- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Webinar 'The Independent and Effective DPO: Legal and Policy Perspectives'
by Edoardo Celeste July 1, 2020

July 1, 2020

Buonasera a tutti, di seguito vi prego di trovare i dettagli di un webinar che ho avuto recentemente modo di organizzare assieme a Future of Privacy Forum. Spero possa interessare alcuni di voi in lista. Qui <https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-independent-and-effective-dpo-legal-and-po…> il link per la registrazione. Un caro saluto, Edoardo Celeste Future of Privacy Forum and Dublin City University invite you as we discuss: The Independent and Effective DPO: Legal & Policy Perspectives About this Event Join us Wednesday, July 8, 2020 at 3:00 PM CET (9:00 AM ET, 2.00 PM IST) until 4:30 PM CET for the webinar 'The independent and effective DPO: Legal and Policy Perspectives.' The webinar is jointly organized by Dublin City University (DCU) and Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) and designed to help policymakers, regulators, and their staff better understand the legal views concerning the position of the Data Protection Officer within an organization. Guest speakers include: MB Donnelly, Assistant Commissioner, Data Protection Commission Ireland Daniela Havlíková, Expert for the Legislation Unit, the Office for Personal Data Protection, Czech Republic Hielke Hijmans, Chairman of the Litigation chamber and member of the Board of Directors at Data Protection Authority Belgium Grégoire Delette, Legal advisor - DPOs dpt – Directorate of compliance, CNIL Marie Murphy, Fort Privacy and Association of Data Protection Officers Ireland Udo Oelen, Chief Privacy Officer at Dutch Railways, former Head of Private Sector at the Dutch Data Protection Authority Damien Kieran, Data Protection Officer at Twitter Mark Crosbie, Data Protection Officer at Dropbox Gabriela Zanfir-Fortuna, Senior Counsel, Future of Privacy Forum Rob van Eijk, Managing Director for Europe, Future of Privacy Forum Edoardo Celeste, Lecturer in Law, School of Law and Government, Dublin City University Please register in advance for this webinar, as space is limited. Registration will close at 5:00 PM ET on July 7th. Remote participation will be encouraged through live Q&A. DCU and FPF have partnered to collaborate on research projects, host joint conferences and workshops, and pursue applications for research opportunities together. To learn more about FPF in Europe, please visit https://fpf.org/eu <https://fpf.org/eu>. For information about DCU click here <https://www.dcu.ie/law_and_government/index.shtml>.

1 0

Facial recognition has a new foe: The world's biggest group of computing professionals
by Alberto Cammozzo July 1, 2020

July 1, 2020

Il riconoscimento facciale farà la fine del poligrafo e del body scanner? Tecnologie ineffettive, inutili, in certi casi illegali, ma elementi redditizi del "security theater". <https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/tech-worker-group-calls-facial-recogn…> The world's largest association of computing professionals is calling for an "immediate suspension" of the private and governmental use of facial recognition technologies for "technical and ethical reasons." The Association for Computing Machinery, which says it has almost 100,000 student and professional members, said in a statement Tuesday that the surveillance technology was often biased and couldn't reliably used in a way that wouldn't adversely affect vulnerable populations. "The technology too often produces results demonstrating clear bias based on ethnic, racial, gender, and other human characteristics recognizable by computer systems," the group's U.S. Technology Policy Committee said in a statement. "Such bias and its effects are scientifically and socially unacceptable." The association acknowledged that facial recognition technology can be "benign or beneficial," but it said its use has "often compromised fundamental human and legal rights of individuals to privacy, employment, justice and personal liberty." It called on policymakers to support the suspension until legal standards for accuracy, fairness and accountability have been developed. Protests across the United States against police violence and racial profiling have galvanized researchers and civil liberties groups, who have been calling for more public scrutiny and strict controls of surveillance technologies, including facial recognition, which critics say aggravates human biases and infringes on people's constitutional freedoms. At the end of 2019, researchers for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, an agency of the Commerce Department, found that facial recognition algorithms falsely identified African American and Asian faces 10 to 100 times more often than Caucasian faces — a flaw that was illustrated by the wrongful arrest of Robert Williams, a Michigan man, this year. The Association for Computing Machinery follows a string of organizations and companies to issue warnings or bans on the technology. IBM, Amazon and Microsoft announced sweeping restrictions on their sales of facial recognition tools this month and called for them to be federally regulated.

1 0

Data, Compute, Labour | Ada Lovelace Institute
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 1, 2020

July 1, 2020

https://www.adalovelaceinstitute.org/data-compute-labour/ Data, Compute, Labour30 June 2020 | Dr Nick Srnicek, King's College London The monopolisation of AI is not just – or even primarily – a data issue. Monopolisation is driven as much by the barriers to entry posed by fixed capital, and the ‘virtuous cycles’ that compute and labour are generating for the AI providers. (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Re: [nexa] Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
by Giacomo Tesio June 30, 2020

June 30, 2020

> I have earlier said that neuralbnetworks > need not be programmed, and therefore can handle tacit knowledge. Fatico ad immaginare una interpretazione di questa frase che abbia una qualche coerenza con la realtà. Le reti neurali vengono programmate. E anche la calibrazione (impropriamente chiamata training o learning) può essere considerata programmazione. Possiamo pensare ai dati come il codice che la rete neurale esegue come una sorta di virtual machine, cambiando progressivamente di stato. La selezione dei dati è evidentemente un modo di programmare tale macchina. Un modo grossolano che rinuncia alla creazione di un modello comprensibile del funzionamento futuro della virtual machine, ma sempre di programmazione si tratta. Quanto poi alla gestione di una conoscenza tacita, sono un po' basito. La conoscenza tacita (non espressa) esiste solo nella mente di chi la possiede. Ciò che manipolano le macchine sono mere rappresentazioni trasferibili di informazioni (anche detti "dati"): in quanto rappresentazioni, non sono tacite ma, al limite, involontarie ed inconsapevoli. Daltronde in quanto rappresentazioni, sono inevitabilmente distinte, diverse da ciò che rappresentano (ovvero l'informazione, non il suo oggetto). Se questa è la comprensione della AI (e dell'informatica in generale) su cui si basa l'autore, mi sorprende che sia riuscito a giungere alla (pur ovvia) conclusione che la AGI non è possibile. Giacomo

1 0

Re: [nexa] Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
by Roberto Dolci June 30, 2020

June 30, 2020

L’approccio filosofico e’ corretto, e tra l’altro il test di Cartesio e’ valido ancora oggi, ma forse serve un occhiata alle neuroscienze per capire il punto descritto sotto per Watson. Oggi i modelli piu’ sofisticati di AI arrivano a 16 milioni di neuroni, che son quello che ognuno di noi ha gia’ solo nella corteccia cerebrale, cui se ne aggiungono altri 70-80 a spasso per la scatola cranica, quindi non c’e’ paragone. La rana ha 16m di neuroni, come la miglior AI, che quindi e’ tontolona se paragonata a noi. Watson non da problemi nel riconoscimento di fratture, nei o altri dati da cui si ricavi l’anomalia come delta rispetto ad una norma, perche’ con la classificazione del dataset bene o male te la cavi. Ma lo stesso Watson rischia di prescriverti una chirurgia toracica per quello che risolvi con un maloox, perche’ non puo’ minimamente “coordinare” le tante variabili da prendere in considerazione durante una diagnosi, che oltre a richiedere classificazione e’ anche processo ricorsivo con forte interazione con il paziente (non a caso fare il veterinario o il pediatra e’ ben piu’ difficile). Qui sul processo di diagnosi: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK338593/ From: nexa <nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it> On Behalf Of Federico Guerrini Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 2:27 AM To: Center Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> Subject: [nexa] Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized Ciao, vi segnalo quest'interessante paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-0494-4 che adotta un approccio filosofico alla questione e prova a confutare l'idea, diffusa fra l'altro da Harari su Homo Deus, che il libero arbitrio sia solo una questione di stimoli biochimici. Computers are not in our world. I have earlier said that neural networks need not be programmed, and therefore can handle tacit knowledge. However, it is simply not true, as some of theadvocates of Big Data argue, that the data“speak for themselves”.Normally, the data used are related to one or more models, they are selected by humans, and in the end they consist of numbers. If we think, for example like Harari, that the world is“at thebottom”governed by algorithms, then we will have a tendency to overestimate the power of AI and underestimate human accom-plishments. The expression“nothing but”that appears in thequotation from Harari may lead to a serious oversimplification inthe description of human and social phenomena. I think this is atleast a part of the explanation of the failure of both IBM WatsonHealth and Alphabet’s DeepMind.“IBM has encountered a fundamental mismatch between the way machines learn and theway doctors work”(Strickland,2019) and DeepMind has dis-covered that“what works for Go may not work for the challen-ging problems that DeepMind aspires to solve with AI, like cancer and clean energy”(Marcus,2019).The over estimation of the power of AI may also have detrimental effects on science. In their frequently quoted bookTheSecond Machine AgeErik Brynjolfson and Andrew McAfee argue that digitization can help us to understand the past. They refer toa project that analyzed more thanfive million books published inEnglish since 1800. Some of the results from the project was that“the number of words in English has increased by more than 70%between 1950 and 2000, that fame now comes to people more quickly than in the past but also fades faster, and that in the 20th century interest in evolution was declining until Watson andCrick discovered the structure of DNA.”This allegedly leads to“better understanding and prediction—in other words, of better science—via digitization”(Brynjolfson and McAfee,2014, p. 69).In my opinion it is rather an illustration of Karl Popper’s insight:“Too many dollars may chase too few ideas”(Popper,1981,p. 96).My conclusion is very simple: Hubert Dreyfus’argumentsagainst general AI are still valid. -- https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/fellowships/journalist-fellows/p… www.onthebrink.it<http://www.onthebrink.it>

1 0

Re: [nexa] [AVVISO] mailing list offline per 24/48 ore
by Giovanni Garifo June 30, 2020

June 30, 2020

L'intervento è ultimato e la mailing list è nuovamente online. Buona giornata, -- Giovanni Garifo IT Manager Nexa Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino - DAUIN Via Pier Carlo Boggio, 65/A - 10138 Torino w. nexa.polito.it/people/ggarifo l. linkedin.com/in/giovannigarifo On 30/06/2020 10:02, Giovanni Garifo wrote: > Cari iscritti alla mailing list, > > vi scrivo per informarvi che nelle prossime 24/48 ore la mailing list > non sarà raggiungibile a causa di un intervento tecnico. > > Seguirà comunicazione appena la mailing list tornerà online. > > > Buona giornata

1 0

Digital platforms and the (re)organization of solidarity
by don Luca Peyron June 30, 2020

June 30, 2020

Considerazioni e buone prassi per chi è interessato al tema dl https://platformlabor.net/blog/digital-platforms-and-the-reorganization-of-… _________________________ www.universitari.to.it via XX settembre 83, Torino tel. 011 5156239

1 0

Lettera alla ministra Azzolina del Prof. Angelo Raffaele Meo e domanda della Prof.ssa Maria Chiara Pievatolo in Senato
by Giacomo Tesio June 27, 2020

June 27, 2020

Salve, segnalo a chi non ne fosse già informato che la Senatrice Maria Laura Mantovani (M5S) ha riportato presso il Senato della Repubblica alcuni passaggi della recente lettera alla Ministra Azzolina del Professor Meo [1] e della domanda posta qui ed altrove dalla Professoressa Maria Chiara Pievatolo [2] Qui https://www.youtube.com/embed/VwxSVl_HT4k potete trovare la registrazione dell'intervento della Senatrice. Giacomo [1] https://scuolalibera.continuity.space/lettera-professor-meo [2] https://www.roars.it/online/teledidattica-proprietaria-e-privata-o-libera-e…

2 2

Facebook policy changes fail to quell advertiser revolt as Coca-Cola pulls ads | Technology | The Guardian
by Alberto Cammozzo June 27, 2020

June 27, 2020

<phttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jun/26/facebook-policies-hate-…> Company follows Unilever’s lead after platform announces shift in how it handles hate speech More than 100 companies have committed to hit pause on ad spending on Facebook for July 2020. Facebook has announced changes to its policies around hate speech and voter suppression, but the measures have done little to quell the wave of companies pulling advertising from the platform amid backlash over how the company handles hate speech online. The CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, on Friday announced tweaks to a number of policies, hours after the multinational Unilever said it would pull its advertisements from the platform for the next six months. Zuckerberg’s announcements, however, did not halt companies’ demands for change. On Friday afternoon, Coca-Cola, Honda, the chocolate brand Hershey, and the apparel companies Lululemon and Jansport joined the more than 100 brands boycotting advertising on Facebook. Facebook makes about 98% of its $70bn in annual revenue from advertising, and Unilever’s announcement sent Facebook stocks tumbling 7%. Unilever’s joining of the boycott put significant pressure on Facebook, said Nicole Perrin, the principal analyst at the market research firm eMarketer. As one of the largest advertisers in the world, its moves could influence other brand advertisers to follow its lead, she said. It also pulled spending for longer than other companies and on more platforms, including Instagram and Twitter. “That suggests a deeper problem with user-generated content platforms, as divisiveness is to be expected on any such platform that allows political expression,” she said. The changes announced Friday are the most significant Facebook has made after months of actions from employees and legislators, yet critics argue they are still too incremental. Facebook said it would take an approach similar to that of Twitter, labeling posts that may violate its policies but are allowed to remain on the platform because they are deemed newsworthy. The platform will also include a link to its voting information center on any post with information about voting, including by politicians: “This is not a judgement of whether the posts themselves are accurate,” Zuckerberg said. The new policies come as a reversal from Facebook’s previous stances. As recently as last week the company made clear that Facebook does not consider much of the language that Trump uses to suppress voting to be voter suppression, defending Trump’s posts as being “legitimate debate”. Zuckerberg also said in the video that posts that “may lead to violence or deprive people of their right to vote” will be removed regardless of who posts them or whether they may be considered newsworthy. “I’m optimistic that we’re going to be able to make progress on these challenges,” Zuckerberg said. “I think we’re going to be able to do that while maintaining our democratic traditions around free expression and voting, and I’m committed to making sure that Facebook is a force for good on this journey.” The pressure on Facebook to moderate hate speech has accelerated in recent weeks as the platform refused to flag false and incendiary statements from Donald Trump, despite moves from rival platform Twitter to do so. In response, workers staged a walkout and called on the company to do more to address hate speech and incitement to violence. How much the new policies will change the landscape of Facebook remains to be seen, said representatives of Change the Terms, a coalition of over 55 civil rights groups committed to fighting online hate. “Today at Facebook, the collective voice of diverse users won against the threats of hateful politicians and white supremacists, but we need more enforcement—not words that remain unfulfilled,” said Jessica J González, the co-founder of Change the Terms and co-CEO of Free Press. Change the Terms cited the existence of more than 100 white supremacist Facebook accounts that are still active on the platform. Others noted that Donald Trump’s post about shooting looters during civil rights protests remains live on the site. Zuckerberg also said the company will not be changing its policies that allow lying in paid political advertisements. Rashad Robinson of the Color of Change said the CEO’s statement “was 11 minutes of wasted opportunity to commit to change”. “Zuckerberg’s new changes don’t go nearly far enough,” Robinson said on Twitter. “Labeling ‘newsworthy’ content so the public can judge for themselves is not a new policy. It’s more of the same, and it won’t cut it.”

1 0

Universal Basic Income Is Silicon Valley’s Latest Scam
by Giacomo Tesio June 26, 2020

June 26, 2020

The plan is no gift to the masses, but a tool for our further enslavement In 2016, I was invited to Uber’s headquarters (then in San Francisco) to talk about the failings of the digital economy and what could be done about it. Silicon Valley firms are the only corporations I know that ask for private talks for free. They don’t even cover cab fare. [..] I took the gig. I figured it was my chance to let my audience know, in no uncertain terms, that Uber was among the worst offenders, destroying the existing taxi market not through creative destruction but via destructive destruction. They were using the power of their capital to undercut everyone, extract everything, and establish a scorched-earth monopoly. I went on quite a tirade. To my surprise, the audience seemed to share my concerns. They’re not idiots, and the negative effects of their operations were visible everywhere they looked. Then an employee piped up with a surprising question: “What about UBI?” [...] Uber’s business plan, like that of so many other digital unicorns, is based on extracting all the value from the markets it enters. This ultimately means squeezing employees, customers, and suppliers alike in the name of continued growth. When people eventually become too poor to continue working as drivers or paying for rides, UBI supplies the required cash infusion for the business to keep operating. When it’s looked at the way a software developer would, it’s clear that UBI is really little more than a patch to a program that’s fundamentally flawed. The real purpose of digital capitalism is to extract value from the economy and deliver it to those at the top. If consumers find a way to retain some of that value for themselves, the thinking goes, you’re doing something wrong or “leaving money on the table.” [...] Walmart perfected the softer version of this model in the 20th century. Move into a town, undercut the local merchants by selling items below cost, and put everyone else out of business. Then, as sole retailer and sole employer, set the prices and wages you want. So what if your workers have to go on welfare and food stamps. Now, digital companies are accomplishing the same thing, only faster and more completely. [...] Of course, it all comes at a price: Digital monopolists drain all their markets at once and more completely than their analog predecessors. Soon, consumers simply can’t consume enough to keep the revenues flowing in. Even the prospect of stockpiling everyone’s data, like Facebook or Google do, begins to lose its allure if none of the people behind the data have any money to spend. To the rescue comes UBI. [...] Think of it: The government prints more money or perhaps — god forbid — it taxes some corporate profits, then it showers the cash down on the people so they can continue to spend. As a result, more and more capital accumulates at the top. And with that capital comes more power to dictate the terms governing human existence. Continua su https://medium.com/s/free-money/universal-basic-income-is-silicon-valleys-l… (o http://web.archive.org/web/20200626141758/https://telegra.ph/mediumcom-Univ…) Purtroppo la conclusione del ragionamento non si porta molto lontano dal modello americano, limitandosi a suggerire la condivisione con i lavoratori di un 10% delle azioni. Un idea che sembra ricevere una certa spinta propagandistica negli USA in questo momento: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/opinion/corporate-profit-sharing-inequal… Ma se non affidi il 100% delle azioni ai lavoratori, superata la crisi etica del momento, le puoi togliere. Servono alternative più drastiche, efficaci e definitive. Giacomo

1 0