- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

estrazione di dati
by maurizio lana April 26, 2020

April 26, 2020

Il 26/04/20 Giovanni Biscuolo <giovanni(a)biscuolo.net> ha scritto: > Una posizione interessante è quella di Aral Bakan: propone di > considerare le informazioni "ricavabili" da una persona come parte di > essa. > E' una prospettiva interessante: se considerassimo il dato (che è > sempre una rappresentazione trasferibile ed interpretabile di una > informazione) alla stregua di un dito o di una gamba, comprenderemmo > che la sua estrazione DEVE ESSERE ILLEGALE perché viola l'integrità > della persona stessa, la sua dignità e la sua capacità di agire > liberamente nel mondo. le persone (le identità delle persone) nel mondo digitale sono i dati che le descrivono. ne deriva necessariamente che abusare dei dati significa abusare della persona. che estrarre dei dati senza autorizzazione o usarli per scopi non autorizzati viola l'integrità digitale e giuridica della persona. il punto è che nel mondo digitale siamo i dati che ci descrivono. la domandona è: quanti cittadini lo sanno? maurizio -- http://maurobiani.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/patrick-george-zaky-libero.… ----- Maurizio Lana Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici Università del Piemonte Orientale piazza Roma 36 - 13100 Vercelli tel. +39 347 7370925

1 0

Russians launch mass virtual protests using satnav application
by J.C. DE MARTIN April 26, 2020

April 26, 2020

*Russians launch mass virtual protests using satnav application* /A wave of "digital protests" strikes a country under lockdown/ Posted 20 April 2020 18:21 GMT Russia is the midst of a strict COVID-19 lockdown. Although protesters cannot take to the streets, they are still holding mass demonstrations — digitally. Today, residents of the southern city of Rostov-on-Don gathered outside the local government building to protest the strict self-isolation regime, which has been in force in the region since early April. They also demand the payment of social benefits to those who have lost their jobs as the country fights to contain the pandemic. These “gatherings” are being conducted through Yandex.Navigator, an application run by one of Russia's biggest digital giants. Continua qui: https://globalvoices.org/2020/04/20/russians-launch-mass-protests-using-sat…

1 0

Contact apps won't end lockdown. But they might kill off democracy | Coronavirus outbreak | The Guardian
by J.C. DE MARTIN April 26, 2020

April 26, 2020

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/25/contact-apps-wont-end… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Tutti gli industriali implicati nella costruzione dell'applicazione StopCovid sono francesi
by Antonio Casilli April 26, 2020

April 26, 2020

Sorpresa. La Germania cade nella padella, la Francia resta sulla brace: "Plusieurs entreprises privées contribuent à ce chantier (...). Jusqu’ici, le gouvernement s’était refusé à en révéler les noms. C’est désormais chose faite : le secrétaire d’Etat a dévoilé l’implication de Capgemini, de Dassault Systèmes, d’Orange et de deux start-up, Lunabee Studio, spécialisée dans le développement d’application mobile, et de Withings, expert des objets connectés.." https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2020/04/26/stopcovid-etre-prets-le-11… -- Antonio A. Casilli Professor, Telecom Paris, Institut Polytechnique de Paris Member, Interdisciplinary Institute for Innovation (i3 UMR 9217 CNRS) Associate Member, LACI-IIAC (EHESS) Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet & Society *We respect your right to disconnect. This email send time is due to my own workflow efficiency. You are in no obligation to take action or reply to it outside your office hours.*

1 0

Germany flips on smartphone contact tracing, backs Apple and Google
by J.C. DE MARTIN April 26, 2020

April 26, 2020

*Germany flips on smartphone contact tracing, backs Apple and Google* Douglas Busvine /BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany changed course on Sunday over which type of smartphone technology it wanted to use to trace coronavirus infections, backing an approach supported by Apple and Google along with a growing number of other European countries. / https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-europe-tech-idUSKCN22…

1 0

Le app di tracciamento sono un'aringa rossa | nobrainnopain
by Alberto Cammozzo April 25, 2020

April 25, 2020

Condivido un pensiero, forse un po' troppo sarcastico (me ne scuso). La condivido con voi perché penso che molte delle energie e dell'attenzione di tanti professionisti informatici di valore e in buona fede vengono assorbite da una industria che non offre molto di buono a questa società, nemmeno nei momenti di maggior bisogno come questo. Dal post trasparirà la delusione che ormai da qualche anno nutro nei confronti delle aspettative tradite dalla disciplina informatica nella quale ho investito la mia professione, e vorrei tanto questo potesse cambiare: spero che questa comunità possa avere una voce in tal senso. Un tentativo, se volete, di resistenza. <https://nobrainnopain.org/Leappditracciamentosonounaringarossa> Buon 25 aprile. Alberto

1 0

Come la Corea ha appiattito la curva
by Diego Giorio April 25, 2020

April 25, 2020

Segnalo questo report, prodotto da una Nazione che è stata additata come esempio per la gestione dell'emergenza anche grazie a strumenti tecnologici. Non ho ancora finito i leggerlo, ma, così a occhio, lo spazio dedicato alla app di tracciamento, peraltro molto invasiva in quel Paese, mi sembra molto prossimo allo zero, se non mi è sfuggito qualcosa. https://www.mss.go.kr/openEvent/Flattening_the_curve_on_COVID-19.jsp Con l'occasione, buon we a tutti D.

2 2

Editoriale su Le Monde
by Antonio Casilli April 25, 2020

April 25, 2020

Oggi su Le Monde co-firmo un editoriale con Jean-Baptiste Soufron, ex-segretario del Consiglio Nazionale del Digitale francese, e Paul-Olivier Dehaye, il matematico alla base dello scandalo Cambridge Analytica. Il tema, ve lo immaginate, è StopCovid, versione francese di Immuni. Il titolo che avevamo proposto era semplicemente "Stop Covid Analytica". Ma anche quello aggiunto dal giornale è bello tosto. « StopCovid est un projet désastreux piloté par des apprentis sorciers » https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2020/04/25/stopcovid-est-un-projet-des… Antonio Casilli, Paul-Olivier Dehaye et Jean-Baptiste Soufron --- Il faut renoncer à la mise en place d’un outil de surveillance enregistrant toutes nos interactions humaines et sur lequel pèse l’ombre d’intérêts privés et politiques, à l’instar du scandale Cambridge Analytica, plaide un collectif de spécialistes du numérique dans une tribune au « Monde ». Tribune. Le mardi 28 avril, les parlementaires français seront amenés à voter sur StopCovid, l’application mobile de traçage des individus imposée par l’exécutif. Nous souhaitons que, par leur vote, ils convainquent ce dernier de renoncer à cette idée tant qu’il est encore temps. Non pas de l’améliorer, mais d’y renoncer tout court. En fait, même si toutes les garanties légales et techniques étaient mises en place (anonymisation des données, open source, technologies Bluetooth, consentement des utilisateurs, protocole décentralisé, etc.), StopCovid serait exposée au plus grand des dangers : celui de se transformer sous peu en « StopCovid Analytica », une nouvelle version du scandale Cambridge Analytica [siphonnage des données privées de dizaines de millions de comptes Facebook]. L’application StopCovid a été imaginée comme un outil pour permettre de sortir la population française de la situation de restriction des libertés publiques provoquée par le Covid-19. En réalité, cette « solution » technologique ne serait qu’une continuation du confinement par d’autres moyens. Si, avec ce dernier, nous avons fait l’expérience d’une assignation à résidence collective, les applications mobiles de surveillance risquent de banaliser le port du bracelet électronique. Tous les citoyens, malades ou non Le terme n’est pas exagéré : c’est déjà le cas à Hong-Kong, qui impose un capteur au poignet des personnes en quarantaine, et c’est l’objet de tests en Corée du Sud et au Liechtenstein pour certaines catégories de citoyens à risque. StopCovid, elle, a vocation à être installée dans les smartphones, mais elle concerne tous les citoyens, malades ou non. Malgré le fait que son installation soit présentée comme facultative dans d’autres pays, tels l’Italie, on assiste à la transformation de cette démarche volontaire en obligation. L’affaire Cambridge Analytica, révélée au grand jour en 2018, avait comme point de départ les travaux de chercheurs de l’université anglaise. Une application appelée « Thisisyourdigitallife », présentée comme un simple quiz psychologique, avait d’abord été proposée à des utilisateurs de la plate-forme de microtravail Amazon Mechanical Turk. Ensuite, ces derniers avaient été amenés à donner accès au profil Facebook de tous leurs contacts. C’était, en quelque sorte, du traçage numérique des contacts avant la lettre. A aucun moment ces sujets n’avaient consenti à la réutilisation de leurs informations dans le cadre de la campagne du Brexit ou dans l’élection présidentielle de Donald Trump. Cela est arrivé ensuite, lorsque les chercheurs ont voulu monétiser les données, initialement collectées dans un but théoriquement désintéressé, par le biais de l’entreprise Cambridge Analytica. En principe, cette démarche respectait les lois des différents pays et les règles de ces grandes plates-formes. Néanmoins, de puissants algorithmes ont été mis au service des intérêts personnels et de la soif de pouvoir d’hommes politiques sans scrupule. Le projet StopCovid n’offre aucune garantie sur les finalités exactes de la collecte de ces données Les mêmes ingrédients sont réunis ici : des scientifiques « de bonne volonté », des géants de la « tech », des intérêts politiques. Dans le cas de StopCovid, c’est le consortium universitaire européen Pan-European Privacy Preserving Proximity Tracing (PEPP-PT), qui a vu le jour à la suite de la pandémie. Ces scientifiques se sont attelés à la tâche de concevoir dans l’urgence le capteur de contacts le plus puissant, dans le respect des lois. Cela s’articule avec les intérêts économiques d’acteurs privés, tels les grands groupes industriels nationaux, le secteur automobile et les banques en Italie, les télécoms et les professionnels de l’hébergement informatique en France. Mais surtout les GAFA, les géants américains du numérique, se sont emparés du sujet. Cette fois, ce ne sont pas Facebook et Amazon, mais Google et Apple, qui ont tout de suite proposé de fournir une nouvelle structure pour diffuser les applications de suivi de contacts sur leurs plates-formes. La menace qui plane au-delà de tous ces acteurs vient des ambitions de certains milieux politiques européens d’afficher leur détermination dans la lutte contre le Covid19, en se targuant d’une solution technique à grande échelle, utilisant les données personnelles pour la « campagne du déconfinement ». Une myopie sur les dimensions sociales des données Le projet StopCovid n’offre aucune garantie sur les finalités exactes de la collecte de ces données. L’exécutif français ne s’autorise pas à réfléchir à la phase qui suit la collecte, c’est-à-dire au traitement qui sera fait de ces informations sensibles. Quels algorithmes les analyseront ? Avec quelles autres données seront-elles croisées sur le moyen et le court terme ? Son court-termisme s’accompagne d’une myopie sur les dimensions sociales des données. Que se passerait-il si, comme plusieurs scientifiques de l’Inria, du CNRS et d’Informatics Europe s’époumonent à nous le dire, malgré une collecte initiale de données réduite au minimum, des entreprises ou des puissances étrangères décidaient de créer des « applications parasites » qui, comme Cambridge Analytica, croiseraient les données anonymisées de StopCovid avec d’autres bases de données nominatives ? Que se passerait-il, par exemple, si une plate-forme de livraison à domicile décidait (cela s’est passé récemment en Chine) de donner des informations en temps réel sur la santé de ses coursiers ? Comment pourrait-on empêcher un employeur ou un donneur d’ordres de profiter dans le futur des données sur l’état de santé et les habitudes sociales des travailleurs ? L’affaire Cambridge Analytica nous a permis de comprendre que les jeux de pouvoir violents et partisans autour de la maîtrise de nos données personnelles ont des conséquences directes sur l’ensemble de la vie réelle. Il ne s’agit pas d’une lubie abstraite. Le cas de StopCovid est tout aussi marquant. En focalisant des ressources, l’attention du public et celle des parlementaires sur une solution technique probablement inefficace, le gouvernement nous détourne des urgences les plus criantes : la pénurie de masques, de tests et de médicaments, ou les inégalités d’exposition au risque d’infection. Une malheureuse diversion Cette malheureuse diversion n’aurait pas lieu si le gouvernement n’imposait pas ses stratégies numériques, verticalement, n’étant plus guidé que par l’urgence de faire semblant d’agir. Face à ces enjeux, il faudrait au contraire impliquer activement et à parts égales les citoyens, les institutions, les organisations et les territoires pour repenser notre rapport à la technologie. Le modèle de gouvernance qui accompagnera StopCovid sera manifestement centré dans les mains d’une poignée d’acteurs étatiques et marchands. Une telle verticalité n’offre aucune garantie contre l’évolution rapide de l’application en un outil coercitif, imposé à tout le monde. Ce dispositif entraînerait un recul fondamental en matière de libertés, à la fois symbolique et concret : tant sur la liberté de déplacement, notamment entre les pays qui refuseraient d’avoir des systèmes de traçage ou qui prendront ce prétexte pour renforcer leur forteresse, que sur la liberté de travailler, de se réunir ou sur la vie privée. Les pouvoirs publics, les entreprises et les chercheurs qui dans le courant des dernières semaines sont allés de l’avant avec cette proposition désastreuse, ressemblent à des apprentis sorciers qui manient des outils dont la puissance destructrice leur échappe. Et, comme dans le poème de Goethe, quand l’apprenti sorcier n’arrive plus à retenir les forces qu’il a invoquées, il finit par implorer une figure d’autorité, une puissance supérieure qui remette de l’ordre. Sauf que, comme le poète nous l’apprend, ce « maître habile » ne reprend ces outils « que pour les faire servir à ses desseins ». Antonio Casilli, sociologue. Paul-Olivier Dehaye, mathématicien. Jean-Baptiste Soufron, avocat. Cosignataires : Sophie Binet et Marie-José Kotlicki cosecrétaires généraux de l’UGICT-CGT ; Raquel Radaut, membre de La Quadrature du Net.

3 4

The Flawed World of Contact Tracing: Where’s Carol The Tester?
by Alberto Cammozzo April 25, 2020

April 25, 2020

Mi scuso se questo commento è già passato in lista, non me ne sono accorto. A. <https://medium.com/asecuritysite-when-bob-met-alice/the-flawed-world-of-con…> [...] The Flawed World of Contact Tracing: Where’s Carol The Tester? Governments love quick fixes … “We have an app, and we are working with Google, so everything will be okay!” Prof Bill Buchanan OBE I must admit, the specification created by Apple and Google on contact tracing is a massive disappointment, and leaves so many doors open to large scale surveillance. I appreciate that they are laying down a basic mechanism that lands on the phone, but there’s no real privacy embedded into their system, and no hints to how this could be used in the real world. The whole discussion on user and contact tracing opens up a whole lot of questions, and the most fundamental of these is that we don’t actually have any real infrastructure to implement privacy-preserving methods. It is likely that a COVID-19 app would be a pin-point app, and where the data gathered for location and contact tracking could be easily abused, and would have limited scope outside a country’s borders. Our core problem is that we have built data infrastructures that mirror those from the 1980s, and where we care little about the core rights of the data we gather. Once captured, the owner becomes the entity who captured the data, and without the trustworthiness of the transactions involved, we leave it open to abuse for malicious activities. The method … The Apple/Google method works by Alice generating a unique 256-bit tracing key for her phone — and where this key must be kept secret. Every day she then creates a daily tracing key, by creating a hash from the tracing key and the current day. From this hash, it should not be possible to determine her tracing key (as it is generated from the random 256-bit tracing key). Every 10 minutes, she then creates a rolling ID key, and which is an HMAC identifier (a signed hash) of her daily tracing key and a counter for the number of 10 mins that have passed that day. When Bob comes into contact with Alice, he will receive her rolling ID through a Bluetooth Advertisement, and could then pass that back to Trent (the NHS). Trent cannot correlate Alice from the rolling ID, and whether she has COVID-19 or not. He is just blinding sending it back to Trent, in order for Trent to track the contact or not. In order to preserve privacy, Trent should only track if Alice has been proven to be COVID-19 positive. Once Alice has been proven to have COVID-19, she will send the daily tracing key to Trent, and who can then match all the rolling ID keys to her identity. This will only happen for one day, and where each day she much send these keys. There is thus a key feature on the phone, and where it makes the decision to send the daily key or not. Here is an outline of the code. And you trust governments to implement this in a trusted way? The Flaws … There are many flaws in COVID-19 contact tracking method proposed by Apple and Google: Who is Trent? We often trust our health authorities a great deal more than we trust our governments. If the data goes to clinical staff for analysis, we perhaps find that more acceptable than someone in law enforcement. Thus the fundamental question in the whole system is how we can make sure that Trent is someone trusted. This could be a trusted entity who handles the data on behalf of the citizen (and preserves their privacy on their behalf) or a health authority that Alice trusts? It is unlikely that we should trust anyone else than health authorities, and also we need to make sure that the data gathered is only kept for the required amount of time. Any tracing of contacts should not be kept for longer than it is required, and only the clinical aspect of the tracing should be kept, and only provided to trusted health professionals. Where is Carol? There is s no trusted mechanisms to integrate a formal test for COVID-19, and where we bring in Carol the Tester. Carol the Tester would be able to define a state of testing: Positive, Clear, and Suspected, and will have followed a scientific process to provide Carol’s COVID-19 status. What is Carol’s attestation? We don’t want the government to control testing, and we thus need to have a trusted network of testers — from our own country and from other trusted places. Thus we need for a trusted way for a number of testers to sign the attestation that Carol has COVID-19, or when has been proven to be negative. A newer attestation will revoke a previous one. So will this attestation be in the form of passporting system, with digital verification, and allow Alice to carry a digital passport of being free from COVID-19, and that can be passed to others? The role of Trent is unclear. Overall Trent must be the health authority and not the government. Trent must be the one who marks the status of Alice as: Clear, Suspected, Not Known, and Positive. In this way, there is something defined by Trent that proves the status, and where the tracking will only happen when there is a positive status applied to Alice. Trent must be the health authority Border control, and which countries/testers do you trust? The core flaw of having just one health authority involved is that there needs to be a trust between health authorities in different countries. In this way, we can trace over borders, when our travel system regains its operations. In this way, we need to define a trust network for Carol’s in each country and defines the way to hold the attestation, so that it can be shown at borders. Countries thus will define the testing trust network, and where Carol’s testing is trusted. There is no real integration of identities. How are we to properly identity Bob, Trent or Alice? Without having a private key signing for Alice and Trent, there is no real way of knowing that Alice is Alice and Trent is Trent. Thus, we need someone for each core identity to sign for the things they are signing, including for the health authority to sign for its own attestations. There is no clear mechanism for Alice’s consent. A fundamental flaw is the consent mechanisms that Alice must give to Trent in order to flip her current COVID-19 statement, especially in the changing it to a positive state. While Trent may have the rights to record Alice as being positive, he may need Alice’s consent as to whether she is okay with her COVID-19 state being broadcast to others. No binding of data. There is no method which truly binds the capture of contact data to the entities involved in a trusted way. The only thing it does is to mask Alice, until she is proven to have COVIT-19, after which her data can then be revealed to others, without any restrictions. There’s no signing involved. A core fundamental aspect of our modern world is that we introduce proper digital signing. As a minimum we should see key pairs being created for devices and entities, and where IDs and tracking are signed by private keys, and then checked for the correctness of the signer. There are many trusted signing methods, and which can be used to anonymise the signer. In our world, we would setup a trusted permissioned ledger — such as with Hyperledger - with the identities of those involved carefully defined with signing keys. Then the permissions of all the transactions would be controlled by roles and identities. I state three things I’ve learnt from working in health care: People trust their doctor to look after their data. People do not necessarily trust the government to look after their data. People do not trust private companies to look after their data. [...]

2 1

Contact Tracing in the Real World | Light Blue Touchpaper
by Alberto Cammozzo April 25, 2020

April 25, 2020

Ross Anderson. <https://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2020/04/12/contact-tracing-in-the-real-…> [...] Personally I feel conflicted. I recognise the overwhelming force of the public-health arguments for a centralised system, but I also have 25 years’ experience of the NHS being incompetent at developing systems and repeatedly breaking their privacy promises when they do manage to collect some data of value to somebody else. The Google Deepmind scandal was just the latest of many and by no means the worst. This is why I’m really uneasy about collecting lots of lightly-anonymised data in a system that becomes integrated into a whole-of-government response to the pandemic. We might never get rid of it. But the real killer is likely to be the interaction between privacy and economics. If the app’s voluntary, nobody has an incentive to use it, except tinkerers and people who religiously comply with whatever the government asks. If uptake remains at 10-15%, as in Singapore, it won’t be much use and we’ll need to hire more contact tracers instead. Apps that involve compulsion, such as those for quarantine geofencing, will face a more adversarial threat model; and the same will be true in spades for any electronic immunity certificate. There the incentive to cheat will be extreme, and we might be better off with paper serology test certificates, like the yellow fever vaccination certificates you needed for the tropics, back in the good old days when you could actually go there.[...]

1 0