- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

EDPS: Strategy for Unioninstitutions, offices, bodiesand agencies to comply withthe ‘Schrems II’ Ruling
by Roberto Resoli Oct. 30, 2020

Oct. 30, 2020

Porta la data di ieri: https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/2020-10-29_edps_strategy… L'articolo di commento su key4biz: https://www.key4biz.it/il-garante-privacy-europeo-non-usare-i-cloud-provide… rob

1 0

Margarethe Vestagher a: Beyond the buzzwords: Putting meaningful transparency at the heart of the Digital Services Act
by Roberto Resoli Oct. 30, 2020

Oct. 30, 2020

Solo una piccola citazione: "È tutto un po' come The Truman Show - quel film in cui Jim Carrey vive in un mondo che lui pensa sia reale, ma che in realtà è solo un programma televisivo. Il mondo che vediamo attraverso queste piattaforme sembra così reale che può essere difficile ricordare che è effettivamente costruito, costruito attraverso le scelte che gli algoritmi fanno su ciò che dovremmo vedere." E il passo che Fabio Chiusi (grazie a lui per avere tempestiva mente segnalato) sottolinea giustamente su Twitter: “Because if we’re asking whether algorithms are a threat to democracy, the answer is surely yes, they can be – but they don’t have to be” https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2019-2024/vestager/announceme… Mia traduzione: https://www.resolutions.it/nextcloud/index.php/s/CwkLEw2gFy6gpMn rob

2 1

[info@fsf.org: Committee begins review of High Priority Projects free software list — your input is needed by January 8]
by Stefano Zacchiroli Oct. 30, 2020

Oct. 30, 2020

FYI, potrebbe interessare ai membri della lista. Consigli per emendare la lista di High Priority Projects [0] della Free Software Foundation sono i benvenuti, a questo indirizzo/deadline: **We need your input! Send your suggested changes for the list to <hpp-feedback(a)gnu.org> by January 8, 2021.** [0]: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects Ciao ----- Forwarded message from Free Software Foundation <info(a)fsf.org> ----- Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:54:12 -0400 From: Free Software Foundation <info(a)fsf.org> Subject: Committee begins review of High Priority Projects free software list — your input is needed by January 8 The [High Priority Free Software Projects][0] (HPP) initiative draws attention to areas of improvement to the HPP list and specific projects of great strategic importance to the goal of freedom for all computer users. Longtime committee member Benjamin Mako Hill said previously that an "updated High Priority Projects list is a description of the most important threats, and most critical opportunities, that free software faces in the modern computing landscape." As computing is more ubiquitous than ever, the HPP list must reflect ongoing changes in priorities for the free software movement. The committee is starting the new process of updating the HPP, and we need your input. Fifteen years ago, the [first version][1] of the HPP list debuted with only four projects, three of them related to Java. Eighteen months later, Sun began to [free Java users][2], proving the strength of advocacy campaigns for free software. Another example of the effectiveness of the list is when the HPP list called for a donor and contact management system, which was then promptly [acted on][3] by the developers of [CiviCRM][4], who delivered the database management system that is currently still in use by the FSF and more than eleven thousand other nonprofit or governmental organizations. The list's persuasive powers can help guide existing projects, developers looking for a new project, investors, and volunteers to direct their focus toward those projects that will deliver the greatest benefit to user freedom. [0]: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects [1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20050525233616/http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/prio… [2]: https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-welcomes-gpl-java.html [3]: https://www.fsf.org/news/nonprofit-fundraising-civicrm [4]: https://civicrm.org/ There are undoubtedly thousands of free software projects that are high priority, each having the potential to displace nonfree programs and substantially increase the freedom of computer users worldwide. The HPP list will never be fully comprehensive or adequate to address *all* existing software freedom concerns. The potential value is its ability to bring attention to a relatively small number of projects of great strategic importance to the goal of freedom for all computer users. According to a [write-up for a previous iteration][5] of the list, projects can benefit from a place on the list as it helps them "explain their importance," and the list "has helped attract other developers" to named projects. [5]: http://web.archive.org/web/20060523134509/http://software.newsforge.com/sof… ## The committee is looking for your feedback to compile the list In 2017, after receiving feedback from about 150 free software community members, [extensive updates][6] were made to the HPP list. Now, a new committee has been assembled to review, edit, and publish a new list. This committee is looking for your feedback as members of free software communities focused on a wide range of topics and problems that you think are relevant to the HPP. [6]: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/changelog As in past [reboots][7] and revisions of the HPP list, we invite constructive and lively discussion. We want to hear from people who live and breathe free software. We hope that with your help, others too will become empowered, vocal, and valued members of the free software movement. [7]: https://lwn.net/Articles/301499/ The HPP committee is initially composed of the following free software activists: [Máirín Duffy][8], [Benjamin Mako Hill][9], [Karen Johnson][10], [Mike Linksvayer][11], [Sean O'Brien][12], [Lydia Pintscher][13], [Kyle Rankin][14], [Seth Schoen][15], [Stefanie Whited][16], and [Stefano Zacchiroli][17]. [8]: http://blog.linuxgrrl.com/ [9]: https://mako.cc/ [10]: https://github.com/kbthson [11]: https://gondwanaland.com/mlog/ [12]: https://cyberclear.cc/ [13]: http://lydiapintscher.de/ [14]: https://kylerank.in/ [15]: http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ [16]: https://stephanieannwhited.com/ [17]: https://upsilon.cc/~zack/ **We need your input! Send your suggested changes for the list to <hpp-feedback(a)gnu.org> by January 8, 2021.** Remember, we're looking for projects of great strategic importance to the goal of freedom for all computer users. We are looking for areas where people feel they are heavily pressured or even required to use proprietary software, as well as for important missing features in existing free software, and for problems you see on the horizon as technology is developing. If you wish, we encourage you to publish your thoughts independently (e.g., on your blog or social media) and send us a link to them. Keep in mind that not every project of great strategic importance to the goal of freedom for all computer users will be a software development project. We welcome suggestions of other forms of activism, internal or external (e.g., making free software communities safe for diverse participants, mandating use of free software in the public sector, etc.). Suggestions for the HPP list are *always* welcome. The committee plans to start processing feedback for this update by January 8, 2021. Based upon the feedback we receive, the current content of the list, and our own contributions, we will publish a substantially revised list and an analysis before holding a lively discussion at [LibrePlanet 2021][18]. [18]: https://libreplanet.org/2021 ## Recommendations for the HPP list as a tool for the free software movement We will build upon the momentum of the feedback conversations and bring widespread coverage and attention to the projects that comprise the HPP list. As part of an ongoing free software strategy for advocacy, we intend to continuously direct attention and resources toward the listed projects. In that effort, we’re looking for input as well -- how can we make the HPP list an effective outreach tool for the free software movement? We are looking forward to your feedback at <hpp-feedback(a)gnu.org> as we work on more substantial improvements! Happy and healthy hacking, The HPP Committee ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Stefano Zacchiroli . zack(a)upsilon.cc . upsilon.cc/zack . . o . . . o . o Computer Science Professor . CTO Software Heritage . . . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader & OSI Board Director . . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

1 0

Dutch hacker says he logged into Trump’s Twitter account by guessing password | intelNews.org
by Alberto Cammozzo Oct. 29, 2020

Oct. 29, 2020

<https://intelnews.org/2020/10/23/01-2890/> A DUTCH ETHICAL COMPUTER hacker and cybersecurity expert claims to have logged into the personal Twitter account of United States President Donald Trump, reportedly after guessing his password. The hacker, Victor Gevers, took several screenshots of the private interface of Trump’s Twitter account, and shared them with Dutch news media, before contacting US authorities to notify them of the breach. Trump attributes much of his popularity and electoral success to social media, and is especially fond of Twitter as a means of communication. He has tweeted nearly 20,000 times since 2015 (including re-tweets), with at least 6,000 of those tweets appearing in 2020 alone. His personal account, which uses the moniker @realDonaldTrump, has almost 90 million followers. But Gevers, a self-described ethical computer hacker, cybersecurity researcher and activist, said he was able to guess the American president’s password and log into his Twitter account after four failed attempts. The hacker claims that Trump’s password was “maga2020!”. According to Gevers, Trump’s account did not require a two-factor authentication log-in process, which usually requires a password coupled with a numeric code that is sent to a user’s mobile telephone. As a result, Gevers said he was able to access Trump’s private messages on Twitter and —had he wanted to— post tweets in the name of the US president. He could also change Trump’s profile image, had he chosen to do so. [...]

1 0

Guidelines 4/2019 on Article 25 Data Protection by Design and by Default
by Giacomo Tesio Oct. 29, 2020

Oct. 29, 2020

Una lettura davvero interessante. https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/guidelines/guidelines-4… Chiarisce bene che il controller deve prevedere misure tecniche ed operative efficaci. Il costo delle misure adottate NON può essere addotto come giustificazione per la loro inefficacia, ma solo come criterio di scelta fra misure PARIMENTI efficaci. Giacomo

1 0

The Digital Services Act must not harm Europe’s economic recovery
by Giacomo Tesio Oct. 29, 2020

Oct. 29, 2020

In this extraordinary year, people and businesses are asking more, not less, from technology and technology companies. For many of us, and for many businesses, digital tools have been a lifeline during lockdown, helping us work, shop, find customers, connect with loved ones and get the latest public health information. Helpful digital tools that serve millions of people don’t happen by accident—they need investment and rules that encourage that investment and innovation. Twenty years ago, the European Union created a regulatory environment to do just that. Now it's overhauling those rules, with a comprehensive reform called the Digital Services Act (DSA). We fully support updating the rules, and think it’s more important than ever that this regulation delivers for European consumers and businesses. But a significant part of this reform will impact how digital tools can be built in the future, and by whom. That’s why, earlier this year, we shared our ideas with the European Commission, suggesting ways that existing legislation could be improved and warning of the risks if new rules are poorly designed. Through the pandemic, people’s use of technology has jumped forward five years, with a 60 percent increase in internet usage. Searches for online shopping and how-to-buy online grew by 200 percent worldwide. Demand for the free digital skills courses that Google offers has increased by 300 percent. And many businesses—like restaurants, fashion designers, retailers and even hairdressers—have embraced digital to survive during painful lockdowns and restrictions. Now, just as in every economic downturn of the last 20 years, digital tools will be a vital catalyst for the economic recovery that must come after COVID-19. In rewriting the rules that govern the internet in Europe, the EU has an opportunity to rebuild the foundations so that everybody can thrive online and consumers can benefit from wide choice and lower prices. Yet reports suggest that some of the proposals being considered would do the opposite. They would prevent global technology companies like Google from building innovative digital tools like the ones that people have used through lockdown—and that will help European businesses rebuild their operations. That would be a missed opportunity for Europe as it looks to the post-Covid future. The DSA will not only affect a handful of global companies, but will also have broader impacts - including on the livelihoods of small business owners across Europe, who use digital services like ours to communicate with their customers, sell their products and services and fuel their growth. To take just one example, if you use Google Search to look for “Thai food nearby,” —Google Maps shows you where the nearest restaurant is located and provides its contact details. And other links let you book a table directly (if local health restrictions allow) or see if you can pick up your meal to take away. The DSA could prevent Google from developing such user-centric features. That would clearly have an impact not just on how people use our services, but also on the thousands of restaurants which welcomed millions of diners in Europe using this free feature this year. At Google, we put innovation and continuous improvement at the heart of everything we do. While we support the ambition of the DSA to create clear rules for the next 20 years that support economic growth, we worry that the new rules may instead slow economic recovery. We will advocate strongly for policies that will help ensure innovation and digital tools are at the heart of Europe's recovery and future success. Over the past few months, we’ve seen the power of technology as a tool to bring people together, keep them safe and help them get through difficult times. Now, more than ever, we need to focus not on how to limit innovation by a few companies, but on how the full range of digital tools available can contribute to Europe’s recovery and future economic success. The key to that success? Giving people more, not less. ___ Ho riportato per intero il testo di questo fantastico testo di di Karan Bhatia (Google) perché credo che meriti una attenta analisi. Un analisi psicologica, sociologica e politica. https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/the-digital-services-act… Non è bello vedere come un monopolista USA si preoccupi della ripresa economica del vecchio continente? Non vi ricorda niente? Se non fossero BALLE, ci sarebbe da commuoversi per l'affetto! E sia chiaro: QUESTA NON E' UNA MINACCIA! NO! NO! Giacomo PS: Ma... come faceva la brava gente a trovare i ristoranti 10 anni fa? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

1 0

Speech by Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager: Building trust in technology
by Antonio Vetro' Oct. 29, 2020

Oct. 29, 2020

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2019-2024/vestager/announceme…

1 0

Per un Servizio Universitario Nazionale / Universita' Online della Sinistra
by Guido Noto La Diega Oct. 29, 2020

Oct. 29, 2020

A large number of angry, disappointed young people, stuck either at home behind the screens, or in shit jobs, during a pandemic and a recession, is a recipe for breeding hate and resentment. My guess is that alt-right recruiters are on it as we speak – indeed, have been on it for a while now. The Left has been atrociously slow and on the back foot ever since the December election; we need to step u (...) *What is Online University of the Left?* Simply, it would be a platform offering enrolment/attendance in a number of courses, which could take the form of a ‘foundation year’ degree that some students enrol in before starting ‘official’ uni. Full text: https://postpandemicuniversity.net/2020/07/29/for-an-online-university-of-t… Guido *Guido Noto La Diega*, PhD FHEA Avv *Associate Professor of Intellectual Property and Privacy Law @stirlaw <https://twitter.com/StirLaw>* Visiting Professor @unimc <http://giurisprudenza.unimc.it/it/dipartimento/dipartimento-di-eccellenza/b…> | Director @italiot <https://twitter.com/italiot> | Fellow @nexacenter <https://nexa.polito.it/about-en> | Researcher @CRISP <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crisp-…> E: notoladiega(a)gmail.com W: @guidonld <https://twitter.com/guidonld?lang=en> Recent research includes: ‘Can Permissionless Blockchains be Regulated and Resolve Some of the Problems of Copyright Law? <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329443906_Can_Permissionless_Block…>’ (2019) ‘Artificial Intelligence and Databases in the Age of Big Machine Data <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332607578_Artificial_Intelligence_…>’ (2019) ‘Against the dehumanisation of decision-making <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3188080>’ (2018) For open access to my research and to receive updates visit *my personal website <http://www.guidonotoladiega.com/>*

1 0

Internal Google document reveals campaign against EU lawmakers
by Giacomo Tesio Oct. 28, 2020

Oct. 28, 2020

Report reveals strategy aimed at weakening support for new rules curbing big tech’s power Google is planning an aggressive campaign targeted against French commissioner Thierry Breton and other regulators in Brussels over their plans to introduce new laws to curb the power of big tech, according to a leaked internal document. The report, written in response to the EU’s plan to introduce a sweeping new Digital Services Act, laid out a two-month strategy intended to remove “unreasonable constraints” to Google’s business model and “reset the political narrative” around the proposed legislation. The document singled out Mr Breton, who has been one of the EU’s chief proponents of breaking up big tech companies, listing among its objectives “increase pushback” on the French commissioner, while also “weakening support” for the proposed legislation within Brussels. Google’s presentation, which was seen by the Financial Times after it was first reported on by the French publication Le Point, comes as Brussels prepares to overhaul the rules of the internet for the first time in two decades. The new DSA will seek to legislate on a range of issues including illegal content, ad transparency and disinformation. A draft is expected by the start of December. > Am I surprised? Not really The leak of the internal document lays bare the tactics that big tech companies employ behind the scenes to manipulate public discourse and influence lawmakers. The presentation is watermarked as “privileged and need-to-know” and “confidential and proprietary”. The revelations are set to create new tensions between the EU and Google, which are already engaged in tough discussions about how the internet should be regulated. They are also likely to trigger further debate within Brussels, where regulators hold divergent positions on the possibility of breaking up big tech companies. Margrethe Vestager, the EU’s executive vice-president in charge of competition and digital policy, on Tuesday argued to MEPs that structural separation of big tech is not “the right thing to do”. However, in a recent interview with the FT, Mr Breton accused such companies of being “too big to care”, and suggested that they should be broken up in extreme circumstances. Among the other tactics outlined in the report were objectives to “undermine the idea DSA has no cost to Europeans” and “show how the DSA limits the potential of the internet . . . just as people need it the most”. The campaign document also shows that Google will seek out “more allies” in its fight to influence the regulation debate in Brussels, including enlisting the help of Europe-based platforms such as Booking.com. Booking.com told the FT: “We have no intention of co-operating with Google on upcoming EU platform regulation. Our interests are diametrically opposed.” Google’s market dominance came under increased scrutiny earlier this month when the US Department of Justice launched a landmark antitrust case against it, referring to the US tech giant as “a monopoly gatekeeper for the internet”. In response to its strategic offensive against the EU, Mr Breton told the FT: “Am I surprised? Not really,” adding that he remained “determined to do the right thing . . . now more than ever”. Karan Bhatia, Google’s vice-president for global government affairs and public policy, said: “In this extraordinary year, people and businesses are asking more, not less, from technology and technology companies. “Europe needs policies, including a Digital Services Act, that rise to that challenge. As we’ve made clear in our public and private communications, we have concerns about certain reported proposals that would prevent global technology companies from serving the growing needs of European users and businesses. “We fully support, and will continue to advocate for, a DSA that ensures technology can contribute to Europe’s recovery and future economic success.” Tratto da https://www.ft.com/content/d9d05b1e-45c0-44b8-a1ba-3aa6d0561bed (best viewed without javascript ;-) Giacomo

1 0

Automating Society Report 2020
by ac+nexa＠zeromx.net Oct. 28, 2020

Oct. 28, 2020

<https://automatingsociety.algorithmwatch.org/> /by Fabio Chiusi/ On a cloudy August day in London, students were angry. They flocked <https://twitter.com/HUCKmagazine/status/1294981428602699776?ref_src=twsrc%2…> to Parliament Square by the hundreds, in protest – their placards emblazoned with support for unusual allies: their teachers, and an even more unusual target: an algorithm. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, schools closed in March in the United Kingdom. With the virus still raging throughout Europe over the summer of 2020, students knew that their final exams would have to be canceled, and their assessments – somehow – changed. What they could not have imagined, however, was that thousands of them would end up with lower <https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/aug/13/almost-40-of-english-stud…> than expected grades as a result. Students protesting knew what was to blame, as apparent by their signs and chants: the automated decision-making (ADM) system deployed by the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual). It planned <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/awarding-gcse-as-a-levels-in-sum…> to produce the best data-based assessment for both General Certificates of Secondary Education and A-level results, in such a way that “the distribution of grades follows a similar pattern to that in other years, so that this year’s students do not face a systemic disadvantage as a consequence of circumstances this year”. The government wanted to avoid the excess of optimism that would have resulted from human judgment alone, according to its own estimates <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/…>: compared to the historical series, grades would have been too high. But this attempt to be “as far as possible, fair to students who had been unable to sit their exams this summer” failed spectacularly, and, on that grey August day of protest, the students kept on coming, performing chants, and holding signs to express an urgent need for social justice. Some were desperate, some broke down and cried. “Stop stealing our future”, read one placard, echoing the Fridays for Future protests of climate activists. Others, however, were more specifically tailored to the flaws of the ADM grading system: “Grade my work, not my postcode”, we’re “students, not stats”, they read, denouncing the discriminatory outcomes of the system. Finally, a chant erupted from the crowd, one that has come to the future of protest: “Fuck the algorithm”. Scared that the government was casually – and opaquely – automating their future, no matter how inconsistent with their skills and efforts, students screamed for the right not to have their life chances unduly affected by bad code. They wanted to have a say, and what they said should be heard. Algorithms are neither “neutral” nor “objective” even though we tend to think that they are. They replicate the assumptions and beliefs of those who decide to deploy them and program them. Humans, therefore, are, or should be, responsible for both good and bad algorithmic choices, not “algorithms” or ADM systems. The machine may be scary, but the ghost within it <https://medium.com/startup-grind/the-ghost-in-the-algorithm-a02e5b882afb> is always human. And humans are complicated, even more so than algorithms. The protesting students were not as naive as to believe that their woes were solely the fault of an algorithm, anyway. In fact, they were not chanting against “the algorithm” in an outburst of technological determinism; they were motivated by an urge to protect and promote social justice. In this respect, their protest more closely resembles that of the Luddites. Just as the labor movement that crushed mechanized looms and knitting frames in the 19th Century, they know that ADM systems are about power, and should not be mistaken for being an allegedly objective technology. So, they chanted “justice for the working class”, asked for the resignation of the Health Secretary, portrayed the ADM system as “classism at its finest”, “blatant classism”. Eventually, the students succeeded in abolishing the system which put their educational career and chances in life at risk: in a spectacular U-turn, the UK government scrapped <https://www.euronews.com/2020/08/17/britain-scraps-algorithm-for-student-ex…> the error-prone ADM system and utilized the grades predicted by teachers. But there’s more to this story than the fact that the protesters won in the end. This example highlights how poorly designed, implemented, and overseen systems that repro-duce human bias and discrimination fail to make use of the potential that ADM systems have, such as leveraging comparability and fairness. More clearly than many struggles in the past, this protest reveals that we’re no longer just automating society. We have automated it already – and, finally, somebody noticed. [...]

1 0