrounding AI and are using it to lure consumers into bogus schemes, and are also providing AI powered tools that can turbocharge deception. DoNotPay The FTC is taking action against DoNotPay, a company that claimed to offer an AI service that was “the world’s first robot lawyer,” but the product failed to live up to its lofty claims that the service could substitute for the expertise of a human lawyer. According to the FTC’s complaint, DoNotPay promised that its service would allow consumers to “sue for assault without a lawyer” and “generate perfectly valid legal documents in no time,” and that the company would “replace the $200-billion-dollar legal industry with artificial intelligence.” DoNotPay, however, could not deliver on these promises. The complaint alleges that the company did not conduct testing to determine whether its AI chatbot’s output was equal to the level of a human lawyer, and that the company itself did not hire or retain any attorneys. The complaint also alleges that DoNotPay offered a service that would check a small business website for hundreds of federal and state law violations based solely on the consumer’s email address. This feature purportedly would detect legal violations that, if unaddressed, would potentially cost a small business $125,000 in legal fees, but according to the complaint, this service was also not effective. DoNotPay has agreed to a proposed Commission order settling the charges against it. The settlement would require it to pay $193,000, provide a notice to consumers who subscribed to the service between 2021 and 2023 warning them about the limitations of law-related features on the service. The proposed order also will prohibit the company from making claims about its ability to substitute for any professional service without evidence to back it up. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to issue the complaint and proposed administrative order was 5-0. Commissioner Holyoak issued a concurring statement joined by Chair Lina M. Khan. Commissioner Ferguson also issued a concurring statement. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register soon. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Instructions for filing comments appear in the published notice. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov. Ascend Ecom The FTC has filed a lawsuit against an online business opportunity scheme that it alleges has falsely claimed its “cutting edge” AI-powered tools would help consumers quickly earn thousands of dollars a month in passive income by opening online storefronts. According to the complaint, the scheme has defrauded consumers of at least $25 million. The scheme is run by William Basta and Kenneth Leung, and it has operated under a number of different names since 2021, including Ascend Ecom, Ascend Ecommerce, Ascend CapVentures, ACV Partners, ACV, Accelerated eCom Ventures, Ethix Capital by Ascend, and ACV Nexus. According to the FTC’s complaint, the operators of the scheme charge consumers tens of thousands of dollars to start online stores on ecommerce platforms such as Amazon, Walmart, Etsy, and TikTok, while also requiring them to spend tens of thousands more on inventory. Ascend’s advertising content claimed the company was a leader in ecommerce, using proprietary software and artificial intelligence to maximize clients’ business success. The complaint notes that, while Ascend promises consumers it will create stores producing five-figure monthly income by the second year, for nearly all consumers, the promised gains never materialize, and consumers are left with depleted bank accounts and hefty credit card bills. The complaint alleges that Ascend received numerous complaints from consumers, pressured consumers to modify or delete negative reviews of Ascend, frequently failed to honor their “guaranteed buyback,” and unlawfully threatened to withhold the supposed “guaranteed buyback” for those who left negative reviews of the company online. As a result of the FTC’s complaint, a federal court issued an order temporarily halting the scheme and putting it under the control of a receiver. The FTC’s case against the scheme is ongoing and will be decided by a federal court. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Ecommerce Empire Builders The FTC has charged a business opportunity scheme with falsely claiming to help consumers build an “AI-powered Ecommerce Empire” by participating in its training programs that can cost almost $2,000 or by buying a “done for you” online storefront for tens of thousands of dollars. The scheme, known as Ecommerce Empire Builders (EEB), claims consumers can potentially make millions of dollars, but the FTC’s complaint alleges that those profits fail to materialize. The complaint alleges that EEB’s CEO, Peter Prusinowski, has used consumers’ money – as much as $35,000 from consumers who purchase stores – to enrich himself while failing to deliver on the scheme’s promises of big income by selling goods online. In its marketing, EEB encourages consumers to “Skip the guesswork and start a million-dollar business today” by harnessing the “power of artificial intelligence” and the scheme’s supposed strategies. In social media ads, EEB claims that its clients can make $10,000 monthly, but the FTC’s complaint alleges that the company has no evidence to back up those claims. Numerous consumers have complained that stores they purchased from EEB made little or no money, and that the company has resisted providing refunds to consumers, either denying refunds or only providing partial refunds. As a result of the FTC’s complaint, a federal court issued an order temporarily halting the scheme and putting it under the control of a receiver. The FTC’s case against the scheme is ongoing and will be decided by a federal court. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint against Prusinowski and his company was 5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Rytr Since April 2021, Rytr has marketed and sold an AI “writing assistant” service for a number of uses, one of which was specifically “Testimonial & Review” generation. Paid subscribers could generate an unlimited number of detailed consumer reviews based on very limited and generic input. According to the FTC’s complaint, Rytr’s service generated detailed reviews that contained specific, often material details that had no relation to the user’s input, and these reviews almost certainly would be false for the users who copied them and published them online. In many cases, subscribers’ AI-generated reviews featured information that would deceive potential consumers who were using the reviews to make purchasing decisions. The complaint further alleges that at least some of Rytr’s subscribers used the service to produce hundreds, and in some cases tens of thousands, of reviews potentially containing false information. The complaint charges Rytr with violating the FTC Act by providing subscribers with the means to generate false and deceptive written content for consumer reviews. The complaint also alleges that Rytr engaged in an unfair business practice by offering a service that is likely to pollute the marketplace with a glut of fake reviews that would harm both consumers and honest competitors. The proposed order settling the Commission’s complaint is designed to prevent Rytr from engaging in similar illegal conduct in the future. It would bar the company from advertising, promoting, marketing, or selling any service dedicated to – or promoted as – generating consumer reviews or testimonials. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to issue the complaint and proposed administrative order was 3-2, with Commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Andrew Ferguson voting no. Commissioners Holyoak and Ferguson issued statements. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register soon. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Instructions for filing comments appear in the published notice. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov. FBA Machine In June, the FTC took action against a business opportunity scheme that allegedly falsely promised consumers that they would make guaranteed income through online storefronts that utilized AI-powered software. According to the FTC, the scheme, which has operated under the names Passive Scaling and FBA Machine, cost consumers more than $15.9 million based on deceptive earnings claims that rarely, if ever, materialize. The complaint alleges that Bratislav Rozenfeld (also known as Steven Rozenfeld and Steven Rozen) has operated the scheme since 2021, initially as Passive Scaling. When Passive Scaling failed to live up to its promises and consumers sought refunds and brought lawsuits, Rozenfeld rebranded the scheme as FBA Machine in 2023. The rebranded marketing materials claim that FBA Machine uses “AI-powered” tools to help price products in the stores and maximize profits. The scheme’s claims were wide-ranging, promising consumers that they could operate a “7-figure business” and citing supposed testimonials from clients who “generate over $100,000 per month in profit.” Company sales agents told consumers that the business was “risk-free” and falsely guaranteed refunds to consumers who did not make back their initial investments, which ranged from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. As a result of the FTC’s complaint, a federal court issued an order temporarily halting the scheme and putting it under the control of a receiver. The case against the scheme is still under way and will be decided by a federal court. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint against Rozenfeld and a number of companies involved in the scheme was 5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Operation AI Comply cases being announced today build on a number of recent FTC cases involving claims about artificial intelligence, including: Automators, another online storefront scheme; Career Step, a company that allegedly used AI technology to convince consumers to enroll in bogus career training; NGL Labs, a company that allegedly claimed to use AI to provide moderation in an anonymous messaging app it unlawfully marketed to children; Rite Aid, which allegedly used AI facial recognition technology in its stores without reasonable safeguards; and CRI Genetics, a company that allegedly deceived users about the accuracy of its DNA reports, including claims it used an AI algorithm to conduct genetic matching. The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition and protect and educate consumers. The FTC will never demand money, make threats, tell you to transfer money, or promise you a prize. Learn more about consumer topics at consumer.ftc.gov, or report fraud, scams, and bad business practices at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. Follow the FTC on social media, read consumer alerts and the business blog, and sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts. <https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/ftc-announces-c…>

Sept. 26, 2024

Seminario "Uncertainty, justice, jury trial, poker (but not for gambling purposes)", con il Prof. Charles Nesson (Harvard University) | 30 settembre 2024, ore 16.00

by Nexa - Media

Gentilissime, gentilissimi, Vi invitiamo a partecipare al seminario dal titolo "Uncertainty, justice, jury trial, poker (but not for gambling purposes)", con la partecipazione del Prof. Charles Nesson (Harvard University e garante del Centro Nexa). L'incontro si terrà lunedì 30 settembre dalle ore 16.00 alle ore 18.00, presso l'aula H2 (edificio D4, II piano) del Campus Luigi Einaudi - Lungo Dora Siena, 100, Torino<https://www.google.com/maps/place/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x47887281e1311a15:0xd605…>. Per maggiori informazioni è possibile consultare la pagina web dedicata all'incontro: https://nexa.polito.it/2024-nesson<https://nexa.polito.it/2024-nesson/> Vi ringraziamo per l'attenzione, Cordiali saluti, -- Valeria Bergantino Communication Manager Nexa Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino - DAUIN Via Pier Carlo Boggio, 65/A - 10138 Torino web: https://nexa.polito.it/ mail: valeria.bergantino(a)polito.it<mailto:valeria.bergantino@polito.it> tel: 3473443585

Sept. 26, 2024

Shigeru Miyamoto comments on AI, says “Nintendo would rather go in a different direction”

by Daniela Tafani

Shigeru Miyamoto comments on AI, says “Nintendo would rather go in a different direction” Posted on July 4, 2024 by Brian(@NE_Brian) in General Nintendo, News The rise of AI has been prominent including in the gaming industry and development of projects, but Mario and Zelda creator Shigeru Miyamoto doesn’t seem overly interested in the technology at the moment. The New York Times relayed a few comments from Miyamoto, who was in attendance for a media event at the upcoming Nintendo Museum in Japan. It will officially open its doors in Kyoto on October 2. As far as the AI comments are concerned, Miyamoto was discussing Nintendo’s general approach and looking to find what makes the company special. While more and more companies are moving towards that tech, “Nintendo would rather go in a different direction.” Miyamoto’s full words are as follows (provided by The New York Times): “It might seem like we are just going the opposite direction for the sake of going in the opposite direction, but it really is trying to find what makes Nintendo special. There is a lot of talk about A.I., for example. When that happens, everyone starts to go in the same direction, but that is where Nintendo would rather go in a different direction.” <https://nintendoeverything.com/shigeru-miyamoto-comments-on-ai-says-nintend…> <https://nintendoeverything.com/nintendo-comments-on-generative-ai/>

Sept. 26, 2024

Re: [nexa] Hype, Sustainability, and the Price of the Bigger-is-Better Paradigm in AI

by Gianluca Fasano

Molto interessante, grazie Daniela. Buona giornata, Gianluca Il 26/09/24 09:10, Daniela Tafani ha scritto: > Hype, Sustainability, and the Price of the Bigger-is-Better Paradigm in AI > Gaël Varoquaux, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, Meredith Whittaker > September 21, 2024 > > Abstract > With the growing attention and investment in recent AI approaches such as large language models, the narrative that the larger the AI system the more valuable, powerful and interesting it is is increasingly seen as common sense. But what is this assumption based on, and how are we measuring value, power, and performance? And what are the collateral consequences of this race to ever-increasing scale? Here, we scrutinize the current scaling trends and trade-offs across multiple axes and refute two common assumptions underlying the 'bigger-is-better' AI paradigm: 1) that improved performance is a product of increased scale, and 2) that all interesting problems addressed by AI require large-scale models. Rather, we argue that this approach is not only fragile scientifically, but comes with undesirable consequences. First, it is not sustainable, as its compute demands increase faster than model performance, leading to unreasonable economic requirements and a disproportionate environmental footprint. Second, it implies focusing on certain problems at the expense of others, leaving aside important applications, e.g. health, education, or the climate. Finally, it exacerbates a concentration of power, which centralizes decision-making in the hands of a few actors while threatening to disempower others in the context of shaping both AI research and its applications throughout society. > > <https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.14160>

Sept. 26, 2024

Hype, Sustainability, and the Price of the Bigger-is-Better Paradigm in AI

by Daniela Tafani

Hype, Sustainability, and the Price of the Bigger-is-Better Paradigm in AI Gaël Varoquaux, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, Meredith Whittaker September 21, 2024 Abstract With the growing attention and investment in recent AI approaches such as large language models, the narrative that the larger the AI system the more valuable, powerful and interesting it is is increasingly seen as common sense. But what is this assumption based on, and how are we measuring value, power, and performance? And what are the collateral consequences of this race to ever-increasing scale? Here, we scrutinize the current scaling trends and trade-offs across multiple axes and refute two common assumptions underlying the 'bigger-is-better' AI paradigm: 1) that improved performance is a product of increased scale, and 2) that all interesting problems addressed by AI require large-scale models. Rather, we argue that this approach is not only fragile scientifically, but comes with undesirable consequences. First, it is not sustainable, as its compute demands increase faster than model performance, leading to unreasonable economic requirements and a disproportionate environmental footprint. Second, it implies focusing on certain problems at the expense of others, leaving aside important applications, e.g. health, education, or the climate. Finally, it exacerbates a concentration of power, which centralizes decision-making in the hands of a few actors while threatening to disempower others in the context of shaping both AI research and its applications throughout society. <https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.14160>

Sept. 26, 2024

Re: [nexa] "Contro lo smartphone: Per una tecnologia più democratica" disponibile liberamente online

by J.C. DE MARTIN

No, ho scelto (come avevo già fatto per il mio precedente libro, "Università futura") di rendere disponibile solo il PDF, con l'intento di incoraggiare l'acquisto dell'ebook (e del cartaceo). In altre parole, chi può sostenga editori (ADD e Codice, rispettivamente) che, oltre a essere meritevoli in generale, hanno accettato di pubblicare i miei libri con licenza Creative Commons. In ogni caso, chi non può fare l'acquisto, ora può comunque leggere il libro grazie al PDF. juan carlos On 24/09/24 21:28, B. J. via nexa wrote: > Grazie della segnalazione e di aver reso il libro open access. E' o > sarà disponibile anche una versione EPUB per favorirne la lettura > accessibile (font e colori)? > > Cordialmente, > > B. > / > / > > > On Tuesday, September 24th, 2024 at 4:30 PM, Nexa - Media > <media(a)nexa.polito.it> wrote: >> >> Gentilissime, gentilissimi, >> >> Siamo lieti di comunicarvi che l’ultimo libro del co-direttore del >> Centro Nexa Juan Carlos De Martin, dal titolo “*Contro lo smartphone: >> Per una tecnologia più democratica*”, è ora *disponibile liberamente >> online*, scaricabile al link che segue: >> https://demartin.polito.it/pubblicazioni >> >> Vi ricordiamo inoltre che il libro è acquistabile dal sito di Add >> Editore >> (https://www.addeditore.it/catalogo/juan-carlos-de-martin-contro-lo-smartpho…) >> e presso tutte le librerie. >> >> Cordiali saluti, >> >> -- >> >> Valeria Bergantino >> >> Communication Manager >> >> Nexa Center for Internet & Society >> >> Politecnico di Torino - DAUIN >> >> Via Pier Carlo Boggio, 65/A - 10138 Torino >> >> >> web: https://nexa.polito.it/ <https://nexa.polito.it/> >> mail: valeria.bergantino(a)polito.it <mailto:valeria.bergantino@polito.it> >> tel: 3473443585 >> >

Sept. 25, 2024

Re: [nexa] "Cambio di policy in Telegram, cederà IP e numeri telefonici alle autorità quando richiesto"

by Damiano Verzulli

Il 24/09/24 5:21 PM, J.C. DE MARTIN ha scritto: > *Cambio di policy in Telegram, cederà IP e numeri telefonici alle > autorità quando richiesto > * > /A meno di un mese dal suo arresto, Pavel Durov cambia i termini di > contratto e lo comunica con un post sul social/ > > [...] > Da oggi l’*app *di messaggistica, *fornirà* gli *indirizzi IP* e i > *numeri di telefono* degli utenti a*lle autorità competenti* nel caso > di *valide richieste legali*. > [...] > La piattaforma non si era mai dimostrata molto collaborativa con le > autorità in nessuna parte del mondo, cosa che aveva spesso *consentito > l'utilizzo* dell'app di messaggistica da parte di *gruppi criminali* > ed *estremisti*. > [...] > Trovo l'articolo un po' "sopra le righe". Non mi piace il messaggio latente che lascia passare, del tipo: "Durov, prima era buono... ora è cattivo". La "collaborazione" fra Telegram e varie autorità giudiziarie di vari paesi (inclusa l'Italia) è nota da tempo e sono stati diversi i casi in cui *esplicitamente* le nostre forze di polizia dichiaravano di aver "sequestrato" un canale o un gruppo Telegram [1]. Per chi, come noi, qui, ha una idea abbastanza precisa dell'argomento... è chiaro che senza la collaborazione esplicita di Durov, tali "sequestri" non erano fattibili (perchè nella realta', piu' che di sequestri da parte delle autorita' italiane, si è trattato di "chiusure" operate da Durov [su richiesta delle autorita']). Ma il punto che vorrei sollevare è un altro: cosa dovrebbe fare Durov, se opera "legalmente" in un Paese, e le autorita' di quel Paese gli impongono delle richieste? Detto in altri termini: se arrivano le forze di polizia in una sede di Telegram ed hanno, con se, un mandato di un giudice che dice: "Carissimo, ho bisogno dei dati dell'utente pinco-pallo", lui che dovrebbe fare? Per me, è sempre stato ovvio che a tali richieste si desse seguito. E su questo, ho sempre attribuito a Durov il livello di fiducia necessario a distinguere le richieste "serie" da quelle "folkloristiche"... (aka: le richieste che arrivano dall'AD di Facebook, o da Musk... mi sono convinto che le cestina). Piu' vicino a noi, c'e' stato un pregresso similmente interessante con Proton: pur essendo esplicitamente paladini della segretezza e della riservatezza... quando messi di fronte ad un ordine della magistratura svizzera, non hanno potuto non collaborare. Le mail erano cifrate (e quindi non potevano essere lette), ma risalire all'IP del titolare, magari previa attivazione di meccanismi di logging ad-hoc che avrebbero catturato i dati all'accesso successivo... era fattibile... ed e' stato fatto [2]. Ma tutto cio' e' realmente qualcosa "di negativo"? ...secondo me, no. Sbaglio? Saluti, DV [1] https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=sequestro+canale+telegram&ia=web [2] https://proton.me/blog/climate-activist-arrest -- Damiano Verzulli e-mail:damiano@verzulli.it --- possible?ok:while(!possible){open_mindedness++} --- "...I realized that free software would not generate the kind of income that was needed. Maybe in USA or Europe, you may be able to get a well paying job as a free software developer, but not here [in Africa]..." -- Guido Sohne - 1973-2008 http://ole.kenic.or.ke/pipermail/skunkworks/2008-April/005989.html

Sept. 24, 2024

Re: [nexa] "Contro lo smartphone: Per una tecnologia più democratica" disponibile liberamente online

by B. J.

Grazie della segnalazione e di aver reso il libro open access. E' o sarà disponibile anche una versione EPUB per favorirne la lettura accessibile (font e colori)? Cordialmente, B. On Tuesday, September 24th, 2024 at 4:30 PM, Nexa - Media <media(a)nexa.polito.it> wrote: > Gentilissime, gentilissimi, > > Siamo lieti di comunicarvi che l’ultimo libro del co-direttore del Centro Nexa Juan Carlos De Martin, dal titolo “Contro lo smartphone: Per una tecnologia più democratica”, è ora disponibile liberamente online, scaricabile al link che segue: https://demartin.polito.it/pubblicazioni > > Vi ricordiamo inoltre che il libro è acquistabile dal sito di Add Editore (https://www.addeditore.it/catalogo/juan-carlos-de-martin-contro-lo-smartpho…) e presso tutte le librerie. > > Cordiali saluti, > > -- > > Valeria Bergantino > > Communication Manager > > Nexa Center for Internet & Society > > Politecnico di Torino - DAUIN > > Via Pier Carlo Boggio, 65/A - 10138 Torino > > > web: https://nexa.polito.it/ > mail: valeria.bergantino(a)polito.it > tel: 3473443585

Sept. 24, 2024