- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

The EU’s R&D process: unaccountable, unethical, even illegal? - about:intel
by Alberto Cammozzo April 15, 2021

April 15, 2021

<https://aboutintel.eu/eu-unaccountable-rd-process/> Gemma Galdon-Clavell While most R&D requires some level of experimental latitude and trade secret discretion, how much should be tolerated in publicly funded technological development? In the European Commission’s R&D process, ethical review of legally questionable topics comes far too late – only at a point where funding is too advanced for such projects to be rejected. The civil liberty and democratic accountability concerns stemming from this are vast, and leads us to wonder whether this lack of oversight is merely a fixable ‘bug’ or an intentional feature? In early 2021, a German MEP submitted a court complaint about a project funded under the European Commission’s research & development (R&D) programme. The project, iBorderCntrl, has received 4.5 million euros in order to develop new technology to detect from facial “micro-expressions” when somebody is lying while answering questions, and to test it on EU borders. According to MEP Patrick Breyer, “the European Union is funding illegal technology that violates fundamental rights and is unethical”, and in this case “pseudo-scientific security hocus pocus” with potential discriminatory impacts among vulnerable communities. Ethics oversight It’s not the first time that a project funded with the EU’s R+D funds has received attention for its apparent ethical risks, and the robustness of the system established to oversee what is funded by EU taxpayers. In 2009-10, the INDECT project prompted a debate at the EU parliament about the secrecy of EC-funded research, its effective ethics oversight and the overall aims of some projects funded in the security domain. Funded with almost 11 million euros, INDECT aimed to research “intelligent information system supporting observation, searching and detection for security of citizens in urban environments” but was qualified by some media as the “‘Orwellian’ artificial intelligence plan to monitor public for ‘abnormal behaviour’”. Examples such as these raise concerns as to the role that civil liberties and democratic accountability play in the process of deciding which technologies get funded and are implemented by EU actors. The EC and its relevant bodies (the Research Executive Agency and European Research Council Executive Agency) have been developing oversight mechanisms for years, which have translated into a mandatory ethics review of all projects that are awarded funding under the Horizon 2020 funding framework and the upcoming HorizonEurope framework. While the ethics oversight process is a robust mechanism that allows the funder and a set of experts to assess whether an intended tech development may raise ethical issues (linked to the participation of humans and their data, issues of misuse and dual use, of staff safety, etc.), this assessment only takes place once projects have already been selected for funding. There is therefore room to question what happens before projects get to this stage. The process of prioritisation In the EU funding programmes, consortiums of organisations (public and private) that aim to apply for research grants request funding along a list of pre-set ‘topics’. These topics are brief descriptions of the priorities established after a long period of consultation with Member States and other actors, who are provided with early drafts of the proposed topics to make comments and suggest ideas, changes, etc. The process is fairly open but also demanding in terms of time for those interested in making specific proposals. Moreover, there is no clarity as to the process that the suggestions submitted follow, and so one may find that well-justified changes or suggestions end up in nothing, which disincentivises further work in future calls. While this has an impact on the kind of actors that can devote the time and effort to pursue their contributions to the programme (mostly corporations and Member States), it is nonetheless welcome that the consultation process exists. Because of this process, the final programme and wording of the topics is the result of multiple conversations and contributions at different levels, as well as some necessary adjustments to the available funding and regional priorities. The selected research areas are therefore the result of a complex process that involves various actors and negotiation spaces. What the process does not include is a final ethics review before the programme is published. This means that, down the line, ethics reviewers may assess the social, legal, and ethical impact of actual projects which are responding to legally questionable topics, at a point where the funding process is too advanced for such projects to be rejected. An ex-ante evaluation would allow experts to assess whether a topic may promote developing mass surveillance tools, or technologies which can be deployed without consent or transparency. Justified exceptions? However, it is unclear whether this is a feature or a bug. What scope for unregulated, experimental innovation should be provided in publicly funded technological developments? There are multiple voices, and indeed a legal framework, that allows for a level of secrecy and experimentation in security research that is not afforded to other domains, where the precautionary principle rules over strict oversight mechanisms (think of medical research, for instance). Incorporating issues related to the impact of security technologies on civil liberties or allowing for democratic accountability procedures during innovation processes would require that technological innovation in the field of security is removed from its regulatory exceptionality and instead asked to provide the transparency and oversight that is required from other innovation sectors. If the lack of robust oversight to ensure that the existing legal framework, necessary precautions, and accountability mechanisms is not a feature but a bug, R+D programmes would only need to move the ethics review procedure to earlier on in the process. But if the lack of accountability is an intentional feature — designed to afford technological innovation a lack of oversight and compliance unheard of in other innovation fields for reasons that are not clear to the public — a broader debate is needed. We would need to assess whether the exceptions afforded to security-related innovations are justified in advanced democratic settings, and in a world where new technologies are increasingly making citizens vulnerable to unaccountable uses of their private information.

1 0

(no subject)
by Giovanni Leghissa April 15, 2021

April 15, 2021

segnalo questo Giovanni http://www.leparoleelecose.it/?p=41212

2 2

Le ragioni dell'emergenza: sui limiti della didattica a distanza
by Antonio Iacono April 15, 2021

April 15, 2021

Anche oggi mia figlia, liceale, è a casa, in DaD. E' stata sufficiente la presunta positività di una compagna di scuola (che è stata male dieci giorni fa) per lasciare tutta la classe a casa per altre due settimane. In questo mese ha fatto solo UN giorno di presenza. Riporto uno stralcio di un articolo molto bello, di qualche mese fa, scritto dal gruppo DiSLL (Dipartimento di Studi Linguistici e Letterari dell’Università di Padova) [1] "La comunicazione umana è un fenomeno oltremodo complesso, che eccede largamente il piano dell’espressione verbale e della trasmissione linguistica, interessando diversi livelli e ambiti semiotici. Chi pensi di sostituire l’affollato seminario in un’aula gremita, la convivialità di una tavolata, la danza di gruppo e il cerchio degli amici attorno al fuoco con un pallido retablo di ologrammi disposti nelle cellette ad alveare di un monitor, dovrebbe riflettere sugli aspetti alienanti di queste cyber-esperienze. Contraddire bruscamente il percorso evolutivo plurimillenario della nostra specie (per innamoramento tecnologico, per fregola di novità, per economia di scala o anche per meno confessabili motivazioni) non solo ci priva di momenti qualificanti di esperienza autenticamente umana, ma rischia di renderci molto infelici." Antonio [1] http://www.leparoleelecose.it/?p=39553

2 1

The EU is considering a ban on AI for mass surveillance and social credit scores - The Verge
by J.C. DE MARTIN April 15, 2021

April 15, 2021

https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/14/22383301/eu-ai-regulation-draft-leak-sur… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Latest digital yuan trial is 10x the first. Hong Kong cross border tests start
by don Luca Peyron April 15, 2021

April 15, 2021

“The digital renminbi pilot test adheres to the principles of stability, safety, and control, and focuses on small transactions from invited whitelisted users,” said Li Bin. “At present, the number of participants, the number of transactions, and the amount of net exchange are still relatively small. During the pilot process, all parties have a relatively high interest in digital renminbi, and users in the pilot areas are relatively motivated.” https://www.ledgerinsights.com/latest-digital-yuan-trial-is-10x-the-first-h… _________________________ don Luca Peyron Direttore Ufficio per la Pastorale Universitaria Arcidiocesi di Torino www.universitari.to.it via XX settembre 83, Torino tel. 011 5156239

1 0

Robot Race: The World´s Top 10 automated countries
by don Luca Peyron April 14, 2021

April 14, 2021

italia leggermente sotto la media europea, dati interessanti Buona lettura dl https://ifr.org/ifr-press-releases/news/robot-race-the-worlds-top-10-automa… _________________________ don Luca Peyron Direttore Ufficio per la Pastorale Universitaria Arcidiocesi di Torino www.universitari.to.it via XX settembre 83, Torino tel. 011 5156239

1 0

Wired: "Data Brokers Are a Threat to Democracy"
by J.C. DE MARTIN April 14, 2021

April 14, 2021

*Data Brokers Are a Threat to Democracy** * /Unless the federal government steps up, the unchecked middlemen of surveillance capitalism will continue to harm our civil rights and national security.// / Justin Sherman You’ve probably never heard of Acxiom, but it likely knows you: The Arkansas firm claims to have data on 2.5 billion people around the world. And in the US, if someone’s interested in that information, there are virtually no restrictions on their ability to buy and then use it. Enter the data brokerage industry, the multibillion dollar economy of selling consumers’ and citizens’ intimate details. Much of the privacy discourse has rightly pointed fingers at Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok, which collect users’ information directly. But a far broader ecosystem of buying up, licensing, selling, and sharing data exists around those platforms. Data brokerage firms are middlemen of surveillance capitalism—purchasing, aggregating, and repackaging data from a variety of other companies, all with the aim of selling or further distributing it. Data brokerage is a threat to democracy. [...] continua qui: https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-data-brokers-are-a-threat-to-democracy/

1 0

Re: [nexa] Nuovi rischi di introduzione del Voto Elettronico in Italia senza dibattito
by maurizio lana April 14, 2021

April 14, 2021

sono anni che dove il voto elettronico è (già) stato introdotto sono state analizzate le sue infinite debolezze, che lo rendono unfit per la democrazia. uno dei primi che io conosca in ordine di tempo è The Problem with Electronic Voting Machines, 2004, https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/11/the_problem_wit.html per quanto so ricostruire io, è dal 2006 che in Italia viene sottoposto a critica: https://www.apogeonline.com/articoli/uno-scrutinio-elettronico-troppo-perfe… Gianni Barbacetto e Mario Portanova, "Aprile. Elezioni private" Diario 24/3/2006 - www.diario.it (Diario non esiste più, né il suo sito, l'articolo si trova in https://www.disinformazione.it/aprile_elezioni_private.htm) Marco Calamari ne scrisse la prima volta nel 2010 se non erro (Cassandra Crossing/La Logica dell'Impero): "L'unico posto in cui carta, timbri, spaghi e procedure manuali devono restare è proprio nel voto." cioè sono quasi 20 anni da quando la questione ha iniziato ad essere dibattuta, e sostanzialmente risolta con "il voto elettronico non funziona" (non operativamente ma nel senso che non è adatto a fornire le garanzie che si richiedono al sistema di voto in un paese democratico). e oggi politici o ignari (come un chirurgo che non sapesse che usare strumenti non sterili porta infezioni e può far morire i pazienti) o solo fintamente rispettosi dei cittadini e della democrazia, ripropongono la stessa cosa. si fa un mail bombing che mandi a tutte e a tutti nel parlamento un minidossier che spiega che il voto elettronico non funziona? un mini dossier ben scelto, ben impaginato, con fonti in italiano in inglese e anche in altre lingue. maurizio ------------------------------------------------------------------------ non credo a nessuna liberazione né individuale né collettiva che si ottenga senza il costo di un'autodisciplina, di un'autocostruzione, di uno sforzo i. calvino ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maurizio Lana - 347 7370925

4 5

IGF Italia 2021: online la consultazione pubblica sulle priorità Internet Governance
by Mauro Alovisio April 14, 2021

April 14, 2021

Gent.mi segnalo da sito Agid: https://www.agid.gov.it/it/agenzia/stampa-e-comunicazione/notizie/2021/04/1… È possibile indicare le proposte sugli argomenti da trattare fino al 30 aprile 2021 Le questioni di interesse pubblico relative alla governance di Internet, che verranno indicate nel corso della consultazione, saranno di riferimento per l’organizzazione delle proposte di sessione da discutere in occasione dell'Internet Governance Forum Italia 2021, che verrà ospitato nuovamente, come nella scorsa edizione, dalla Camera di commercio di Cosenza. Per inviare le proposte è necessario compilare l'apposito modulo <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeDjr85Gq484yt3JBY7B22nqzwhqIWInvD…> entro il 30 aprile 2021 https://www.agid.gov.it/it/agenzia/stampa-e-comunicazione/notizie/2021/04/1…

1 0

EU Poised to Set AI Rules That Would Ban Surveillance, Scoring
by Antonio Iacono April 14, 2021

April 14, 2021

The European Union is poised to ban artificial intelligence systems used for mass surveillance or for ranking social behavior, while companies developing AI could face fines as high as 4% of global revenue if they fail to comply with new rules governing the software applications. The rules are part of legislation set to be proposed by the European Commission, the bloc’s executive body, according to a draft of the proposal obtained by Bloomberg. The details could change before the commission unveils the measure, which is expected to be as soon as next week. Continua qui [1] o, per chi ha l'accesso sul sito di Bloomberg, qui [2] Antonio [1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/eu-poised-set-ai-rules-182921222.html [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-13/eu-poised-to-set-ai-rule…

1 0