- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Fw: [Creis_Terminal] A history of virulence

by Mariella Berra

----- Original Message ----- From: "Mariella Berra" <mariella.berra(a)unito.it> To: <nexa-server(a)server-nexa.polito.it> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:35 AM Subject: Fw: [Creis_Terminal] A history of virulence > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "antonio.casilli(a)gmail.com" <antonio.casilli(a)googlemail.com> > To: <creis_terminal(a)lecreis.org> > Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:12 AM > Subject: [Creis_Terminal] A history of virulence > > > Bonjour, > > pour ceux d'entre vous qui travaillent sur les hackers, mais aussi pour > ceux qui travaillent sur le marketing viral, mais aussi pour ceux qui > travaillent sur le militantisme en ligne... bref, j'ai mis en ligne un > drôle de texte. C'est un essai de 36 pages (on connaît mon don de la > synthèse) qui va paraître dans le numéro de décembre 2010 (vol. 16 n. 2) > de la revue 'Body & Society' (Sage). > > Il est d'ores et déjà disponible sur mon blog : > > A History of Virulence: The Body and Computer Culture in the 1980s (part > 1) > http://www.bodyspacesociety.eu/2010/10/15/a-history-of-virulence-the-body-a… > > A History of Virulence: The Body and Computer Culture in the 1980s (part > 2 – with illustrations and references) > http://www.bodyspacesociety.eu/2010/10/18/a-history-of-virulence-the-body-a… > > Bonne lecture à tou(te)s et n'hésitez pas à transmettre à vos listes de > contacts, > ---a > _______________________________________________ > Creis_terminal mailing list > Creis_terminal(a)lecreis.org > https://listes.globenet.org/listinfo/creis_terminal > >

Oct. 19, 2010

invio di un link

by Mariella Berra

Cari amici di Nexa, vi comunico che all'indirizzo:http://hdl.handle.net/2318/702 è disponibile il rapporto di ricerca del progetto Dipartimento di Scienze Sociali, Gruppo didattico del Politecnico e Scienza della Formazione ,finanziato dalla CRT sulla"Divulgazione della cultura umanistica e scientifica" Esso rigurada la analisi di esperienze di didattica collaborativa nelle scuola e la diffusione sotto CPldelle pubblicazioni del Dipartimento. Un caro saluto Mb

Oct. 19, 2010

Key4biz: "Wi-Fi libero: abolizione del decreto Pisanu in prossimo Cdm"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

*Wi-Fi libero: abolizione del decreto Pisanu in prossimo Cdm, mentre il ministro Brunetta promette 'l'Atlante dell'innovazione'* Il prossimo Consiglio dei ministri dovrebbe esaminare l'abrogazione dell'art. 7 del *decreto ** legge 155/2005 ** * <http://www.camera.it/parlam/leggi/05155l.htm> *(Decreto Pisanu)* sull'obbligatorietà del deposito dei dati anagrafici sulle reti *Wi-Fi*. Lo ha reso noto il ministro* Renato Brunetta* a Venezia a margine del convegno "La sfida Europa 2020", organizzato dalla Presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri e dall'Agenzia per la diffusione delle tecnologie per l'innovazione. La questione era stata sollevata nelle scorse settimane da *Paolo Gentiloni *(PD), *Luca Barbareschi* (FLI), *Linda Lanzillotta* (API) e *Roberto Rao* (UDC), che hanno presentato una * proposta di legge <http://www.key4biz.it/files/000149/00014943.doc>* mirante ad abolire l'articolo 7 della legge, [...] Continua qui: http://www.key4biz.it/News/2010/10/18/Policy/Renato_Brunetta_WiFi_Barbaresc…

Oct. 18, 2010

LAPSI position paper on boosting cultural heritage on line

by Cristiana Sappa

Dear All, LAPSI Thematic Network submitted an answer to the Consultation on behalf of the Comité des Sages on boosting cultural heritage on line a couple of weeks ago. This is to inform you that In addition to that LAPSI took the chance to raise a number of related and additional issues in a position paper that you find on LAPSI website: http://www.lapsi-project.eu/archive/LAPSIrelatedmaterial Kind Regards, Cristiana Sappa LAPSI and EVPSI project manager

Oct. 18, 2010

wifi in olanda

by Stefano Quintarelli

Il portavoce del regolatore olandese, OPTA, ha detto che gli alberghi che offrono WIFI devono registrarsi quali operatori di telecomunicazioni. Non e' che ci sono solo i 250 euro di contributo annui, come scrive l'articolo. Ci sono le carte dei diritti degli utenti, le norme sulla privacy, le prestazioni di giustizia, le tenute dei log, ecc. ecc... http://is.gd/g6zh4 -- blog.quintarelli.it www.eximia.it www.reeplay.it

Oct. 18, 2010

Fwd: [ NNSquad ] The Zombie Network: Beware 'Free Public WiFi'

by Stefano Quintarelli

> ----- Forwarded message from Monty Solomon <monty(a)roscom.com> ----- > > Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 11:31:34 -0400 > From: Monty Solomon <monty(a)roscom.com> > Subject: The Zombie Network: Beware 'Free Public WiFi' > To: undisclosed-recipient: ; > > > The Zombie Network: Beware 'Free Public WiFi' > by TRAVIS LARCHUK > > October 9, 2010 > > It's in your airports, your coffee shops and your libraries: "Free > Public WiFi." > > Despite its enticing name, the network, available in thousands of > locations across the United States, does not actually provide access > to the Internet. But like a virus, it has spread - and may even be > lurking on your computer right now. > > Wireless security expert Joshua Wright first noticed it about four > years ago at an airport. > > "I went to connect to an available wireless network and I saw this > option, Free Public WiFi," he remembers. "As I looked more and more, > I saw this in more and more locations. And I was aware from my job > and analysis in the field that this wasn't a sanctioned, provisioned > wireless network, but it was actually something rogue." > > Free Public WiFi isn't set up like most wireless networks people use > to get to the Internet. Instead, it's an "ad hoc" network - meaning > when a user selects it, he or she isn't connecting to a router or hot > spot, but rather directly to someone else's computer in the area. > > Though it doesn't actually provide Internet access, the network has > spread across the country thanks to an old Windows XP bug. > > ... > > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130451369 > > > http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=… > > http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=130451369 > > > ----- End forwarded message -----

Oct. 17, 2010

Update: Dutch regulator OPTA threatens hotels offering internet to guests

by Stefano Quintarelli

Update: Dutch regulator OPTA threatens hotels offering internet to guests Update 14-10: Only 10 hotel. chains were asked. If some of them route their own internet traffic, ie have an AS number and routable traffic, then it may be that they do have to register. But it's a big if. See Webwereld, where I perform as a pundit Just when I was writing a longer blogpost on the outdated distinction between public and private telecoms networks (related to M2M), here comes the Dutch regulator OPTA with a reason why we should have some form distinction. OPTA is of the opinion, after a public network complained, that hotels are offering a public network if they are offering internet to their guests. This means these hotels have to register with OPTA and pay 250 euro a year. What I find shocking is that OPTA isn't able to conclude by itself that the complaining public network was completely and utterly wrong. I also wonder why McDonalds wasn't mentioned as a major infringer. What it also means, and what the press didn't pick up on, is that, according to OPTA, hotels would have to build in lawful interception facilities for the police in hotel networks. (Doesn't mean the police can start an intercept remotely. Just that the hotel would need to have a contract with a commercial organization who, when a warrant comes, would deliver a box to the hotel that would encrypt and transfer intercepted traffic to the police.) All in all this goes way beyond what most of us envisioned the new regulatory framework for telecoms in the EU to entail. Even the Minister of Economic Affairs saw things rather different in 2003 when he was asked questions on a similar matter with so called "calling shops": small shops where customers can call the rest of the world/third world at discounted rates. The text looks awfully familiar to me, but that might have been because I was working as a civil servant at the ministry in 2003 on lawful interception. :-) The basic reasoning is that as hotels aren't involved in the routing of traffic and just mere endpoints they are not providers of public telecommunications networks and services. If they would route and switch it, it might become different. (Apart from this, many hotels only resell a service delivered by the likes of KPN or Swisscom. The customer enters into a contract with KPN or Swisscom and the hotel receives a kickback, so that certainly rules out hotels as telecom providers) The quotes in Dutch are: De Minister van Economische Zaken is niet voornemens de OPTA op te dragen het toezicht uit te breiden naar belhuizen. In het Van Traa rapport worden onjuiste aannames gedaan omtrent registratieverplichting van belhuizen in het kader van de Telecommunicatiewet en tevens omtrent toezichtstaken van de OPTA op integriteit van de netwerken. De OPTA is een zelfstandig bestuursorgaan dat toezicht houdt op de bepalingen uit de Telecommunicatiewet en de Postwet. Het gaat daarbij om bestuurlijk toezicht. Het is geen taak van de OPTA strafbare feiten op te sporen of de openbare orde te handhaven. Uiteraard kan de OPTA indien zij over aanwijzingen beschikt dat er sprake is van strafbare feiten aangifte doen bij de politie. Voor aanbieders van openbare telecommunicatie-diensten en openbare telecommunicatienetwerken geldt op grond van de Telecommunicatiewet een verplichting zich te registreren bij de OPTA. Deze registratie heeft primair als doel het de OPTA te vergemakkelijken om het aan haar opgedragen bestuurlijke toezicht te houden. Immers door de registratie weet de OPTA wie er op «de markt» zijn. Of een belhuis verplicht is zich te laten registreren hangt onder meer af van de vraag of de dienst die wordt geboden geheel of hoofdzakelijk bestaat in het overbrengen van signalen via elektronische communicatienetwerken. In die gevallen waar een belhuis zelf een deel van het transport verzorgt zal daarvan sprake zijn en dient het belhuis zich te registreren. De typische dienst van een belhuis bestaat echter uit niet veel meer dan het beschikbaar stellen van een ruimte met enkele telefoontoestellen waarmee, omdat deze zijn aangesloten op het telecommunicatienetwerk van een (registratieplichtige) aanbieder, kan worden getelefoneerd. Is dat het geval dan is er dus geen plicht tot registratie. Zonder registratieplicht is er geen wettelijke grondslag om (deze) bedrijven toch te registreren, en zijn dwangsommen dus niet aan de orde. De bestaande grondslag in de wet zou dan eerst moeten worden verruimd. Een complicatie zou daarbij zijn dat er een hele categorie bedrijven bestaat die naar de aard van telecommunicatie eigenlijk niet zijn te onderscheiden van belhuizen bijvoorbeeld wanneer ze in hun lokaliteit een betaaltelefoon hebben geïnstalleerd (restaurants, cafés, snackbars, kappers, computershops, hotels enz., waarschijnlijk tienduizenden of meer) of internetcafés. Naar het oordeel van de Minister van Economische Zaken zou deze poging tot registratie van deze gehele groep een buitenproportionele maatregel zijn. In elk geval zouden daarmee aanzienlijke nieuwe administratieve lasten worden geïntroduceerd. Het zou in verband daarmee tot gevolg hebben dat veel openbare betaaltelefoons waarschijnlijk zullen worden verwijderd, en dat intenetcafés zullen stoppen (omdat het voor sommigen dan te veel rompslomp wordt en omdat registratie waarschijnlijk ook niet kosteloos kan) hetgeen maatschappelijk zeer ongewenst is. En dit staat ook allemaal nog los van de vraag of registratie bij OPTA een belhuis zou hinderen om malafide activiteiten te entameren. Een eventuele registratie van belhuizen voegt weinig toe aan de mogelijkheden van politie en openbaar ministerie bij de opsporing en vervolging van strafbare feiten. Kortom, de telecommunicatiecontext van belhuizen biedt volgens de Minister van Economische Zaken geen bruikbare aanknopingspunten voor het aanpakken van problemen zoals door u genoemd. The longer post on public and private networks is related to the M2M work and will follow later. I did find out today that VON Europe had asked BEREC to remove the distinction between public and private networks for numbering issues, but so far hasn't gotten anywhere. Not a happy thought. -- www.reeplay.it www.eximia.it

Oct. 16, 2010

aumento prezzi delle adsl

by Stefano Quintarelli

http://is.gd/g1DPN aumento dei prezzi delle adsl in vista, a meno che non si faccia sentire che ci sono degli occhi attenti... vi prego pertanto di leggere e far leggere. beninteso, i prezzi dovranno aumentare, come spiegavo l'altra sera; accadrà. ma se accade deve essere conformemente alle regole, magari facendone di nuove. non maneggiando l'applicazione delle regole attuali. ciao, s. -- www.reeplay.it www.eximia.it

Oct. 15, 2010

Musica impegnata, ecologista e con "licenza DOC"

by a.dicorinto＠uniroma1.it

Oct. 15, 2010

The Atlantic: "A Shift on the First Amendment and Internet Speech"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

A Shift on the First Amendment and Internet Speech By Garrett Epps William Shakespeare would have liked Justice Stephen Breyer. At oral argument, Breyer does not just hurl tendentious questions at hapless counsel. Like Hamlet, he likes to hear himself think. The most significant moment in Wednesday's bizarre oral argument <http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/09-751.pdf> in /Snyder v. Phelps/, the Westboro Baptist Church funeral-picketing case, may be this question from Breyer to Sean Summers, the lawyer representing grieving father Albert Snyder. Snyder's claim was that picketing his son Matthew's funeral (even at a distance), and publishing an "epic" ridiculing Matthew's religious upbringing (even though on a website not sent to the family) constituted "intentional infliction of emotional distress." Straightforward application of First Amendment precedent suggests that the claim can't succeed. But Breyer seemed willing to think aloud about whether new precedent is needed: So now we have two questions. One is, under what circumstances can a group of people broadcast on television something about a private individual that's very obnoxious? . . . And the second is, to what extent can they put that on the Internet, where the victim is likely to see it? Either on television or by looking it up on the Internet. Now, those are the two questions that I'm very bothered about. I don't know what the rules ought to be there. Breyer went on to speculate about a radical new rule for such cases: allow compensatory damages--intended to repair actual harm done (like the effect on Albert Snyder's health) by the speech--but not punitive damages, which are designed to deter others from doing the same thing. Note long before, in an interview <http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/09/the_koran_and_justice…> on /Good Morning America/, George Stephanopoulos asked Breyer whether the nature of free speech has changed in a world where threatened Koran burning by obscure publicity-hounds in Florida could spark riots in Kabul. Breyer responded: And you can say -- with the Internet, you can say this. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater. Holmes said [the First Amendment] doesn't mean you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theater. Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death? It will be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully. [...] Continua qui: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/a-shift-on-the-first-am…

Oct. 14, 2010