- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Lotta ai tumori. L'algoritmo «batte» il medico?
by don Luca Peyron Jan. 9, 2020

Jan. 9, 2020

Tema che ci tocca da vicino, in ogni senso. Buona lettura Dl Https://www.avvenire.it/famiglia-e-vita/pagine/lalgoritmo-batte-il-medico

1 0

NYTimes: Peter Kirstein, Father of the European Internet, Is Dead at 86
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 9, 2020

Jan. 9, 2020

Peter Kirstein, Father of the European Internet, Is Dead at 86 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/technology/peter-kirstein-dead.html?smid… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Premio ETIC - Edizione 2019-2020 - Scadenza 20 gennaio 2020
by Ugo Pagallo Jan. 8, 2020

Jan. 8, 2020

Per gli interessati, ecco i link http://wimpe.mgeng.com/ https://www.aicanet.it/article/al-via-il-concorso-etic-promosso-da-aica-e-r… u.p.

1 0

intervista a Roberto Caso (autore di "La rivoluzione incompiuta. La scienza aperta tra diritto d’autore e proprietà intellettuale")
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 8, 2020

Jan. 8, 2020

Il Prof. Roberto Caso (giurista, docente presso l'Università di Trento) ha recentemente pubblicato un libro intitolato: "La rivoluzione incompiuta. La scienza aperta tra diritto d’autore e proprietà intellettuale" (disponibile con licenza CC qui: https://www.ledizioni.it/prodotto/la-rivoluzione-incompiuta/) A seguire un'intervista col prof. Caso. jc *Prof. Roberto Caso, Lei è autore del libro /La rivoluzione incompiuta. La scienza aperta tra diritto d’autore e proprietà intellettuale/pubblicato da Ledizioni: in che modo il conflitto tra apertura e chiusura della conoscenza, tra pubblicità e segretezza caratterizza lo sviluppo della scienza?* Lo sviluppo del sapere e della conoscenza si è sempre basato su una dialettica tra segretezza e pubblicità. Però la scienza moderna a partire dal XVI secolo ha impresso una decisa virata verso la pubblicità. A questo proposito, una delle più lucide narrazioni si deve alla penna del famoso storico della scienza Paolo Rossi, più volte citato nel mio testo. La scienza moderna nasce essenzialmente pubblica e si serve della nuova rivoluzionaria tecnologia della stampa per aprire ed estendere il dialogo tra uomini pensanti. In quel momento storico la comunità scientifica era composta da un circolo ristretto di sapienti, ma la pubblicità attraverso la stampa dei libri e delle prime riviste scientifiche mirava ad allargare la cerchia e a sviluppare, attraverso un dialogo infinito, il progresso della scienza. Quelle persone illuminate avevano intuito che la discussione e la verifica dei risultati della ricerca scientifica costituiscono un’azione essenzialmente collettiva e cooperativa. Solo attraverso una pubblica discussione orale o scritta si può progredire: avanzando dubbi, offrendo prospettive altre, contaminando saperi differenti. /continua qui:/ https://www.letture.org/la-rivoluzione-incompiuta-la-scienza-aperta-tra-dir…

5 6

Reminder | 126° Mercoledì di Nexa | Stasera, ore 18, Sede eccezionale in Via Verdi 8
by Nexa Media Jan. 8, 2020

Jan. 8, 2020

Gentilissimi,  vi ricordiamo che stasera, dalle ore 18.00 alle ore 20.00, eccezionalmente nella *Sala Principi d'Acaja* presso il *Palazzo del Rettorato dell'Università degli Studi di Torino*, in *Via Verdi 8*, si svolgerà il 126° Mercoledì di Nexa, con un incontro dal titolo: *Metafisica del Web* Ospite: /Maurizio Ferraris (Professore all'Università degli Studi di Torino).// / Maggiori informazioni sono disponibili all’indirizzo: https://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-126 Cordiali saluti, -- Anita Botta Communication Manager Nexa Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino – DAUIN Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 - 10129 Torino _web:_ https://nexa.polito.it/ _mail:_anita.botta@polito.it <mailto:anita.botta@polito.it> tel: 011 090 7219

1 0

Tech giants push for tariffs as fight over French tax heats up
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 7, 2020

Jan. 7, 2020

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/07/tech-giants-tariffs-france-095668 (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

The Two Myths of the Internet | WIRED
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 7, 2020

Jan. 7, 2020

The Two Myths of the Internet The 2010s began with one story about the political power of technology. It ended with another. Both were wrong. https://www.wired.com/story/the-two-myths-of-the-internet/ (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Escaping the Inequality-Data Dark Ages by Thomas Piketty, et al - Project Syndicate
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 7, 2020

Jan. 7, 2020

lo segnalo in questa sede per l’aspetto dati. jc Escaping the Inequality-Data Dark Ages Dec 23, 2019 THOMAS PIKETTY , LUCAS CHANCEL, FACUNDO ALVAREDO, EMMANUEL SAEZ, GABRIEL ZUCMAN Even as perceptions of rising inequality undermine the foundations of democracy, data on wealth and income trends remain woefully inadequate. It is in the interest of all societies to develop an internationally recognized set of indicators and methods for tracking income, wealth, and effective tax rates accurately and transparently. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/inequality-data-and-denialism-… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

China Targets Internet Giants in Antitrust Law Overhaul
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 7, 2020

Jan. 7, 2020

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-07/china-targets-internet-g… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

I Was Google’s Head of International Relations. Here’s Why I Left.
by Giacomo Tesio Jan. 7, 2020

Jan. 7, 2020

https://medium.com/@rossformaine/i-was-googles-head-of-international-relati… Google had first entered the Chinese market in 2006. At the time, founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin said that Google would only stay if the company’s presence was doing more good than harm — that users were getting more information than before, even if there was censorship of some topics. But over the years, the list of items that the Chinese government demanded we censor grew significantly, and after the Chinese government attempted to hack into the Gmail accounts of human rights advocates in 2009, Larry and Sergey decided it was time to re-assess the 2006 decision. After a series of intense discussions with other executives, they decided that the only way to continue providing Search in China while adhering to the “Don’t be evil” mantra was to cease cooperation with the government’s censorship requirements. We knew this would cause a very public confrontation with the government, although we were never sure how bad it would get. In China, the government not only demands full access to a company’s user data and infrastructure, it also expects the full cooperation of companies to ensure that Chinese users see only content that is in line with government standards. For example, on a Maps product, the government requires that all geographic labels and information be approved by the government in advance, and that any user-generated content be strictly controlled by the company to avoid publication of anything the government deems “problematic,” which can be difficult to define. Our 2010 decision to stop cooperating with Chinese government censorship on Search results was the first time a non-Chinese corporation stood up to the Chinese government. In doing so, Google put everything on the line — its future in the world’s fastest-growing internet market, billions of dollars in profit, even the safety of our Chinese employees. At one point, I began planning for a possible mass evacuation of all our Google employees based in China, as well as their families. Although difficult, I was intensely proud of the principled approach the company took in making this decision. [...] In my new role, my team and I continued to engage with product executives who were increasingly frustrated by the phenomenal growth in the Chinese market and pushed hard for our re-entry into China. I was alarmed when I learned in 2017 that the company had begun moving forward with the development of a new version of a censored Search product for China, codenamed “Dragonfly.” But Dragonfly was only one of several developments that concerned those of us who still believed in the mantra of “Don’t be evil.” I was also concerned that Cloud executives were actively pursuing deals with the Saudi government, given its horrible record of human rights abuses. Cloud executives made no secret of the fact that they wanted to hire their own policy team, which would effectively block any review of their contracts by my team. Finally, in December 2017, Google announced the establishment of the Google Center for Artificial Intelligence in Beijing — something that completely surprised me, and made it clear to me that I no longer had the ability to influence the numerous product developments and deals being pursued by the company. [...] As someone who had consistently advocated for a human rights-based approach, I was being sidelined from the on-going conversations on whether to launch Dragonfly. I then realized that the company had never intended to incorporate human rights principles into its business and product decisions. Just when Google needed to double down on a commitment to human rights, it decided to instead chase bigger profits and an even higher stock price. It was no different in the workplace culture. Senior colleagues bullied and screamed at young women, causing them to cry at their desks. At an all-hands meeting, my boss said, “Now you Asians come to the microphone too. I know you don’t like to ask questions.” At a different all-hands meeting, the entire policy team was separated into various rooms and told to participate in a “diversity exercise” that placed me in a group labeled “homos” while participants shouted out stereotypes such as “effeminate” and “promiscuous.” Colleagues of color were forced to join groups called “Asians” and “Brown people” in other rooms nearby. In each of these cases, I brought these issues to HR and senior executives and was assured the problems would be handled. Yet in each case, there was no follow up to address the concerns — until the day I was accidentally copied on an email from a senior HR director. In the email, the HR director told a colleague that I seemed to raise concerns like these a lot, and instructed her to “do some digging” on me instead. [...] I think the important question is what does it mean when one of America’s marque’ companies changes so dramatically. Is it the inevitable outcome of a corporate culture that rewards growth and profits over social impact and responsibility? Is it in some way related to the corruption that has gripped our federal government? Is this part of the global trend toward “strong man” leaders who are coming to power around the globe, where questions of “right” and “wrong” are ignored in favor of self-interest and self-dealing? Finally, what are the implications for all of us when that once-great American company controls so much data about billions of users across the globe? ___ Prospettiva veramente interessante. Giacomo

2 2