- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Mise: online la Strategia italiana per l’Intelligenza artificiale
by don Luca Peyron July 2, 2020

July 2, 2020

Buona lettura dl https://www.mise.gov.it/images/stories/documenti/Proposte_per_una_Strategia… _________________________ don Luca Peyron Direttore Ufficio per la Pastorale Universitaria Arcidiocesi di Torino via XX settembre 83, Torino tel. 011 5156239

1 0

"Don't Believe Proven Liars": The Absolute Minimum Standard of Prudence in Merger Scrutiny
by Giacomo Tesio July 2, 2020

July 2, 2020

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/dont-believe-proven-liars-absolute-mi… Anti-monopoly enforcement has seen a significant shift since the 1970s. Where the Department of Justice once routinely brought suits against anticompetitive mergers, today, that's extremely rare, even between giant companies in highly concentrated industries. (The strongest remedy against a monopolist—breaking them up altogether—is a relic of the past). Regulators used to go to court to block mergers to prevent companies from growing so large that they could abuse their market power. In place of blocking mergers, today's competition regulators like to add terms and conditions to them, exacting promises from companies to behave themselves after the merger is complete. This safeguard continues to enjoy popularity with competition regulators, despite the fact that companies routinely break their public promises to safeguard users’ privacy and rarely face consequences for doing so. (These two facts may be related!) When they do get sanctioned, the punishment almost never exceeds the profits from the broken promise. "A fine is a price." Today, we'd like to propose a modest, incremental improvement to this underpowered deterrent: If a company breaks its promise, and then it makes the same promise when seeking approval for a merger, we should not believe it. Read on for three significant broken promises we'd be fools to believe again. > "There's a sucker born every minute" -Traditional > (often misattributed to PT Barnum) Amazon promised not to use data from the sellers on its platform to launch competing products. It lied. In the summer of 2019, Amazon's General Counsel Nate Sutton made the company's position crystal clear when he told Congress, "We don't use individual seller data directly to compete." In April, the Wall Street Journal spoke to 20 former Amazon employees who said they did exactly this, confirming the suspicions of Amazon sellers, who'd been told that it was just a coincidence that the world's largest online retailer kept cloning the most successful products on its platform. > "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, > but expecting different results." -Rita Mae Brown > (often misattributed to Albert Einstein) In 2014, Facebook bought WhatsApp for $19b, and promised users that it wouldn't harvest their data and mix it with the surveillance troves it got from Facebook and Instagram. It lied. Years later, Facebook mixes data from all of its properties, mining it for data that ultimately helps advertisers, political campaigns and fraudsters find prospects for whatever they're peddling. Today, Facebook is in the process of acquiring Giphy, and while Giphy currently doesn’t track users when they embed GIFs in messages, Facebook could start doing that anytime. > "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. > The third time it’s enemy action." -Ian Fleming In 2007, Google bought DoubleClick, a web advertising network. It promised not to merge advertising data with Google user profiles. It lied. Like most Big Tech companies, much of Google's growth comes from buying smaller companies. Because Google's primary revenue source is targeted advertising, these mergers inevitably raise questions about data-mining. As Google’s role in online advertising is under scrutiny, antitrust enforcers must not accept a new “We mean it, this time. Seriously, guys” promise to protect user data. It would be easy to argue that promises made in a formal settlement with antitrust enforcers will carry more weight than mere public statements about what a company will do. But those public promises can keep customers unaware, and enforcers away, as the company extends its dominance. Those promises have to mean something. Hiding privacy abuses behind false promises “ ">effectively raises rivals’ costs, as they try to compete against what appears to be high quality, but is, in truth, low quality.” That could raise antitrust liability. An overhaul to competition enforcement is long past due, but while that's happening, can we take the absolute smallest step toward prudent regulation and stop believing liars when they tell the same lies? ____ Credo che a Cory Doctorow sfugga che il governo USA non è ingenuo. Non si fa fregare da queste aziende: controlla il resto del mondo attraverso di esse. Giacomo

1 0

"Il primato di Amazon nella consegna dei pacchi finisce sotto osservazione"
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 2, 2020

July 2, 2020

*Il primato di Amazon nella consegna dei pacchi finisce sotto osservazione** */ //L'Agcom riconosce una posizione dominante del colosso dell'ecommerce nel mercato del recapito delle merci. Si prospetta uno scontro// / di Luca Zorloni 2 Jul, 2020 https://www.wired.it/economia/business/2020/07/02/amazon-pacchi-agcom/

1 0

GDPR e intelligenza artificiale
by Diego Giorio July 1, 2020

July 1, 2020

Non mi sembra fosse ancora passato in lista questo studio del Parlamento Europeo suoi rapporti fra GDPR e intelligenza artificale https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_ST… Saluti a tutti D.

1 0

Fwd: Barbara Simons Receives 2019 ACM Policy Award
by Diego.Latella July 1, 2020

July 1, 2020

ACM Bulletin Archives July 1, 2020 Barbara Simons Receives 2019 ACM Policy Award Barbara Simons was named the recipient of the 2019 ACM Policy Award for long-standing, high-impact leadership as ACM President and founding Chair of ACM's US Public Policy Committee (USACM, now USTPC), while making influential contributions to improve the reliability of and public confidence in election technology. Over several decades, Simons has advanced technology policy by founding and leading organizations, authoring influential publications, and effecting change through lobbying and public education. Now part of ACM's Technology Policy Council (TPC), which serves global regions, the TPC groups have continued Simons' original vision for ACM: to provide cogent advice and analysis to legislators and policymakers about a wide range of issues including cryptography, computer security, privacy, and intellectual property. Simons is internationally known as an expert on voting technology, an advocate for auditable paper-based voting systems, and author of numerous papers on secure election technology. Through her publications, reports, testimony to the US Congress, and advocacy, Simons has been a key player in persuading election officials to shift to paper-based voting systems, and has contributed to proposals for reforms in election technologies. Simons served as ACM President from 1998 to 2000. Since 2008, Simons has served as one of two US Senate appointees to the Board of Advisors of the US Election Assistance Commission, and she was named Chair of the Board of Advisors subcommittee on election security in 2019. She currently also chairs the Board of Directors of Verified Voting, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that advocates for legislation and regulation that promotes accuracy, transparency and verifiability of elections. She remains active with ACM as a member of the global Technology Policy Council and as Co-chair of USTPC's Voting subcommittee. Read the ACM news release. Association for Computing Machinery 1601 Broadway, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10019-7434 Copyright (c) 2020, ACM, Inc. All rights reserved You are subscribed with: diego.latella(a)CNR.IT Unsubscribe Connect with us: https://www.facebook.com/pages/ACM-Association-for-Computing-Machinery/1792… https://twitter.com/TheOfficialACM https://www.linkedin.com/company/association-for-computing-machinery?trk=na… https://www.youtube.com/user/TheOfficialACM https://www.instagram.com/theofficialacm/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/theofficialacm

1 0

face recognition a detrit
by Stefano Quintarelli July 1, 2020

July 1, 2020

face recognition a Detroit https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/detroit-police-chief-admits-fac… sbaglia solo il 95-97% delle volte ciao, s. -- reserve your meeting with me at https://cal.quintarelli.it

2 1

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