- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

EU Commission WHITE PAPER On Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and trust
by Diego.Latella Feb. 19, 2020

Feb. 19, 2020

You might be interested in the EU Commission WHITE PAPER On Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and trust https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/commission-white-paper-artificia… which has been just published. All the Best Diego -- Dott. Diego Latella - Senior Researcher - CNR/ISTI, Via Moruzzi 1, 56124 Pisa, IT (http:www.isti.cnr.it [1]); FM&&T Laboratory (http://fmt.isti.cnr.it) http://www.isti.cnr.it/People/D.Latella - phone: +39 0503152982 - mob: +39 348 8283101 - fax +39 0503152040 Links: ------ [1] http://www.isti.cnr.it

1 0

Intervista al relatore speciale dell’Onu sulla tortura Niels Melzer su Assange
by J.C. DE MARTIN Feb. 19, 2020

Feb. 19, 2020

/Un finto stupro e prove manipolate in Svezia, la pressione della Gran Bretagna affinché l’indagine non venga archiviata, giudici parziali, la detenzione in una prigione di massima sicurezza, la tortura psicologica – e presto l’estradizione negli Usa, dove rischia 175 anni di reclusione per aver svelato crimini di guerra: per la prima volta, il relatore speciale dell’Onu sulla tortura, Niels Melzer, parla delle esplosive conclusioni della sua indagine sul caso del fondatore di WikiLeaks, Julian Assange.// /* **Intervista di Daniel Ryser, del 31.01.2020, pubblicata su “Republik”* Traduzione dal tedesco di Stefano Porreca * **1. La polizia svedese inventa uno stupro* *Nils Melzer, perché il relatore speciale dell’Onu sulla tortura si sta occupando di Julian Assange?* Recentemente, anche il Ministero degli affari esteri tedesco mi ha fatto questa domanda: ciò rientra davvero nel suo mandato? Assange è realmente vittima di torture? *Lei cosa ha risposto?* Il caso riguarda il mio mandato sotto tre aspetti. Innanzitutto, Assange ha pubblicato prove di torture sistematiche. Ora, però, anziché i responsabili delle torture, è lui a essere perseguito. Per seconda cosa, lui stesso è stato sottoposto a maltrattamenti a tal punto che oggi presenta sintomi di torture psicologiche. E per terza cosa, è prevista l’estradizione in uno Stato che reclude le persone come lui in condizioni di detenzione che Amnesty International descrive come una tortura. In sintesi: Julian Assange ha svelato delle torture, lui stesso è stato oggetto di tortura e negli Stati Uniti potrebbe essere torturato fino alla morte. E un caso come questo non dovrebbe rientrare nella mia sfera di competenza? Oltre a ciò, questo è un caso di emblematica importanza, interessa ogni cittadino di uno Stato democratico. [...] continua qui: https://www.beppegrillo.it/davanti-ai-nostri-occhi-si-sta-creando-un-sistem…

2 2

The CNMC studies whether Amazon Spain can be considered a postal operator
by Luigi Scorca Feb. 19, 2020

Feb. 19, 2020

"According to the CNMC, the Directorate of Transportation and Postal Sector of this institution believes that there are indications that, in its e-commerce activity, Amazon lends services that would be considered postal services. This procedure will take into account the characteristics of the shipments it manages, the activity it carries out on them, the legal relationship that maintains with autonomous that realize the distribution of his packages, and with third companies of parcel, and the management of his self-service ticket offices, among others" https://www.web24.news/2020/02/the-cnmc-studies-whether-amazon-spain-can-be…

1 0

Re: [nexa] nexa] Did the early internet activists blow it?
by Giuseppe Attardi Feb. 19, 2020

Feb. 19, 2020

Bel racconto. Ma dopo una certa autocritica: Another thing we clearly got wrong is how large platforms would rise to dominate their markets—even though they never received the kind of bespoke regulated-monopoly partnership with governments that, generations before, the telephone companies had received. conclude: I no longer argue primarily that the explosion of freedom of expression and diverse voices, facilitated by the internet, is simply a burden we dutifully have to bear. Now, more than I ever did 30 years ago, I argue that it’s the solution. Ossia, che non occorre fare niente? -- Beppe On 19/02/20 09:16, nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it wrote: > Subject: [nexa] Did the early internet activists blow it? > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > https://slate.com/technology/2020/02/three-decades-internet-freedom-activis… >

1 0

Ingegnere cieco inventa un bastone che usa Google Maps per aiutare i non vedenti
by don Luca Peyron Feb. 19, 2020

Feb. 19, 2020

Qualche buona notizia è sempre un toccasana, buona giornata dl https://www.positizie.it/2020/01/16/ingegnere-cieco-inventa-un-bastone-che-… _________________________ www.universitari.to.it via XX settembre 83, Torino tel. 011 5156239

3 2

Did the early internet activists blow it?
by Masera Anna Feb. 19, 2020

Feb. 19, 2020

https://slate.com/technology/2020/02/three-decades-internet-freedom-activis… ________________________________ Il presente messaggio (inclusi gli allegati) contiene informazioni riservate esclusivamente al destinatario/ai destinatari indicato/i nel messaggio, ed è protetto dalla legge. La diffusione, distribuzione e/o la copia del contenuto del presente messaggio da parte di qualsiasi soggetto diverso dal destinatario è severamente vietata ai sensi dell’art. 616 c.p. e delle vigenti normative in materia di protezione dei dati personali. Se non siete i destinatari del presente messaggio, vi preghiamo di distruggerlo e di darcene immediata comunicazione inviando un messaggio di ritorno all’indirizzo e-mail del mittente. This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended only for the recipient(s) named above, and is protected by law. Any disclosure, distribution and/or copying of this message by any subject different from the named recipient(s) is strictly prohibited according to art. 616 c.p. and to the applicable data protection laws. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and inform us immediately about the deletion by sending a message to the sender’s e-mail address. ________________________________

2 1

Facial recognition technology is the new rogues’ gallery.
by J.C. DE MARTIN Feb. 19, 2020

Feb. 19, 2020

Facial Recognition Technology Is the New Rogues’ Gallery The 21st-century debate over privacy and suspicion looks a lot like one from the late 1800s and early 1900s. By MATTHEW GUARIGLIA FEB 17, 20205:45 AM https://slate.com/technology/2020/02/rogues-gallery-facial-recognition-tech… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Facial recognition technology is the new rogues’ gallery.
by Alberto Cammozzo Feb. 18, 2020

Feb. 18, 2020

Riconoscimento facciale e "bertillonage": interessante prospettiva storica. <https://slate.com/technology/2020/02/rogues-gallery-facial-recognition-tech…> Fueled by explosive reporting, foreign totalitarian regimes, and a lifetime of dystopian sci-fi, the movement to ban the government’s use of face recognition technology is growing. As of now, seven cities across the country—San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley in California, and Brookline, Somerville, Northampton, and Cambridge in Massachusetts—have banned the government use of face recognition. The entire state of California also passed a three-year moratorium on the use of face recognition on police body cameras. Part of the opposition stems from the fact that many don’t want police to have the ability to track movement around a city or learn the identities of protesters. But it’s also related to people’s unwillingness to be regarded with perpetual suspicion. Inclusion in a face recognition database means your face is always part of a lineup, and every time grainy surveillance footage surfaces of a robbery or assault, the suspect’s face is being compared with your own. And as a result of many states sharing driver’s license photos with the FBI, or private companies like Clearview A.I. harvesting billions of pictures off social media, this searching could happen from anywhere in the country. This doesn’t just mean there’s a small possibility that you could be mistaken for the suspect—it also means that your government doesn’t trust you. The government has always sought a way to file away and compare the faces of the guilty, but until very recently the technology only allowed for it to occur in a much more rudimentary way. Before there was the fingerprint, or even the police file, there was the rogues’ gallery, which you could find in most U.S. police departments. The gallery was a large wall or cabinet filled with photographs of alleged criminals that could be used as a way of identifying repeat offenders and coordinating surveillance, and as an example for witnesses. Police often scrawled on the back of the photographs a basic biographical sketch of the suspect, including known aliases and previous arrests. In many larger cities during the 1890s and early 1900s, the booking and photographing of an arrested person was also accompanied by the taking of Bertillon measurements. Developed in France, the system involved taking at least five specific bodily measurements including head length, foot length, and length of the middle finger. This data could be easily filed away and cross-referenced in case a suspect changed his appearance drastically. As cumbersome as this technology was, its use in the early 20th century posed the same ethical questions about guilt, innocence, and the nature of governance that we continue to grapple with on an exponentially larger scale. Suspicion is a circular process. To police departments of the early 20th century, a person was suspicious because his photograph hung in the rogues’ gallery, and people whom officers deemed suspicious got their picture taken and hung in the rogues’ gallery. This meant that a person, arrested on suspicion once, had the possibility of being arrested again and again by virtue of his initial arrest. Similarly, today a single encounter with the government that involves a photograph—whether for a driver’s license or a mug shot—has the chance to beget more. “Nobody is going to employ a young man or a young woman whose picture adorns the rogues’ gallery.” And also like today, there were those who opposed the vicious cycle of suspicion and arrest that biometric surveillance brought about. In 1899, the arrest of a known cheater and chronic gambler, Jacob “Doc” Owens, set in motion a debate over one of the 21st century’s most pressing issues regarding technology and privacy. On the night of May 10, 1899, Owens was arrested on suspicion after he was accused of fleecing passengers of a trans-Atlantic ocean liner at cards. At the station, he was photographed, and his measurements were taken and retained by the New York City Police Department. Owens was let go because there was no warrant out for his arrest and no reason to keep him—but his photograph remained. Owens took objection to the fact that his face and measurements would continually be used by the NYPD—compared again and again against the descriptions and faces of murderers and arsonists and thieves. The continual retention of his biometric information was, according to his lawyers, a “great injury to his honor and reputation, causing him severe mental pain and anguish. … [H]is constitutional rights are being absolutely disregarded.” His outrage reflected that of many people at the time who felt that the growing technological advancements within the police department threatened to create a society without an assumption of innocence or the ability to be reformed after an indiscretion. Owens’ was one of many similar cases that peppered newspapers across the country. As new ways of organizing police departments, and new technologies, spread and proliferated across the United States (and the world) many cities grappled with the possibilities of police surveillance simultaneously. As one columnist in Chattanooga, Tennessee, who covered the story wrote, “Once a photograph is hung in the gallery there is no removing it. A policy of that kind is utterly indefensible. It is a cruel injustice and a constant bar to reform. Youthful indiscretion is put on the same plane as murder. It provides no loophole through which the victim may escape the dire results of criminal publicity. Nobody is going to employ a young man or a young woman whose picture adorns the rogues’ gallery.” Simply put, once people were found guilty, or even deemed suspicious, they would remain that way forever. After three months, the chief justice of the New York Supreme Court refused to grant “Doc” Owens his injunction to take the photograph down. Future challenges to this policy turned out to be more successful. But whether a person had success in getting his mug shot taken down—a stand-in for whether the government found you capable of redemption—had more to do with race and status than with the nature of the infraction. Some cases, however, demonstrated the type of person able to liberate themselves from constant gaze of police. In 1909, another case brought the question again to the fore. George B. Duffy was from a higher socioeconomic status than Owens. When he was 19 years old, he was arrested in New York on suspicion of being connected with a robbery—with the official charge later listed as “obstructing the street.” Duffy was acquitted, and almost immediately his father began a campaign to get his son’s photograph taken down off the rogues’ gallery. His case went better than Owens’. “The object of putting someone in the rogues’ gallery,” a reporter at the Brooklyn Eagle wrote during the case, “is to have the police force familiarized with his personal appearance, name, and residence, in order to watch and hunt him as one who has settled on a life of crime.” To many, Duffy was not that kind of person. Duffy’s parents, employers, neighbors, and family pastor all rallied to his cause. Newspapers as far away as San Francisco covered the story and reported on the injustice of a respectable white young adult being subjected to unfair police surveillance. When the police commissioner fought public opinion by refusing to take down the photograph and destroy Duffy’s measurements, the mayor intervened. Over the fate of a 19-year-old’s reputation, a veteran police commissioner was eventually asked to resign. Police found the ability to erase a criminal record or hide a potential criminal from the view of police troubling. To them, and to citizens concerned with crime, everyone who had gotten far enough to be photographed by police deserved a life under the scrutiny of the public and surveillance of the state. Their fear of criminals run amok was compounded that same year by the introduction of the bill into the New York State Assembly that would outlaw the photographing, measuring, or fingerprinting of an arrestee until after he had been convicted of a crime. “There were continual outbreaks of protest against this photographing of criminals, caused by arrested persons who did not feel that their portraits should be made,” wrote NYPD Commissioner Theodore Bingham, who had been ousted as a result of the Duffy controversy. After one of these, a splendidly worded bill introduced in the State Senate, which forbade the taking of any portraits by the police until after conviction. … The only trouble with it was that, if it had passed, the Police Department would have had no pictures of criminals at all, for the simple reason that all criminals pass out of the custody of the police, not merely upon conviction, but from the very first moment they are arraigned. A number of police detectives testified that the bill would make cities unsafe and that its support within the Senate was propped up by “rich rogues” who want police to forget their faces so that they could continue their wrongdoing. Ultimately, the bill was defeated. One of the more compelling arguments against it came from the ability of the department to share its information. Testifying before the New York Senate, Deputy NYPD Commissioner Arthur Woods talked about the value of hoarding biometric information, including photographs, by relaying the story of four English pickpockets caught in Grand Central Terminal. Their information was sent to London, where the London police confirmed their identities and sent a copy of their existing criminal records back to New York. Technology may have changed, but the moral dilemmas over the guiding principles behind state surveillance have not. In 1909, the NYPD’s files were not accessible instantaneously, and the limited archives of a police department didn’t have the capacity to accumulate faces of millions of people. These technological advances have meant that the moral quandary of the rogues’ gallery is a supersize version of what it once was. While people no longer laugh and sneer at people whose faces hang in the police station, they can be denied jobs or passports because of misreadings or misunderstandings buried in hoarded data. It is the continuation of this mentality that led police to subject a large percentage of black men in Los Angeles to constant harassment when, for instance, wearing a sports jersey got them entered permanently into the LAPD’s gang database. To be constantly read as suspicious, one need not have been arrested and acquitted, but simply to have sat for a photograph in the DMV or wear a jersey in public. As one 1909 letter to the editor of the Atlanta Constitution read, “The penology of the future will make just as adequate and intelligent provisions,” when navigating the “perplexing juncture” of suspicion, identification, and surveillance. But we have not. In fact, the criminal justice system of the 21st century has only succeeded in making suspicion more ubiquitous. Independent of the usual arguments activists make when advocating for governmental bans on the use of face recognition—that it’s unreliable or that it misidentifies people—is the fundamental and historical truth that face recognition means we are all constantly under suspicion. We’re all in the rogues’ gallery now.

2 2

Silicon Valley Heads to Europe, Nervous About New Rules - The New York Times
by J.C. DE MARTIN Feb. 18, 2020

Feb. 18, 2020

Silicon Valley Heads to Europe, Nervous About New Rules Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Google’s Sundar Pichai have journeyed to Brussels as the European Union drafts regulation for A.I. and the digital economy. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/16/technology/europe-new-AI-tech-regulation… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Welfare surveillance system violates human rights, Dutch court rules | Technology | The Guardian
by Alberto Cammozzo Feb. 18, 2020

Feb. 18, 2020

<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/welfare-surveillance-sys…> A Dutch court has ordered the immediate halt of an automated surveillance system for detecting welfare fraud because it violates human rights, in a judgment likely to resonate well beyond the Netherlands. The case was seen as an important legal challenge to the controversial but growing use by governments around the world of artificial intelligence (AI) and risk modelling in administering welfare benefits and other core services. Campaigners say such “digital welfare states” – developed often without consultation, and operated secretively and without adequate oversight – amount to spying on the poor, breaching privacy and human rights norms and unfairly penalising the most vulnerable. In the UK, where the government is accelerating the development of robots in the benefits system, the chairman of the House of Commons work and pensions select committee, Stephen Timms, said: “This ruling by the Dutch courts demonstrates that parliaments ought to look very closely at the ways in which governments use technology in the social security system, to protect the rights of their citizens.” The UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, applauded the verdict and said it was “a clear victory for all those who are justifiably concerned about the serious threats digital welfare systems pose for human rights”. The decision “sets a strong legal precedent for other courts to follow”, he added. “This is one of the first times a court anywhere has stopped the use of digital technologies and abundant digital information by welfare authorities on human rights grounds.” The verdict will be watched closely by welfare rights campaigners in the UK, where the Department for Work and Pensions is engaged in a digitisation drive that vulnerable claimants fear could plunge them further into hunger and debt. [...]

8 15