- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

mappatura hardware (GPUs ecc) a disposizione di università e centri di ricerca in Italia

by Andrea Bolioli

Buongiorno, seguendo il thread sull'hardware comprato dall'università di Pisa, chiedo se esiste un "elenco dell'hardware" a disposizione di università e centri di ricerca in Italia, o se potrebbe essere utile crearlo. Intendo HPC e roba simile, tipo il centro di Unito e Polito https://hpc4ai.unito.it/#systems le ultime cose di UniPI, il nuovo Centro Naz. in HPC https://www.supercomputing-icsc.it/en/about/ Per vedere esattamente che cosa c'è già, che cosa è stato ordinato e cosa ci sarà nei prossimi anni. Buona giornata, Andrea

July 14, 2023

Re: [nexa] A proposito dell'IA/ML c/o UniPI (...e del realtivo budget IT) [Era: relatività della rete in azione...]

by Antonio

> Ecco: UniPI... ci ha messo sopra 805.000 euro... OTTOCENTOCINQUEMILA euro. Il DGX, ultimamente, è diventato l'oggetto del desiderio di tanti. Ben 79 bandi europei in pochi mesi. https://ted.europa.eu/TED/search/search.do E' sufficiente flaggare "All notices" e poi scrivere DGX sul campo Text A.

July 14, 2023

Fran Drescher’s fiery speech against Hollywood studios goes viral as actors strike | US actors' strike 2023 | The Guardian

by Alberto Cammozzo

<https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/jul/14/fran-drescher-speech-actors…> Fran Drescher has blasted Hollywood studios in a fiery speech after talks between the actors’ union and studios failed to avert a strike, calling them “disgusting” for claiming “they’re losing money left and right when giving hundreds of millions of dollars to their CEOs”. In a speech that was widely circulated on Thursday – particularly among many who did not know The Nanny star was heading up Sag-Aftra, Hollywood’s biggest union – Drescher said actors were being “marginalised, disrespected and dishonoured” by a business model that has been drastically changed by streaming and artificial intelligence. “What happens here is important because what’s happening to us is happening across all fields of labor, when employers make Wall Street and greed their priority and they forget about the essential contributors that make the machine run,” she said. “We are the victims here. We are being victimised by a very greedy entity. I am shocked by the way the people that we have been in business with are treating us. “I cannot believe it, quite frankly, how far apart we are on so many things. How they plead poverty, that they’re losing money left and right when giving hundreds of millions of dollars to their CEOs. It is disgusting. Shame on them. They stand on the wrong side of history.” On Thursday it was announced that 160,000 Sag-Aftra members – from big stars to background actors – will be joining the Writers Guild of America in a strike, marking the biggest shutdown of Hollywood since both unions last went on strike together in 1960. The unions are fighting for better terms with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, an entity that represents major studios and streamers, including Amazon, Apple, Disney, NBCUniversal, Netflix, Paramount, Sony and Warner Bros Discovery. Drescher, who became union president in 2021, has long expressed concerns about corporate greed, captioning photos with slogans like “STOP CAPITALIST GREED NOW” and tweeting sentiments including: “Capitalism has become another word for Ruling Class Elite!” In 2017 New York Magazine ran the headline: “Your New Favorite Anti-Capitalist Icon Is Fran Drescher.” Drescher also described herself as “anti-capitalist” in an interview with Vulture that year, saying: “I’m not anti-making-money, don’t get me wrong. I don’t think making money is a bad thing, per se. But it has to be calibrated within the spectrum of what’s a true value. “What I really tell people is, ‘you might be the first ones at a global-warming rally, but meanwhile, do you know what’s in your investment portfolio?’ We need to not be supporting these companies at all.” Drescher’s speech on Thursday was off-the-cuff, with the 65-year-old actor shaking her fists and sometimes blinking away tears. “Wake up and smell the coffee,” she told the studios. “We demand respect! You cannot exist without us!” Fran Drescher becoming one of the consequential union leaders of our time is an arc I am absolutely delighted by as both a union gal and a '90s kid. — Emily St. James (@emilystjams) July 13, 2023 Sag-Aftra members have been ordered to stop any work connected to productions, including red carpets and promoting their work on social media. The London premiere of Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer was pulled forward one hour to avoid the start of the strike, with the cast leaving during the film as it was officially announced. On Twitter Bette Midler criticised tech companies in a thread listing the many industries that were being hurt, before focusing on Hollywood. “The actors are right to strike, as are the writers,” she wrote. “If you want to devalue and destroy an industry, it’s no longer a sustainable business model.” Cynthia Nixon tweeted that she is “proud to be standing tall” with the WGA and that studios that have been “reaping from our labor for far too long”. She added: “We will win this!” Jamie Lee Curtis shared an Instagram post that read: “It’s time to take down the MASKS and pick up the SIGNS”.

July 14, 2023

cibernetica

by Giovanni Leghissa

vi invio il link che vi permette di scaricare l'ultimo numero di Philosophy kitchen, rivista di filosofia online che dirigo - numero dedicato alla cibernetica. spero possa interessare alcuni di voi G https://philosophykitchen.com/2023/06/pk18-cibernetica-prospettive-sul-pens…

July 13, 2023

The FTC is investigating whether ChatGPT harms consumers

by Daniela Tafani

The FTC is investigating whether ChatGPT harms consumers The agency’s demand for OpenAI’s documents about AI risks mark the company’s greatest U.S. regulatory threat to date By Cat Zakrzewski<https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/cat-zakrzewski/?itid=ai_top_zakrzewsk…> Updated July 13, 2023 at 10:44 a.m. EDT|Published July 13, 2023 at 6:00 a.m. EDT The Federal Trade Commission has opened an expansive investigation into OpenAI, probing whether the maker of the popular ChatGPT bot has run afoul of consumer protection laws by putting personal reputations and data at risk. The agency this week sent the San Francisco company a 20-page demand for records about how it addresses risks related to its AI models, according to a document reviewed by The Washington Post<https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/67a7081c-c770-4f05-a39e-9d02117e50…>. The salvo represents the most potent regulatory threat to date to OpenAI’s business in the United States, as the company goes on a global charm offensive<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/09/sam-altman-openai-chat…> to shape the future of artificial intelligence policy. Analysts have called OpenAI’s ChatGPT the fastest-growing consumer app in history, and its early success set off an arms race among Silicon Valley companies<https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/post-reports/the-ai-arms-race-is-on…> to roll out competing chatbots. The company’s chief executive, Sam Altman, has emerged as an influential figure in the debate over AI regulation, testifying on Capitol Hill<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/05/16/sam-altman-open-ai-con…>, dining with lawmakers and meeting with President Biden<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/05/04/white-house-ai-ceos-me…> and Vice President Harris. Big Tech was moving cautiously on AI. Then came ChatGPT.<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/01/27/chatgpt-google-meta/?i…> But now the company faces a new test in Washington, where the FTC has issued multiple warnings<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/25/artificial-intelligenc…> that existing consumer protection laws apply to AI, even as the administration and Congress struggle to outline new regulations.<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/17/congress-regulating-ai…> Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has predicted<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/21/ai-regulation-us-senat…> that new AI legislation is months away. The FTC’s demands of OpenAI are the first indication of how it intends to enforce those warnings. If the FTC finds that a company violates consumer protection laws, it can levy fines or put a business under a consent decree<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/12/mudge-twitter-ftc-cons…>, which can dictate how the company handles data. The FTC has emerged as the federal government’s top Silicon Valley cop, bringing large fines against Meta<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/07/12/ftc-votes-approve-bill…>, Amazon <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/05/31/amazon-alexa-ring-ftc-…> and Twitter <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/25/twitter-fine-ftc/?itid…> for alleged violations of consumer protection laws. The FTC called on OpenAI to provide detailed descriptions of all complaints it had received of its products making “false, misleading, disparaging or harmful” statements about people. The FTC is investigating whether the company engaged in unfair or deceptive practices that resulted in “reputational harm” to consumers, according to the document. The FTC also asked the company to provide records related to a security incident that the company disclosed in March when a bug in its systems allowed some users to see payment-related information, as well as some data from other users’ chat history. The FTC is probing whether the company’s data security practices violate consumer protection laws. OpenAI said in a blog post <https://openai.com/blog/march-20-chatgpt-outage> that the number of users whose data was revealed to someone else was “extremely low.” OpenAI and the FTC did not immediately respond to requests for comment sent on Thursday morning. News of the probe comes as FTC Chair Lina Khan is likely to face a combative hearing<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/12/tech-giants-racking-up-w…> Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee, where Republican lawmakers are expected to analyze her enforcement record and accuse her of mismanaging <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/03/09/musk-ftc-house-republi…> the agency. Khan’s ambitious plans to rein in Silicon Valley have suffered key losses in court. On Tuesday, a federal judge rejected the FTC’s attempt <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/11/microsoft-activision-f…> to block Microsoft’s $69 billion deal to buy the video game company Activision. The agency has repeatedly warned that action is coming on AI, in speeches, blog posts<https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2023/02/keep-your-ai-claims-check>, op-eds and news conferences. In a speech at Harvard Law School<https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Remarks-to-JOLT-4-1-2023.pdf> in April, Samuel Levine, the director of the agency’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said the agency was prepared to be “nimble” in getting ahead of emerging threats. “The FTC welcomes innovation, but being innovative is not a license to be reckless,” Levine said. “We are prepared to use all our tools, including enforcement, to challenge harmful practices in this area.” The FTC also has issued several colorful blog posts about its approach to regulating AI, at times invoking popular science fiction movies to warn the industry against running afoul of the law. The agency has warned<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/25/artificial-intelligenc…> against AI scams, using generative AI to manipulate potential customers and falsely exaggerating the capabilities of AI products. Khan also participated in a news conference with Biden administration officials in April about the risk of AI discrimination. “There is no AI exemption to the laws on the books,” Khan said at that event. The FTC’s push faced swift pushback from the tech industry. Adam Kovacevich, the founder and CEO of the industry coalition Chamber of Commerce, said it’s clear that the FTC has oversight of data security and misrepresentation. But he said it’s unclear if the agency has the authority to “police defamation or the contents of ChatGPT’s results.” "AI is making headlines right now, and the FTC is continuing to put flashy cases over securing results,” he said. Among the information the FTC is seeking from Open AI is any research, testing or surveys that assess how well consumers understand “the accuracy or reliability of outputs” generated by its AI tools. The agency made extensive demands about records related to ways OpenAI’s products could generate disparaging statements, asking the company to provide records of the complaints people send about its chatbot making false statements. The agency’s focus on such fabrications comes after numerous high-profile reports of the chatbot producing incorrect information that could damage people’s reputations. Mark Walters, a radio talk show host in Georgia sued OpenAI for defamation, alleging the chabot made up legal claims against him. The lawsuit <https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/walters-openai-co…> alleges that ChatGPT falsely claimed that Walters, the host of “Armed American Radio,” was accused of defrauding and embezzling funds from the Second Amendment Foundation. The response was provided in response to a question about a lawsuit about the foundation that Walters is not a party to, according to the complaint. ChatGPT also said that a lawyer had made sexually suggestive comments and attempted to touch a student on a class trip to Alaska, citing an article that it said had appeared in The Washington Post. But no such article existed, the class trip never happened and the lawyer said he was never accused of harassing a student, The Post reported previously<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/05/chatgpt-lies/?itid=lk_…>. The FTC in its request also asked the company to provide extensive details about its products and the way it advertises them. It also demanded details about the policies and procedures that OpenAI takes before it releases any new product to the public, including a list of times that OpenAI held back a large language model because of safety risks. The agency also demanded a detailed description of the data that OpenAI uses to train its products, which mimic humanlike speech by ingesting text, mostly scraped from Wikipedia, Scribd and other sites across the open web. The agency also asked OpenAI to describe how it refines its models to address their tendency to “hallucinate,” making up answers <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/05/30/ai-chatbots-chatgpt-ba…> when the models don’t know the answer to a question. OpenAI also has to turn over details about how many people were affected by the March security incident and information about all the steps it took to respond. The FTC’s records request, which is called a Civil Investigative Demand, primarily focuses on potential consumer protection abuses, but it also asks OpenAI to provide some details about how it licenses its models to other companies. Europe moves ahead on AI regulation, challenging tech giants’ power<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/14/eu-parliament-approves…> The United States has trailed other governments in drafting AI legislation and regulating the privacy risks associated with the technology. Countries within the European Union have taken steps to limit U.S. companies’ chatbots under the bloc’s privacy law, the General Data Protection Regulation. Italy temporarily blocked<https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/31/italy-ban-chatgpt-artificia…> ChatGPT from operating there due to data privacy concerns, and Google had to postpone the launch of its chatbot Bard after receiving requests for privacy assessments from the Irish Data Protection Commission. The European Union is also expected to pass AI legislation by the end of the year. There is a flurry of activity in Washington to catch up. On Tuesday, Schumer hosted an all-senator briefing with officials from the Pentagon and intelligence community to discuss the national security risks of artificial intelligence, as he works with a bipartisan group of senators to craft new AI legislation. Schumer told reporters after the session that it’s going to be “very hard” to regulate AI, as lawmakers try to balance the need for innovation with ensuring there are proper safeguards on the technology. On Wednesday, Vice President Harris hosted a group of consumer protection advocates and civil liberties leaders at the White House for a discussion on the safety and security risks of AI. “It is a false choice to suggest that we either can advance innovation or we protect consumers,” Harris said. “We can do both.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/13/ftc-openai-chatgpt-sam…

July 13, 2023

Re: [nexa] (no subject)

by Giuseppe Attardi

Sono stato impreciso nel titolo, ma la sostanza era quella: Il Sistema Informatico di Ateneo è individuato quale struttura responsabile per la transizione al digitale e il prof. Antonio Cisternino, in quanto Presidente del Sistema Informatico di Ateneo, è nominato Responsabile per la Transizione al Digitale fino al 31 ottobre 2020. — Beppe > On 3 Jul 2023, at 12:46, nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it wrote: > Solo per la precisione, vsto che sono stata nominata: il dottor > Cisternino non è prorettore all'informatica. > https://unimap.unipi.it/organizzazione/organi.php?f=1CEN@F

July 13, 2023

To Help Cool a Hot Planet, the Whitest of White Coats

by Luigi Scorca

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/12/climate/white-paint-climate-cooling.html

July 13, 2023

Re: [nexa] Undone Computer Science conference

by 380°

Buongiorno, grazie _infinite_ per la segnalazione, non conoscevo gli studi sulla undone science [1], fantastico! "Norberto Patrignani" <norberto.patrignani(a)polito.it> writes: > Segnalo ... la call scade 10 Ottobre 2023 > > https://undonecs.sciencesconf.org/ la conferenza è tutto un programma: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- The goal of our conference is to provide an opportunity to pause and reflect on the epistemological and ethical aspects of computer science. We propose as a theme the concept of undone science [1,2]: the intriguing yet vital notion that areas of research may remain incomplete, overlooked, or unfunded despite being found worthy of exploration by some—and the exploration into the causes of these situations. Any discussion of systematic lack of production or dissemination of knowledge is welcome, whether in a specific area or in computer science in general, whether past or present; whether due to limitations of available methodologies, blind spots of dominant paradigms, institutional and industrial biases, lack of social representation, or other factors. Why an international conference on Undone Science in Computer Science Undone science offers a broad and open-ended line of inquiry capable of inspiring fascinating talks—yet sufficiently focused to bring together, around a common topic, computer scientists from across the field, but also philosophers of science, social scientists, etc., interested in discussing the ethical and epistemological dimensions of our field. [...] Topics welcomed Undone science encompasses many social aspects of research. Dominant paradigms, through “theoretical commitment” [1], influence within a domain what is deemed worthy or not of exploration. Yet accounts of paradigm shifts in our young science remain rare. Undone science also encompasses the influence of institutional and corporate biases, such as those that critical voices have recently highlighted with regard to AI ethics [3], which have been reminding us of the society-impacting case studies that motivated the concept of undone science in the first place. An example of institutional influence are the publishing practices of a field, which can have an impact on the choice of research questions and the way research is executed. The bias can also be methodological and technical, such as when the availability of certain software or hardware at the right time determines which research idea wins [4]. Interdisciplinary approaches can naturally suggest examples of undone science—for instance, when a point of view borrowed from another discipline changes how we perceive an object of study. As computers become more and more prominent in people's lives, studying interactions with, and impact on people is a central topic. How can ethical questioning—regarding social, economic, and environmental consequences—be integrated into our work? As the ACM recently updated its Code of Ethics to more broadly encompass the concerns of our profession, can such codes be leveraged to present some questions as worthy or not of exploration? Undone science also recognises, notably, the role of social movements and civil society in identifying new questions or questions not immediately deemed worthy of interest [1]—for computer science, one can think of the free software movement, the civil liberties organisations, and probably more. An admissible topic for discussion at our conference could be the analysis of an “elephant in the room” of your domain: a question which is never discussed in papers for various reasons—but perhaps occasionally and informally between sessions at conferences—yet that could be vital for the domain. Undone science must be contrasted with open questions that are well-recognised within a community, but that are believed to simply require a technical tour de force. We would like to welcome talks that inspire reflections about ethical or epistemological dimensions of computer science, whether the talk delves into these aspects or a problem is simply outlined based on an examination of actual practice. Researchers who are not specialists of ethics and epistemology, but who have encountered topics in their research that inspire such reflections, are encouraged to submit. Post-Proceedings Volume Depending upon the eventual number and quality of submissions, we intend to follow up the conference with a call for full papers to be published in a journal (TBD). It will not be necessary to submit a full paper to present at the conference; nor will it be necessary to present at the conference to answer the call for full papers. [...] References [1] Frickel, S., Gibbon, S., Howard, J., Kempner, J., Ottinger, G., & Hess, D. J. (2010). Undone Science: Charting Social Movement and Civil Society Challenges to Research Agenda Setting. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(4), 444–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243909345836 (n.d.r.: _piratato_ qui https://sci-hub.st/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0162243909345836) [2] D. J. Hess (2016). Undone Science: Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262529495. [3] According to Green, tech ethics increasingly tends to be “subsumed into corporate logics and incentives”. According to Abdalla and Abdalla, actions of “Big Tech” to influence academic and public discourse are reminiscent of the tactics of Big Tobacco: * B. Green (2021). "The Contestation of Tech Ethics: A Sociotechnical Approach to Technology Ethics in Practice," in Journal of Social Computing, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 209-225, September 2021. https://doi.org/10.23919/JSC.2021.0018 * M. Abdalla & M. Abdalla (2021). The Grey Hoodie Project: Big Tobacco, Big Tech, and the Threat on Academic Integrity. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462563 [4] Sara Hooker. 2021. The hardware lottery. Commun. ACM 64, 12 (December 2021), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1145/3467017 --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- saluti, 380° -- 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>.

July 13, 2023

Re: [nexa] New Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework largely a copy of "Privacy Shield". noyb will challenge the decision.

by Stefano Quintarelli

afaik il GDPR e' una norma (regolamento) l'accordo no. On 13/07/23 12:13, Damiano Verzulli wrote: > Da quello che dici tu, Stefano, invece, ... sembrerebbe che ci siano "norme superiori" > (immagino tu ti riferisca al GDPR) che hanno "forza di legge" e che, conseguentemente, > "vincono" su 1), 3) e 5). Corretto?

July 13, 2023

Re: [nexa] New Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework largely a copy of "Privacy Shield". noyb will challenge the decision.

by Damiano Verzulli

Il 13/07/23 11:49, Stefano Quintarelli ha scritto: > [...] > il fatto che la commissione faccia un accordo non vuole dire che sia > legale. > (lo ha fatto in passato e due volte la corte europea di giustizia ha > detto "quello che hai fatto e' illegale".) > > adesso lo fa una terza volta, ma non vuol dire che sia legale > > un accordo illegale non rende legale il comportamento di chi si basa > su di esso > > quindi, da quanto capisco io, no, non sono "perfettamente utilizzabili". Interessante. Mi piacerebbe approfondire la questione, soprattutto per (cercare di) sgombrare il campo da equivoci. Avevo capito (io; probabilmente sbagliando) che con la ShremsII fosse diventato *ILLEGALE* il trasferimento dei dati negli USA. Ne deduco che *PRIMA* della Shrems II, tale trasferimento fosse "legale". Sbaglio? In altri termini, nella timeline: 1 - Primo tentativo: Safe Harbour 2 - KO via Shrems I 3 - Secondo tentativo: Privacy Shield 4 - KO via Shrems II 5 - Terzo tentativo: adequacy decision for safe and trusted EU-US data flows 6 - ??? Shrems III ? ??? io immaginavo che nei periodi 1<=>2 e 3<=>4 i servizi GAFAM potessero essere "tranquillamente utilizzati" (aka: senza timore di essere denunciati per trasferimento illecito dei dati) e che qui, per conseguenza, oggi (che siamo fra 5<=>6...) di nuovo l'utilizzo torni ad essere "compliant" Da quello che dici tu, Stefano, invece, ... sembrerebbe che ci siano "norme superiori" (immagino tu ti riferisca al GDPR) che hanno "forza di legge" e che, conseguentemente, "vincono" su 1), 3) e 5). Corretto? Mi rendo conto di muovermi lungo un sentiero che NON mi compete (non sono un esperto di diritto, ne tantomeno di normativa sulla privacy) ma... credo sia FONDAMENTALE cercare "di carpirci" (almeno fra noi; qui).... perché.... se non ci capiamo noi.... Grazie a tutti coloro che contribuiranno alla discussione. Saluti, DV > > estremizzo: se la commissione facesse un accordo che dicesse "si puo' > fare benzina senza pagarla", non vuol dire che puoi andare al > distributore, farti il piano e andartene... > > e' illecito, checche' ne dica la commissione > > almeno questo e' quello che credo di capire, > > ma i giuristi saranno piu' precisi... > > ciao!, s. > >> >> Quindi --ripeto; se capisco bene-- ora le PP.AA. possono "tornare a" >> / "continuare a" utilizzare i vari Google Analytics, Google >> Classroom, Microsoft Teams e/o tutti gli altri N-mila servizi cloud >> offerti dai GAFAM... senza alcun problema "giuridico". >> >> In molti evidenziano che tale decisione avra' vita breve, e dara' >> adito ad una Shrems III (ossia ad una "bocciatura" da parte della >> Corte di Giustizia Europea) ma... nel frattempo, la "legalita'" mi >> pare sia tornata a prevalere (con un adeguamento della norma, >> piuttosto che con un cambiamento negli utilizzi). >> >> Mi chiedo quali conseguenze produrra', tale "decisione", negli >> approcci dei vari manager pubblici (dai Dirigenti degli Istituti >> Comprensivi o delle Scuole Superiori... o anche degli Atenei) che, >> negli ultimi mesi/anno hanno dovuto "gestire" le richieste degli >> amici di Monitora-PA... >> >> Cosa fare, ora? Lo chiedo ai Nexiani di questa lista... >> >> Saluti, >> DV >> >> >> Il 11/07/23 11:03, Alberto Cammozzo via nexa ha scritto: >>> Conformità ottenuta tramite ingegneria semantica del termine >>> 'proportionate'. >>> >>> >>> >>> <https://noyb.eu/en/european-commission-gives-eu-us-data-transfers-third-rou…> >>> >>> >>> Third attempt of the European Commission to get a stable agreement >>> on EU-US data transfers will be likely back at the Court of Justice >>> (CJEU) in a matter of months. The allegedly "new" Trans-Atlantic >>> Data Privacy Framework is largely a copy of the failed "Privacy >>> Shield". Despite the European Commission's public relations efforts, >>> there is little change in US law or the approach taken by the EU. >>> The fundamental problem with FISA 702 was not addressed by the US, >>> as the US still takes the view that only US persons are worthy of >>> constitutional rights. >>> >>> Comparison of the change in US law since 2014: >>> >>> * >>> o "Old" PPD-28 (2014) >>> <https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/17/presidenti…> >>> o "New" EO 14086, replacing PPD-28 (2022) >>> <https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-10-14/pdf/2022-22531.pdf> >>> * Comparison with previous public relation efforts: >>> o "Rebuilding Trust in EU-US Data Flows" and the "Umbrella" >>> from 2013 >>> <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:4d874331-784a-11e3-b889-…> >>> o Press Statement on the "Privacy Shield" from 2016 >>> <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_16_2461> >>> o Media FAQs on the "Privacy Shield" from 2016 >>> <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_16_2462> >>> o Single Page "Agreement in Principle" between Biden and von >>> der Leyen from 2022 >>> <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/872132/Tra…> >>> * European Commission Draft Adequacy Decision (December 2022) >>> <https://noyb.eu/en/European Commission Draft Adequacy Decision >>> (December 2022)> >>> >>> *Background.* In 2013 Edward Snowden disclosed that the US >>> government used "big tech" companies and programs like "PRISM >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM>" or "Upstream >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstream_collection>" under FISA 702 >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978…> >>> and EO 12.333 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12333> >>> to spy on the rest of the world without the need for probable cause >>> or judicial approval. This was not limited to crime or terrorism, >>> but also included espionage on "partners" of the US. Since a 1995 EU >>> law, personal data may generally not be sent outside of the EU >>> unless there is a "essentially equivalent" protection in the >>> destination country. The US industry heavily relied on a European >>> Commission Decision called "Safe Harbor" that declared the US >>> "essentially equivalent" in 2000. The CJEU has annulled the >>> Commission Decision in C-362/14 ("Schrems I") >>> <https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?nat=or&mat=or&pcs=Oor&jur=C%2CT%2CF…> >>> in 2015, given the vase US surveillance laws. In 2016 the European >>> Commission has passed largely the same Decision on EU-US Data >>> Transfers again, under the new name "Privacy Shield", which was >>> invalidated by the CJEU in C-311/18 ("Schrems II") >>> <https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?nat=or&mat=or&pcs=Oor&jur=C%2CT%2CF…> >>> in 2020 largely on the same grounds. >>> >>> *Ursula's and Joe's "Magic" Tricks. *After the annulment of the >>> "Privacy Shield" the negotiations between the EU and the US saw >>> little progress. The US insisted that EU data would stay subject to >>> US mass surveillance and "non-US" persons will /not /have the same >>> protections as US persons. After little movement for more than 1.5 >>> years, the US has reportedly used the war in Ukraine to put pressure >>> on the EU on sharing personal data >>> <https://www.politico.eu/article/us-eyes-breakthrough-on-data-dispute-with-e…>. >>> Soon thereafter, Joe Biden and Ursula von der Leyen met on 25 March >>> 2022. The same day, the two have suddenly "solved" what the lawyers >>> were unable to solve and presented an "agreement in principle >>> <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/872132/Tra…>", >>> a one pager which in essence contained two "tricks" that should calm >>> the public: >>> >>> * /First/, the CJEU found that*FISA 702 bulk surveillance being >>> not "proportionate"* >>> within the meaning of Article 52 of the EU's Charter of >>> Fundamental Rights (CFR). >>> The "new" US Executive Order 14086 >>> <https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-10-14/pdf/2022-22531.pdf> >>> (which is >>> largely equivalent to PPD-28 from 2014 >>> <https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/17/presidenti…>) >>> would now include the word "proportionate". The "trick" here: *the >>> US will attribute another meaning to the word "proportionate" than >>> the CJEU*. EO 14086 declares FISA 702 bulk surveillance to be >>> "proportionate" under an undisclosed "US understanding" of the word >>> and contrary to the two findings by the CJEU. This way the EU and >>> the US were able to claim that they agreed on the same word >>> ("proportionate") - even when there is no agreement on the meaning >>> of the word. >>> * /Secondly/, the CJEU found that *redress via the Privacy Shield >>> "Ombudsperson"* was >>> not even remotely complying with Article 47 CFR**- even when the >>> Ombudsperson was >>> hailed by the Commission public relations in 2016 as an >>> "/independent/" form of >>> "/redress in the area of national security/" >>> <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_16_2462>. >>> The "trick" on >>> redress: the Ombudsperson mechanism was*renamed and split to a >>> Civil Liberties >>> Protection Officer (CLPO) and a so-called "Court"* (which is not >>> a court, but a >>> partly independent executive body). While there are some minor >>> improvements over the >>> Ombudsperson, the individual will not have any direct >>> interaction with the new >>> bodies (they will have to send a complaint to an EU data >>> protection authority and >>> not be heard by the US) and they will give the exact same >>> response as the previous >>> "Ombudsperson". Under EO 14086 the CLPO and the Court must in >>> any case respond by >>> saying: "/Without confirming or denying that the complainant was >>> subject to United >>> States signals intelligence activities, the review either did >>> not identify any >>> covered violations or the Data Protection Review Court issued a >>> determination >>> requiring appropriate remediation/" (see here >>> <https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-22531/p-107>). The >>> "judgment" of this >>> "Court" is therefore known even before a case is brought. There >>> are many additional >>> problem with the mechanism, that will largely ensure that >>> complaints will not even >>> be admitted. It seems unthinkable that the Court of Justice >>> would accept this as >>> "judicial redress" under Article 47 CFR. >>> * /Finally/, the*US has refused to reform FISA 702* to give non-US >>> persons reasonable >>> privacy protections. There is agreement on both sides of the >>> Atlantic that FISA 702 >>> and EO 12.333 violate fundamental rights under the 4th Amendment >>> in the US and >>> Articles 7, 8 and 47 CFR in the EU - but the US continues to >>> insist that non-US >>> persons do not have constitutional rights in the US - hence a >>> violation of their >>> right to privacy is not covered by the 4th Amendment. >>> * *FISA 702 will have to be prolonged by the end of 2023*, given >>> that there is a >>> "sunset clause" in US law. This would have been the perfect >>> opportunity to improve >>> US law, but given the new deal with the EU, there will be little >>> reason for the US >>> to reform FISA 702. >>> >>> Overall the new "Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework" is a copy of >>> Privacy Shield (from 2016), which in turn was a copy of "Safe >>> Harbor" (from 2000). Given that this approach has failed twice >>> before, there was no legal basis for the change of course - only >>> logic of having a deal was political. >>> >>> Max Schrems, chair of /noyb/: "/They say the definition of insanity >>> is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a >>> different result. Just like 'Privacy Shield' the latest deal is not >>> based on material changes, but by political interests. Once again >>> the current Commission seems to think that the mess will be the next >>> Commission's problem. FISA 702 needs to be prolonged by the US this >>> year, but with the announcement of the new deal the EU has lost any >>> power to get a reform of FISA 702."/ >>> >>> *Fool me Thrice? *Already in the wake of the Snowden disclosures in >>> 2013, the European Commission announced that it will "rebuild" trust >>> <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:4d874331-784a-11e3-b889-…> >>> and "/make Safe Harbor safer/" and come up with an "/umbrella >>> agreement/".**In 2016 journalists were told that >>> <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_16_2462> >>> the "Privacy Shield" would mean that /"for the first time, the US >>> has given the EU written assurance",/ that there would be /"clear >>> limitations, safeguards and oversight mechanisms" /and even/"no >>> indiscriminate mass surveillance". /None of these claims and systems >>> has prove stable when put before the CJEU. In the current version of >>> the Commission's public relations efforts, the same (ever-repeating) >>> claims are entertained. >>> >>> Max Schrems: "/We now had 'Harbors', 'Umbrellas', 'Shields' and >>> 'Frameworks' - but no substantial change in US surveillance law. The >>> press statements of today are almost a literal copy of the once from >>> the past 23 years. Just announcing that something is 'new', 'robust' >>> or 'effective' does not cut it before the Court of Justice. We would >>> need changes in US surveillance law to make this work - and we >>> simply don't have it./" >>> >>> *CJEU challenge ready to be filed. *Anyone who's personal data will >>> be transferred under the new deal can bring a challenge with Data >>> Protection Authorities or Courts. /noyb /has prepared various >>> procedural options to bring the new deal back before the CJEU. We >>> expect the new system to be implemented by the first companies >>> within the next months, which will open the path towards a challenge >>> by a person who's data is transferred under the new instrument. It >>> is not unlikely that a challenge would reach the CJEU by the end of >>> 2023 or beginning of 2024. The CJEU would then even have the option >>> to suspend the "Framework" for the time of the procedure. A final >>> decision by the CJEU would be likely by 2024 or 2025. No matter if >>> such a challenge will be successful, this will bring clarity to the >>> "Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework" within about two years. >>> >>> Max Schrems:/"We have various options for a challenge already in the >>> drawer, although we are sick and tired of this legal ping-pong. We >>> currently expect this to be back at the Court of Justice by the >>> beginning of next year. The Court of Justice could then even suspend >>> the new deal while it is reviewing the substance of it. For the sake >>> of legal certainty and the rule of law we will then get an answer if >>> the Commission's tiny improvements were enough or not./ /For the >>> past 23 years all EU-US deals were declared invalid retroactively, >>> making all past data transfers by business illegal - we seem to just >>> add another two years of this ping-pong now./" >>> >>> *EU Commission shows little care for rule of law and citizens' >>> privacy. *This third attempt to pass largely the same unlawful >>> decision also raises questions as to the larger role of the European >>> Commission being the guardian of the EU treaties. Instead of >>> upholding the 'rule of law' the Commission simply passes an invalid >>> decision over and over again, despite clear rulings by the CJEU. >>> Despite large outrage after the Snowden disclosures in the EU and >>> repeated calls by the European Parliament to take action, the >>> Commission seems to give the diplomatic relations with the US and >>> business pressure on both side of the Atlantic the priority over the >>> rights of Europeans and the requirements of EU law. >>> >>> Max Schrems: "/The Commission is meant to be the 'guardian of the >>> treaties' and the defender or the 'rule of law'. It loves that role >>> when it comes to Member States violating EU law. Now the Commission >>> itself simply ignores the Court of Justice for the third time./" >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> nexa mailing list >>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >> >> -- >> Damiano Verzulli >> e-mail:damiano@verzulli.it >> --- >> possible?ok:while(!possible){open_mindedness++} >> --- >> "...I realized that free software would not generate the kind of >> income that was needed. Maybe in USA or Europe, you may be able >> to get a well paying job as a free software developer, but not >> here [in Africa]..." -- Guido Sohne - 1973-2008 >> http://ole.kenic.or.ke/pipermail/skunkworks/2008-April/005989.html >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa -- Damiano Verzulli e-mail: damiano(a)verzulli.it --- possible?ok:while(!possible){open_mindedness++} --- "...I realized that free software would not generate the kind of income that was needed. Maybe in USA or Europe, you may be able to get a well paying job as a free software developer, but not here [in Africa]..." -- Guido Sohne - 1973-2008 http://ole.kenic.or.ke/pipermail/skunkworks/2008-April/005989.html

July 13, 2023