- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Fwd: seminario online AICA su etica e digitale - Giovedi 30 settembre, 17:00
by Norberto Patrignani Sept. 15, 2021

Sept. 15, 2021

-------- Messaggio Inoltrato -------- Oggetto: seminario online AICA su etica e digitale - Giovedi 30 settembre, 17:00 Data: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 09:07:29 +0200 Mittente: Norberto Patrignani <norberto.patrignani(a)polito.it> segnalo questa iniziativa dell'AICA https://www.aicanet.it/dettaglio_evento/4050130 Norberto

1 0

Facebook Says Its Rules Apply to All. Company Documents Reveal a Secret Elite That’s Exempt.
by 380° Sept. 14, 2021

Sept. 14, 2021

Buongiorno, il sistema (software) segreto è SEMPRE col trucco :-O, specialmente quando di tratta ci censurare, escludere, emarginare, sfruttare. ... cioè c'è comunque sempre qualcuno che può impunemente dire falsità, diffamare o soggiogare altre persone senza conseguenze, ma questa è una vecchia storia. «Facebook Says Its Rules Apply to All. Company Documents Reveal a Secret Elite That’s Exempt.» by Jeff Horwitz, 2021-09-13 https://archive.is/30nhw --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- A program known as XCheck has given millions of celebrities, politicians and other high-profile users special treatment, a privilege many abuse [...] Some users are “whitelisted”—rendered immune from enforcement actions—while others are allowed to post rule-violating material pending Facebook employee reviews that often never come. [...] Despite attempts to rein it in, XCheck grew to include at least 5.8 million users in 2020, documents show. [...] The documents that describe XCheck are part of an extensive array of internal Facebook communications reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. [...] Most Facebook employees were able to add users into the XCheck system, the documents say, and a 2019 audit found that at least 45 teams around the company were involved in whitelisting. Users aren’t generally told that they have been tagged for special treatment. An internal guide to XCheck eligibility cites qualifications including being “newsworthy,” “influential or popular” or “PR risky.” --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- ... chissà cos'altro c'è scritto in quei gigabyte di documenti, solo le elite decidono cosa possiamo sapere :-O Mi chiedevo quando sarebbe finalmente uscita la notizia della prova provata che Facebook (ma è /pacifico/ che non lo fanno solo loro) utilizzasse un sistema di filtri per quelli che sono più uguali degli altri... però un articolo di Business Insider [1] spiega che in realtà la cosa era già uscita nel Luglio 2018 da un'inchiesta di Channel 4... solo che a volte la realtà non fa notizia, nemmeno quando la notizia è stata data: «Dispatches investigation reveals how Facebook moderates content» https://www.channel4.com/press/news/dispatches-investigation-reveals-how-fa… --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- [...] we have discovered that posts on Facebook’s most popular pages, with the highest numbers of followers, cannot be deleted by ordinary content moderators at Cpl. Instead, they are referred to the Shielded Review Queue where they can be directly assessed by Facebook rather than Cpl staff. [...] Facebook confirmed to Dispatches that they do have special procedures for popular and high profile pages, which includes Tommy Robinson and included Britain First. They say Shielded Review has been renamed ‘Cross Check’. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- La cosa era stata pubblicamente confermata da Monika Bickert, Vice President of Global Policy Management, in questo articolo sulle pagine di FB stessa: https://about.fb.com/news/2018/07/working-to-keep-facebook-safe/ --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- To be clear, Cross Checking something on Facebook does not protect the profile, Page or content from being removed. It is simply done to make sure our decision is correct. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- «OUR DECISION IS CORRECT.» Chiaro no? Saluti, 380° [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-content-moderation-58-million-user… -- 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 1

New DeepFaceLive Tool Will Transform You In Real-Time During Streams
by Alberto Cammozzo Sept. 13, 2021

Sept. 13, 2021

<https://www.dailydot.com/debug/deepfacelive-deepfake-live-streaming/> A new deepfake tool will let users change their appearance in real-time during live video streams—opening up a range of new possibilities for the contentious technology. Known as DeepFaceLive, the open-source tool, released last month on the code-hosting platform Github, allows users to place another face over their own while using video messaging programs such as Skype and Zoom. DeepFaceLive’s creator, a secretive Russian developer known online as Iperov, first shared footage of the tool’s interface to a deepfake forum in late April. Iperov is also credited as one of the main developers of DeepFaceLab, the most widely used open-source tool for creating deepfakes. Available for Windows 10, DeepFaceLive works by utilizing the very same datasets of celebrity faces that are already used to create deepfake videos. Much like Snapchat’s Snap Camera, which allows users to apply face filters through their webcams, DeepFaceLive can be used in conjunction with most video-based streaming and messaging services. DeepFaceLive’s face-swapping ability can also be applied to pre-recorded videos. While still in its early stages, DeepFaceLive is already being used by a small group of dedicated creators. One such user, a TikToker based in Russia, recently showcased the software by transforming himself into Hollywood actor Arnold Schwarzenegger while using a randomized video chatting service. [...]

3 2

Money, mimicry and mind control: Big Tech slams ethics brakes on AI | Reuters
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 13, 2021

Sept. 13, 2021

https://www.reuters.com/technology/money-mimicry-mind-control-big-tech-slam… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

2 1

Gattaca?
by maurizio lana Sept. 13, 2021

Sept. 13, 2021

buongiorno, non azzardo di confrontarmi con Agamben o Cacciari o Gazzuolo: "noi, incompetenti come siamo, non abbiamo alcun titolo per suggerire alcunché". credo però che in tempi di crisi i distinguo molto sottili dei professori rischiano di sostenere la crisi. (scrivo 'dei professori' essendo parte del gruppo, che conosco da dentro; e sul 'sostenere la crisi' scrivo /rischiano/: ognuno sceglie quali rischi correre e gli altri intorno decidono se quel rischio gli va oppure no) quello che so è che per qualsiasi malattia ci curiamo con dei farmaci che sono pharmaka, cioè /veleni, /etimologicamente. veleni che assumiamo /in dosi controllate/. in certe dosi curano; sotto quella dose sono inutili, sopra quella dose uccidono. anche questa malattia richiede dei pharmaka, individuali e sociali. essendo pharmaka è necessario un controllo attento delle dosi, ma la malattia non si risolve senza pharmaka cioè senza veleni assunti in dose controllata. una parte delle questioni mi pare che nascano dal fatto che come individui e società non sappiamo controllare (non sappiamo /come/ controllare) pienamente i pharmaka e le loro dosi. non sapendo, o non volendolo fare, qualcuno preferirebbe stare senza pharmaka. mi pare che qui ci sia un tipico tema 'da nexa': 1) cosa serve per gestire il Green pass senza che questo comporti intrusione al di là dello scopo dichiarato? 2) nessuno vuole ammalarsi e quindi è lecito e legittimo voler sapere se quelli con cui condivido i fiati e l'aria sono pericolosi per la mia salute. qual è un modo diverso dal Green pass per rendere possibile questo? se si ritiene pericoloso per vari motivi il metodo del Green pass, si individui un'alternativa. se/finché l'alternativa non c'è, ci teniamo il pharmakon e lo usiamo con la dovuta attenzione/cautela. se c'è poca attenzione, si definiscano le azioni necessarie per accrescere/migliorare l'attenzione/cautela, e si mettano in atto. se no buttiamo il bambino con l'acqua sporca: o, per dirla con le parole del poeta: tutti "forti / e liberi. / Come i morti" Maurizio > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2021 12:27:48 +0200 > From: 380° <g380(a)biscuolo.net> > To: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > Subject: [nexa] Green pass: discriminazione e controllo (Gattaca?) > Message-ID: <875yv78l0b.fsf(a)xelera.eu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Buongiorno, > > vi chiedo perdono in partenza per la lunghezza del mio messaggio, anche > se cercherò di essere stringato al massimo, ma io vedo un > pericolosissimo salto di paradigma reso possibile dalla recente crisi > covid-19 nel contesto della "tecnologia del controllo". > > Le posizioni molto critiche di Cacciari e Agamben sul "green pass" [1] > si inscrivono perfettamente nel più ampio discorso del "capture > capitalism" [2] (detto volgarmente: se vogliamo "tenere aperto" dobbiamo > applicare misure /tecnologiche/ (in)adatte a /prevenire/ questa e le > future pandemie), oltre che nella questione molto più profonda della > "nuda vita" [3]. > > Un articolo molto interessante che evidenzia questa connessione (tra > green pass e capture capitalism) è quello di Tommaso Gazzolo [4], > docente di Filosofia del Diritto, recentemente pubblicato nel "Diario > della Crisi" dell'Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Filosofici: > > «Green pass: discriminazione e controllo» > > https://www.iisf.it/index.php/progetti/diario-della-crisi/green-pass-discri… > > [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ there's a blaze of light in every word it doesn't matter which you heard the holy or the broken hallelujah l. cohen, hallelujah ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maurizio Lana - 347 7370925

4 4

Green pass: discriminazione e controllo (Gattaca?)
by 380° Sept. 11, 2021

Sept. 11, 2021

Buongiorno, vi chiedo perdono in partenza per la lunghezza del mio messaggio, anche se cercherò di essere stringato al massimo, ma io vedo un pericolosissimo salto di paradigma reso possibile dalla recente crisi covid-19 nel contesto della "tecnologia del controllo". Le posizioni molto critiche di Cacciari e Agamben sul "green pass" [1] si inscrivono perfettamente nel più ampio discorso del "capture capitalism" [2] (detto volgarmente: se vogliamo "tenere aperto" dobbiamo applicare misure /tecnologiche/ (in)adatte a /prevenire/ questa e le future pandemie), oltre che nella questione molto più profonda della "nuda vita" [3]. Un articolo molto interessante che evidenzia questa connessione (tra green pass e capture capitalism) è quello di Tommaso Gazzolo [4], docente di Filosofia del Diritto, recentemente pubblicato nel "Diario della Crisi" dell'Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Filosofici: «Green pass: discriminazione e controllo» https://www.iisf.it/index.php/progetti/diario-della-crisi/green-pass-discri… nel quale l'autore fa un'interessante analisi del concetto giuridico di discriminazione e come la pandemia (e il "green pass") abbia messo fortemente in crisi (o no?!?) la sua declinazione nel diritto: Alcuni estratti (arbitrari) che mi consentono di passare alla "fase distopica": --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- [...] Perché, sul piano giuridico, si può certo osservare che il “green pass” introduce un differente trattamento non delle persone, ma delle azioni – un differente trattamento, cioè, dipendente dall’aver compiuto o meno una certa azione (vaccinarsi), e non certo dall’identità o dalle convinzioni personali dei soggetti (non è perché sei convinto che il vaccino non sia opportuno o utile che vieni “discriminato”). [...] Il secondo argomento che il testo (di Cacciari e Agamben, n.d.r) spende è di ordine diverso. Mette in gioco, infatti, non tanto il problema della “discriminazione”, quanto quello della tecnologia politica che oggi corrisponde al nostro tipo di società, e che Deleuze già chiamava “società di controllo”. [...] Siamo, invece, in società che sono fondate sul controllo, ossia sull’idea – che il funzionamento degli algoritmi ha ormai portato ad un nuovo e inedito livello – di poter prevedere che cosa le persone, nella libertà dei loro movimenti, faranno ad una certa ora del giorno in un certo luogo. [...] Le vere innovazioni sono, piuttosto due: (a) da una parte, lo sviluppo di tutti quei dispositivi che consentono di assicurare un flusso di dati in grado di fondare calcoli predittivi. [...] Curarti /prima/ che ti ammali, limitare il traffico di ingresso in una Regione prima che i contagi oltrepassino la soglia di “sicurezza”, calcolare in anticipo il numero di persone che saliranno su quel bus a quell’ora in modo da verificare che esso non ecceda i posti seduti disponibili: sono queste le necessità del potere, oggi. (b) [...] una logica che assicurerà meccanismi “fluidi” di entrata e uscita dagli spazi, basati, più che sull’identità concreta degli individui, sui dati che essi possono trasmettere. [...] città «in cui ciascuno può lasciare il suo appartamento, la sua strada, il suo quartiere grazie alla sua carta elettronica (dividuale) che faccia alzare questa o quella barriera, e allo stesso modo la carta può essere respinta quel giorno o entro la tal ora; ciò che conta non è la barriera ma il computer che ritrova la posizione di ciascuno, lecita o illecita, ed opera una modulazione universale». [...] --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Viviamo perennemente in uno "stato di eccezione", dove la necessità di /garantire sicurezza/ ai governati giustifica da parte dei governanti il ricorso ad ogni mezzo (il)lecito per combattere questa sorta di incessante guerra (civile): dal terrorismo alla pandemia (passando per le migrazioni), dai rifiuti al cambiamento climatico... ovviamente il tutto /scientemente/ (non scientificamente) [5] dimostrato. L'ultimo passo sopra mi ha ricordato la trama di un interessante film del '97, "Gattaca" [6], nel quale si narra di un mondo nel quale: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- A genetic registry database uses biometrics to classify those so created as "valids" while those conceived naturally and more susceptible to genetic disorders are known as "in-valids". Genetic discrimination is illegal, but in practice genotype profiling is used to identify valids to qualify for professional employment while in-valids are relegated to menial jobs. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Un mondo dove la discriminazione è illegale, /semplicemente/ i tuoi dati biometrici - nel film comprendono il profilo genetico completo con predizione aspettativa di vita e malattie - sono utilizzati per determinare cosa NON puoi fare: prego notare con attenzione e pazienza l'analogia con l'analisi del concetto giuridico di discriminazione svolta dal Gazzolo nell'articolo sopra menzionato. C'è forse qualcuno che per combattere la "guerra alle malattie" (alla morte?!?) sta seriamente pensando di applicare questo paradigma di governo? Ci sono ricercatori e medici che stanno seriamente studiando il modo di rendere /scientemente/ [5] giustificato un simile scenario? Temo che tale scenario sarebbe accettato molto più che volentieri da ogni cittadino in modo analogo a come viene non solo accettato ma /richiesto/ il green pass... dopotutto chi non vorrebbe vivere /per sempre/ in totale sicurezza?!? [7] Se così fosse, per l'ennesima volta mi permetto di ricordare che tutto questo rischia seriamente di finire in una /drammatica/ allucinazione scientifica [8] (scientista) collettiva. Saluti, 380° [1] https://www.iisf.it/index.php/progetti/diario-della-crisi/massimo-cacciari-… [2] che io preferisco di gran lunga all'etichetta "surveillance capitalism" [3] https://www.quodlibet.it/giorgio-agamben-la-nuda-vita-e-il-vaccino [4] https://www.uniss.it/ugov/person/17442 [5] https://www.quodlibet.it/giorgio-agamben-la-medicina-come-religione [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_extension; sul legame tra AI e (rifiuto della) morte un giorno mi piacerebbe ritornare (partendo dalle posizioni di Ray Kurzweil, Marvin Minsky e il transumanesimo vs. Joseph Weizenbaum e l'umanesimo) [8] https://nooscope.ai/ -- 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>.

3 2

'Hey Facebook, take a photo': The social network's smart glasses are here - CNET
by Alberto Cammozzo Sept. 11, 2021

Sept. 11, 2021

Il ritorno del glasshole... Sono in vendita in Italia e prodotti da Rayban (Luxottica, azienda italiana): immagino che abbiano dovuto chiedere un parere al Garante... <https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/hey-facebook-take-a-photo-the-social-netwo…> When Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed that the social network was working on its first smart glasses, he tried to dial down the hype. The glasses, he suggested during the Facebook Connect conference in September 2020, would be just a step toward a more ambitious project. "They're not yet augmented reality glasses," Zuckerberg said, referring to technology that places digital images on someone's view of the real world. "They're on the road there." On Thursday, Facebook's smart glasses -- under the Ray-Ban brand -- go on sale online and at some stores in the US, UK, Canada, Italy, Ireland and Australia. Called Ray-Ban Stories, the smart glasses shoot photos and 30-second videos with the press of a button. They also play music and podcasts and make calls. The glasses include a virtual assistant so you can snap photos and videos hands-free by uttering the phrase "Hey Facebook." Watch this: Facebook's first smart glasses are the Ray-Ban Stories The release of its first pair of smart glasses, which start at $299 (£299, AU$449), shows how Facebook continues to bet on augmented reality. Zuckerberg has enthused about a future in which augmented reality glasses will let people play games on their couch next to holograms of their friends or share an experience on social media without whipping out their phones. Though Facebook's smart glasses don't include AR effects, they move the company closer to that goal. (Zuckerberg has been waxing on lately about the "metaverse," a virtual environment where people will meet up. His company also makes the Oculus headset, which relies on virtual reality, a technology that's more immersive than AR.) "Ray-Ban Stories are an important step towards the future when phones are no longer a central part of our lives and you won't have to choose between interacting with a device, or interacting with the world around you," Zuckerberg said in a video released Thursday. There's still a lot you can't do with Facebook's smart glasses, though, and those limitations underscore how far this gadget is from becoming the next big thing. The smart glasses, which need to be recharged every six hours with a charging case, don't let you browse Facebook, shop or play games. "What we want to do with Ray-Ban Stories is to listen to our customers in order to understand where to go, but also to make sure that as we're building our roadmap, we are being responsible," Hind Hobeika, a product manager at Facebook Reality Labs, said in a video chat. Facebook certainly isn't the first company to try to convince people they should wear a computer on their face. Google, Snap and Amazon have released smart glasses. And the average consumer passed on all of them. (Apple and Samsung are also reportedly working on AR glasses.) But analysts say smart glasses are part of an emerging market. In a report last year, ImmersivEdge Advisors forecast that annual sales of smart glasses will reach more than 22 million units by 2030. For some perspective, global smartphone sales totaled 1.3 billion in 2020, according to Gartner. Ben Delaney, CEO of ImmersivEdge Advisors and lead author of the report, expects smart glasses to play a larger role in how people get directions, shop, track their fitness or learn in the classroom. Facebook executives teased the new smart glasses this week by posting videos of themselves golfing, skateboarding and fencing, among other activities. Smart glasses also come with concerns about privacy, which Facebook doesn't have a strong reputation for respecting. Privacy advocates still worry the technology can be abused for surveillance. Google Glass faced backlash in 2013 from people who were upset at how tough it was to tell if the device was recording video. Facebook is well aware of the privacy issues that come with smart glasses, demonstrating restraint with the gadget's features even though the product comes with two cameras and built-in microphones. Facebook has a separate app to store and share photos and videos from Ray-Ban Stories to other platforms. The glasses, for example, don't include facial recognition technology. People who use Ray-Ban Stories will also need a separate Facebook View app to share photos and videos captured on the device to other platforms. Hobeika said Facebook deliberately left out automatic sharing because the company wants to give users control over those decisions. Facebook won't use media captured on the smart glasses or in the View app for personalized advertising, she said. If users choose to share photos and videos from the smart glasses on Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp or other apps, the terms of services for those pieces of software will apply. Facebook, Hobeika said, doesn't use audio data for ads. Users will also be able to choose if they want to share additional data with Facebook, such as the number of videos taken and their length, to help improve the product. It will likely take time for people to become comfortable with glasses recording photos and videos. Early adopters of Google Glass were derisively called "Glassholes." To help generate acceptance, Ray-Ban Stories include a white LED light visible from 25 feet away so the wearer and people around them know when photos and videos are being captured. Some users might also be wary about sharing even more photos and videos with Facebook, a company that has been plagued with several privacy scandals. Facebook includes tips in the View app and on a website so people who use the smart glasses know that recording in bathrooms or while driving are big no-nos. "Don't use your smart glasses to engage in harmful activities like harassment, infringing on privacy rights, or capturing sensitive information like pin codes," one of the tips states. Facebook said it consulted with groups including the Future of Privacy Forum, National Network to End Domestic Violence and the LGBT Technology Partnership as it was working on the smart glasses. Erica Olsen, director of Safety Net at NNEDV, said the group along with Facebook had concerns the glasses could be used to capture images or videos of people without their consent. An abuser could share that content in a way intended to cause harm. "We already see this common tactic of abuse and we know some people will misuse any type of technology they can," Olsen said in a statement. "We hope the opportunities for misuse will be limited because these are glasses and the recording functionality will be fairly obvious to others." Even so, some privacy experts say Facebook's smart glasses could be misused in ways the company can't yet imagine. "Inevitably, these glasses will be used by consumers in ways not intended by the manufacturer," said Jeremy Greenberg, policy counsel for the Future of Privacy Forum. "It will really be up to the developers to respond to those alternative uses in real time." (Facebook is a supporter of the Future of Privacy Forum, as is Red Ventures, parent company of CNET.) Analysts say makers of smart glasses face a more fundamental challenge: The technology isn't ready. The price could also prompt prospective buyers to think twice about purchasing a pair. Ray-Ban Stories can function as regular glasses or sunglasses, but the price goes up accordingly if you add prescription or polarized lenses. ImmersivEdge's Delaney says Facebook has its work cut out convincing consumers it's the right company to make smart glasses. Though the social network has hardware products, like its Portal chat tool and Oculus virtual reality helmet, other companies have more experience. "There are so many other companies that know how to do hardware and software better than they do," Delaney said. Even if Ray-Ban Stories flop, analysts say Facebook will learn what does and doesn't work for consumers. That knowledge will be useful to its other platforms. "For a company as wealthy as Facebook, there isn't much downside," said Lisa Ask, vice president and principal analyst at Forrester. "It's still kind of a Wild West right now. Nobody's had a breakthrough product."

4 3

Five Big Problems with Canada’s Proposed Regulatory Framework for “Harmful Online Content” - Tech Policy Press
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 11, 2021

Sept. 11, 2021

https://techpolicy.press/five-big-problems-with-canadas-proposed-regulatory… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Revealed: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers across dozens of countries | Google | The Guardian
by Alberto Cammozzo Sept. 10, 2021

Sept. 10, 2021

Do no evil... tomorrow. <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/sep/10/google-underpaid-workers…> Google has been illegally underpaying thousands of temporary workers in dozens of countries and delayed correcting the pay rates for more than two years as it attempted to cover up the problem, the Guardian can reveal. Google executives have been aware since at least May 2019 that the company was failing to comply with local laws in the UK, Europe and Asia that mandate temporary workers be paid equal rates to full-time employees performing similar work, internal Google documents and emails reviewed by the Guardian show. But rather than immediately correct the errors, the company dragged its feet for more than two years, the documents show, citing concern about the increased cost to departments that rely heavily on temporary workers, potential exposure to legal claims, and fear of negative press attention. Google executives and attorneys at one point pursued a plan to come into compliance slowly and at the least possible cost to itself, despite acknowledging that such a move was not “the correct outcome from a compliance perspective” and could place the staffing companies it contracts with “in a difficult position, legally and ethically”. Google admitted the failures and said it would conduct an investigation after being contacted by the Guardian. “While the team hasn’t increased the comparator rate benchmarks for some years, actual pay rates for temporary staff have increased numerous times in that period,” said Spyro Karetsos, Google’s chief compliance officer, in a statement. “Most temporary staff are paid significantly more than the comparator rates. “Nevertheless, it’s clear that this process has not been handled consistent with the high standards to which we hold ourselves as a company. We’re doing a thorough review, and we’re committed to identifying and addressing any pay discrepancies that the team has not already addressed. “And we’ll be conducting a review of our compliance practices in this area. In short, we’re going to figure out what went wrong here, why it happened, and we’re going to make it right.” A whistleblower represented by Whistleblower Aid has filed a complaint about the alleged violations with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. While international labor law is not under the purview of the SEC, the complaint alleges that Google’s failure to disclose the pay parity liabilities, which it estimates could amount to $100m, constitute material misstatements in its quarterly financial reports, a violation of US securities law. “The disclosure makes it clear that Google hasn’t just broken labor laws around the world, but has misled investors about major legal and financial liabilities,” said John Tye, founder and chief disclosure officer of Whistleblower Aid. “The lawful, anonymous whistleblower disclosure is a critical step toward ensuring that Google is held to account. We urge the SEC to bring an enforcement action against Google, and protect the rights of investors to receive complete and accurate information.” The issue stems from Google’s extensive reliance on what it calls its “extended workforce”, as well as the plethora of local laws that govern how such workers must be treated in the dozens of countries where Google operates. Google maintains a workforce of more than 100,000 temps, vendors and contractors who are not directly employed by the company, but who perform work on its behalf, on tasks ranging from food service and security to coding and data analysis. The vast majority of these workers are “vendors” who work on long-term projects that are wholly managed by the vendor company, such as content moderation, and have little interaction with Google employees. But at any given time, Google also employs thousands of temporary workers. While they are paid by staffing agencies, temps report directly to Google managers. The departments that rely most heavily on temporary workers include recruiting, marketing, and Waymo, Google’s autonomous vehicle subsidiary. Globally, Google spends about $800m annually on temporary workers. The use of contingent workers is common in the tech industry, but Google’s reliance on a “shadow workforce” that outnumbers its direct employee base has long drawn criticism from the company’s own employees, as well as politicians and labor unions. More than 30 countries, including the UK, the EU member states, India, and Taiwan, have enacted “pay parity” or “equal treatment” laws that require temporary workers to be treated equally to full time employees (FTEs) who perform the same or similar work, according to Google’s internal guidance on the laws. The US, where the majority of Google’s temps are based, does not have any such protections. In general, these laws require equivalent treatment of temps and FTEs when it comes to pay, hours, breaks, vacation, holidays, and certain perks. In the UK, pay parity is required after a 12-week qualifying period, for example, while in Ireland it is mandated from the first day of work. Some countries also mandate equivalency for benefits and bonuses. The staffing agency and the hirer – in this case, Google – share the responsibility for ensuring equitable treatment, but it is the hirer’s responsibility to provide the agency accurate data about the pay rates. In 2012 and 2013, Google undertook an exercise to map all its temporary roles in EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) with the comparable Google full-time roles, according to the internal memo. The exercise produced “comparator” rates that Google then provided to the staffing agencies that recruit and employ its temporary staff. The company performed a similar exercise for temp roles in APAC (Asia Pacific) in 2017. Since those exercises were carried out, compensation for full-time Google employees has increased substantially. The median total compensation rose more than 38%, from $197,274 to $273,493, between 2017 and 2020, according to SEC filings. But the comparator rates were never updated. “Ideally this would be done annually,” reads the internal Google memo on the issue, which acknowledges that it is Google’s obligation to keep the information up to date. By 15 May 2019, the problem was known to Adrienne Crowther, the executive responsible for Google’s extended workforce team (xWS), her comments on the internal memo show. “Yikes! This seems WAY too old,” she wrote in response to the “2012-2013” date of the comparator data. “Agreed,” responded Alan Barry, a compliance manager for Google’s extended workforce team. Barry went on to suggest that xWS “refresh” the data as part of a larger project working on ensuring accurate mapping between temporary and full-time positions. Scale of the problem Given the very high turnover rate of temporary workers, the number of workers affected by Google’s failure could be in the tens of thousands. One document shows that, as of 16 February 2021, Google had 1,030 temporary workers in countries with pay parity laws, the largest numbers in the UK (343), India (222), Ireland (207) and Germany (59). That document – an audit of countries with pay parity laws performed for Google by Deloitte – highlighted another problem with the company’s legal compliance. Deloitte reported that pay-parity laws had been enacted in 16 countries where Google was employing more than 350 temporary workers without providing equal treatment rates, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Switzerland and Taiwan. Google’s underpayments to its temporary workers are substantial. One internal analysis estimated that Google’s expenses for 1,200 temps in EMEA and APAC regions would need to increase by $17.3m to comply with pay parity laws, of which $12.65m would go to the temporary workers in increased wages and bonuses. (An additional $4.4m in costs would be the result of the estimated 35% markup that staffing agencies charge.) But that analysis was based on a proposal to correct the rates for new hires only, without providing raises and back pay to existing and previous temp workers for the time they worked at the incorrect rates, suggesting that the total amount of lost wages to current and past workers is significantly higher. Individual temps were paid between 12% and 50% less than they should have been, according to an internal memo also from February 2021. Another document showed that temporary workers in Google’s human resources department in the UK were paid between £4.10 and £8.25 less per hour than they should have been, with some temps earning £14.17 instead of £18.27 and others earning £21.56 instead of £29.80. Google’s delay in addressing the rates could hurt former temporary workers’ ability to seek redress. Under the UK’s Agency Worker Regulations 2010, temps can appeal to an Employment Tribunal if they believe their rights have been breached, but they must do so within three months. In Ireland, appeals to the Rights Commissioner are supposed to be made within six months. “These agency workers have been the victims of wage theft,” said Matthew Creagh, an employment rights policy officer for the Trades Union Council, who criticized the UK’s lack of a state regulator to enforce worker protections. “How will they be compensated? Often the discussion veers towards punishing employers, which is good, but getting the agency workers their money is overlooked.” Internal debate Though executives in Google’s xWS department were aware by May 2019 that the company was failing to comply with the law and underpaying workers, the company did not move quickly to correct the rates and provide back wages to those who were owed them. Instead, it spent at least two years continuing to pay out-of-date rates while it debated internally how to come back into legal compliance without admitting what had happened, documents and emails show. Leaders of the xWS team appeared keenly aware that admitting the problem would damage its reputation within Google by causing headaches for departments whose budgets would be effected, as well as with the staffing agencies that are liable for providing pay parity. They also expressed interest in preventing existing and former temp workers from knowing they had been underpaid, in order to prevent claims for back pay. By October 2020, xWS executives, including Crowther and Deepak Negi, another director, and Google’s employment counsels for EMEA and APAC had signed off on a plan to correct the rates, emails and documents show. The company would pursue a “natural correction” of the temp rates, whereby new joiners started at correct rates while existing temps remained at the lower rates, rather than an “immediate correction”, whereby all temps had their rates adjusted to the correct levels. The plan had received support from executives and attorneys due to “the current low risk of a parity claim, the ability to correct rates and not make a great deal of noise, and the ability to correct rates without immediate substantial financial impact to [Google’s departments],” an xWS operations manager promoting it wrote in an email. Some xWS staffers appear to have pushed back on the proposal, noting that it would result in groups of temps performing similar work earning significantly different wages. Some also worried that the staffing agencies, who are responsible for complying with pay parity laws, might ask questions about the changed rates, or even object. But in an extraordinary December 2020 email, Barry, the attorney responsible for compliance in xWS, endorsed the “natural correction” despite acknowledging that it was insufficient. “We know that the impacted workers are not on the correct 2020 rates, nor were they in 2019,” he wrote. “So, strictly speaking, from the point that we put ourselves on notice as to the correct comparator rate, it should apply to both the incumbents as well as the new joiners. To do otherwise may place our staffing partners in a difficult position, legally and ethically.” “In my view, while [an immediate correction] does appear to be the correct outcome from a compliance perspective, I recognise the barriers to this,” Barry wrote. “The cost is significant and it would give rise to a flurry of noise/frustration on the part of the [Google departments] who have not accounted for the changed cost. I’m also not keen to invite the charge that we’ve allowed this situation to persist for so long that the correction required is significant … I am leaning towards favouring [the natural correction] – but with careful thought and consideration needed as to how we communicate it to the [staffing agencies].” By February 2021, Barry and others were considering a third option beyond the “natural” and “immediate” corrections: applying the new rates to new joiners and existing temps and backdating the increases for the existing temps to their start date. (None of the options included providing back pay to temps who had been underpaid but no longer worked for Google.) The memo suggests that Barry and the xWS team’s concerns remained primarily reputational. It includes guidance from Google’s employment lawyers that “the threat of litigation is greater than the prospect of actual litigation” since actual litigation would require temps to know that they were being underpaid, and by how much. “If and when they become aware they will seek recompense but will want to avoid litigation. Strategy should therefore be driven by an assessment of the internal PR/reputational risk and the risk of pay disparity becoming known within our temps population.” Nevertheless, Barry argued that despite the “significant” financial cost and potential for criticism of xWS from Google and staffing agencies, he now believed that this third option was the best course. “In my view – better to opt to for option three in a controlled fashion now, than in an uncontrolled fashion later,” he wrote.

1 0

ICT day 22 settembre a Torino Intelligenza Artificiale: sviluppo economia e sostenibilità"
by Mauro Alovisio Sept. 10, 2021

Sept. 10, 2021

Gent.me/mi segnalo l'Ict Day ad oggetto: "*Intelligenza Artificiale , sviluppo economia e sostenibilità"* che si svolgerà a Torino m*ercoledì 22 settembre 2021 *a Torino presso CTE Next L'evento a cura del Club di dirigenti di Informatica prevede le relazioni di Ministri, professori, esperti e imprenditori e sarà trasmesso on line in diretta. L'evento è gratuito ed è patrocininato da diversi enti fra cui università degli Studi di Torino, Unione Industriale, Csi, Torino Wireless e diverse associazioni fra cui il Centro Studi di Informatica Giuridica di Ivrea Torino. Per iscrizioni: https://www.clubdi.org/it-day-2021/ Cordiali saluti Mauro Alovisio Se non leggi correttamente questo messaggio, clicca qui <http://wchhbjb.emctrack.com/viewonline/@f*025j2F7ib38j2f2S1*3=0*81f9f1e7b7f…> . <http://www.clubdi.org/it-day-2019/> [image: Insert Alt text here] <https://www.clubdi.org/it-day-2021/> *Torna ITDAY!* mercoledì *22 settembre 2021* *AI: Sviluppo, Economia, Sostenibilità* *scenari di un futuro migliore* *Club Dirigenti Informatica * dell'Unione Industriale di Torino ti invita ad un full day *digital community event .* Potrai sviluppare *networking * con tutti i partecipanti presenti sulla piattaforma e *partecipare attivamente* alle sessioni tematiche su *Intelligenza Artificiale* e #Cybersecurity #Data economy #Digitalskills #Formazione #Etica #Infrastrutture #Sviluppo sostenibile #Impatto sociale tutti i temi su cui dovremo *riflettere *per affrontare la *transizione digitale* che ci porta nel *futuro*! Programma e Relatori <https://www.clubdi.org/it-day-2021/%20> [image: Insert Alt text here] <http://www.clubdi.org/it-day-2021>

1 0