- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Data Violence and How Bad Engineering Choices Can Damage Society
by J.C. DE MARTIN May 25, 2019

May 25, 2019

Data Violence and How Bad Engineering Choices Can Damage Society Cultural harms can go well beyond search results — which can be bad news for vulnerable communities Anna Lauren Hoffmann https://medium.com/s/story/data-violence-and-how-bad-engineering-choices-ca… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Who or what is to blame when you’re harmed by an algorithm
by Enrico Poli May 24, 2019

May 24, 2019

Non mi sembra di averlo visto passare il lista, e credo risuoni con alcune discussioni che ho letto qui: https://go.technologyreview.com/who-or-what-is-to-blame-when-youre-harmed-b… «A Hong Kong tycoon lost more than $20 million dollars after entrusting part of his fortune to an automated platform. Without a legal framework to sue the technology, he placed the blame on the nearest human instead: the man who sold it to him. It’s the first known case over automated investment losses, but not the first involving the liability of algorithms. In March of 2018, a self-driving Uber struck and killed <https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/28/17174636/uber-self-driving-crash-fatal-a…> a pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona, sending another case to court. A year later, Uber was exonerated <https://qz.com/1566048/uber-not-criminally-liable-in-tempe-self-driving-car…> from all criminal liability, but the safety driver could face charges of vehicular manslaughter instead. […] In other case studies, Elish found the same pattern to hold true: even in a highly automated system where humans have limited control of its behavior, they still bear the brunt of its failures. Elish calls this phenomenon a “moral crumple zone.” “While the crumple zone in a car is meant to protect the human driver,” she writes in her paper, “the moral crumple zone protects the integrity of the technological system, at the expense of the nearest human operator.” Humans act like a “liability sponge,” she says, absorbing all legal and moral responsibility in algorithmic accidents no matter how little or unintentionally they are involved. This pattern offers important insight into the troubling way we speak about the liability of modern AI systems. In the immediate aftermath of the Uber accident, headlines pointed fingers at Uber, but less than a few days later, the narrative shifted <https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/28/17174636/uber-self-driving-crash-fatal-a…> to focus on the distraction of the driver. “We need to start asking who bears the risk of [tech companies’] technological experiments,” says Elish. Safety drivers and other human operators often have little power or influence over the design of the technology platforms they interface with. Yet, in the current regulatory vacuum, they will continue to pay the steepest cost.»

2 1

Yes but who are the persons who micro-work to make France's AI possible?
by Antonio Casilli May 24, 2019

May 24, 2019

Dear all, In February I shared with you our preliminary study estimating the number of persons micro-working in France, based on the first results of our research projet DiPLab. Today, we published the complete results, featured in the report Micro-work in France. Behind Automation, New Forms of Precarious Labour? ( Le Micro-Travail en France. Derrière l’automatisation, de nouvelles précarités au travail ? , 73 pages, available in French here [ http://diplab.eu/ | http://diplab.eu/ ] , with an executive summary in English). Micro-work is accessible in France through at least 23 digital platforms which sport 15,000 'very active' workers and more than 250,000 'casual' ones. While not all of them micro-work every day, they constitute a large reservoir from which the industry can draw according to its needs. Their activity consists in highly fragmented online or mobile-based micro-tasks, generally paid by the piece. Most often, these tasks require low qualification and are equally poorly paid (sometimes just a few cents. The socio-demographic profile of micro-workers in France DiPLab researchers analyzed native web data, administered an online survey to nearly 1000 micro-workers, and conducted more than 90 interviews with workers, business and platform owners. According to the report: ➡️56% of the respondents identify as women; ➡️63% are 25-44 years old; ➡️43.5% of micro-workers hold at least a bachelor’s degree. The geographical distribution of micro-work follows the distribution of the working population and national income. While micro-work is neither exclusively urban nor concentrated in Paris, it does not seem to constitute an opportunity to access the labor market and to increase the purchasing power for rural populations or residents in low-income regions. The average monthly income of micro-work in France, is very unevenly distributed and bears on average 21€euros per month. This income is sometimes complementary to a main one. Yet it is very often a necessary source of financial support, especially for over 22% of the micro-workers who live below the poverty threshold. Micro-work plays a key role in the development of French (and European) AI Micro-work plays a major role in the development of artificial intelligence (AI) by French companies. By performing repetitive tasks, micro-workers annotate, label, enrich the data used for the deployment of algorithms, connected speakers, virtual assistants. DiPLab respondent perform three main types of micro-tasks: ➡️AI preparation: micro-workers generate or annotate large training datasets used to calibrate machine learning solutions; ➡️AI verification: micro-workers oversee existing AI technologies, by correcting and checking their results; ➡️AI impersonation: micro-workers performe human tasks which are successively repackaged and branded as “artificial” intelligence. Micro-work has a huge impact on present day's technology and economy, as it modifies both employment relationships and market structures. This is why it is paramount to assess the societal consequences of this new form of work. How can we regulate this new labor force and strengthen its social protection? Above all, given the predominant place of micro-work in the development and commercialization of artificial intelligence solutions, how can we ensure that micro-workers' contributions to technological innovation are recognized at their actual value? Hope you find this interesting. Please feel free to share. Antonio -- Antonio A. Casilli Associate Professor (HDR), Telecom ParisTech Member, Interdisciplinary Institute for Innovation (i3 UMR 9217 CNRS) Associate Member, LACI-IIAC (EHESS) Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet & Society

1 0

accordo IBM-Confindustria
by armeo＠mail.nexacenter.org May 24, 2019

May 24, 2019

A differenza del caso Poste-Microsoft, la scelta di Confindustria a favore del cosidetto "ibrido" IBM mi pare giuridicamente lecita. Ma anche in questo caso, l'analisi costi benefici per il nostro Paese mi pare disastrosa. Raf

1 0

"Pa, al via l’obbligo di pubblicare in open source tutto il proprio codice"
by J.C. DE MARTIN May 24, 2019

May 24, 2019

*Pa, al via l’obbligo di pubblicare in open source tutto il proprio codice** * –di Luca Tremolada 23 maggio 2019 Con la pubblicazione in Gazzetta ufficiale è al via l'obbligo per le Pubbliche amministrazioni di pubblicare in open source tutto il proprio codice e di valutare software già esistente prima di realizzarne di nuovo. Le norme italiane sono tra le più avanzate d'Europa in materia di open source. Finora però non hanno funzionato a dovere. https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/tecnologie/2019-05-20/pa-via-l-obbligo-pubb… <https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/tecnologie/2019-05-20/pa-via-l-obbligo-pubb…>

3 3

La stessa rivoluzione digitale che ci ha reso liberi rischia di trasformarci in schiavi del lavoro
by don Luca Peyron May 24, 2019

May 24, 2019

Un pezzo che riassume, in modo abbastanza documentato, molti temi connessi, non tutto forse è condivisibile, molto mi pare interessante in un quadro di orizzonte. Buona lettura e buona domenica Dl https://www.ninjamarketing.it/2019/05/22/la-stessa-rivoluzione-digitale-che…

2 1

Morozov-Bria, "RETHINKING THE SMART CITY"
by J.C. DE MARTIN May 24, 2019

May 24, 2019

Segnalo che le versioni in inglese e tedesco di "Ripensare la smart city" di Morozov e Bria (edita in italiano da Codice Edizioni) sono liberamente scaricabili qui: http://www.rosalux-nyc.org/rethinking-the-smart-city/ juan carlos

1 0

Sun Tzu vs Google AI
by Antonio Casilli May 23, 2019

May 23, 2019

"Siediti lungo la riva del fiume e aspetta", diceva Sun Tzu. "Prima o poi vedrai passare i cadaveri dei tuoi nemici". I miei nemici sono le menzogne delle aziende che truffano i loro investitori e i loro clienti promettendo soluzioni miracolose di IA "completamente automatizzate", che invisibilizzano il lavoro che rende possibile queste tecnologie. Oggi ho visto passare un ennesimo cadavere (squisito): Google Duplex AI, l'assistente vocale che fa telefonate per voi. Un anno fa, il CEO Sundar Pichai lo aveva presentato come la summa di tutti gli investimenti del gigante di Mountain view nel deep learning, nel text-to-speech, nel NLP...(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTtBRI9AhOU). Ma in un post di blog il vicepresidente dell'azienda era stato più prudente, ammettendo che l'IA si basava su un principio di "real-time supervised training" (https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/05/duplex-ai-system-for-natural-conversation…) Infine, ieri sul New York Times, si scopre cosa c'è dietro quest'ultima espressione: 3 volte su 4, degli esseri umani simulano il funzionamento delle macchine ("AI impersonation"). https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/technology/personaltech/ai-google-duplex… #EnAttendantLesRobots #digitallaborator

2 3

How Silicon Valley gamed Europe’s privacy rules – POLITICO
by J.C. DE MARTIN May 23, 2019

May 23, 2019

How Silicon Valley gamed Europe’s privacy rules The region's data protection overhaul was supposed to help citizens. Instead, it's helped Big Tech. By Mark Scott, Laurens Cerulus, Steven Overly | 5/22/19, 10:40 AM CET | Updated 5/22/19, 6:20 PM https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-data-protection-gdpr-general-data-pr… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

2 1

Why should we vote in the EU elections? [FROM: : EDRi-gram newsletter 17.10, 22 May 2019
by Diego Latella May 23, 2019

May 23, 2019

Why should we vote in the EU elections? See below! D > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "European Digital Rights (EDRi)" <edrigram(a)edri.org> > Subject: EDRi-gram newsletter 17.10, 22 May 2019 > Date: 22 May 2019 at 17:14:40 CEST > To: edri-news(a)mailman.edri.org > Reply-To: edrigram(a)edri.org > > ====================================================================== > > EDRi-gram > > fortnightly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe > > EDRi-gram 17.10, 22 May 2019 > > Read online: https://edri.org/edri-gram/17-10/ > > ======================================================================= > Contents > ======================================================================= [ … OMISSIS …] > 2. Why should we vote in the EU elections? > [ … OMISSIS …] > 12. About > > [ … OMISSIS …] > ======================================================================= > 2. Why should we vote in the EU elections? > ======================================================================= > > What are your plans for the coming days? We have a suggestion: The > European elections will take place - and it's absolutely crucial to go > and vote! > > In the past, the EU has often defended our digital rights and freedoms. > This was possible because the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) > – who we, the EU citizens, elected to represent us in the EU > decision-making – are open to hearing our concerns. > > So, what exactly has the EU done for our digital rights? > > Privacy > > The EU has possibly the best protection for citizens' personal data: the > General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This law was adopted thanks > to some very dedicated European parliamentarians, and it enhances > everyone’s rights, regardless of nationality, gender, economic status > and so on. Since the GDPR came into effect, we now have for example the > right to access our personal data a company or an organisation holds on > us, the right to explanation and human intervention regarding automated > decisions, and the right to object to profiling measures. > > You can read more about your rights under the GDPR here: > https://edri.org/a-guide-individuals-rights-under-gdpr/ > > Net neutrality > > Europe has become a global standard-setter in the defence of the open, > competitive and neutral internet. After a very long battle, and with the > support of half a million people that responded to a public > consultation, the principles that make the internet an open platform for > change, freedom, and prosperity are upheld in the EU. > > In June 2015, negotiations between the three European Union institutions > led to new rules to safeguard net neutrality - the principle according > to which everyone can communicate with everyone on the internet without > discrimination. This principle was put at risk by the ambiguous, > unbalanced EU Commission proposal, which would have undermined the way > in which the internet functions. In 2016, the Body of European > Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) was tasked with > publishing guidelines to provide a common approach to implementing the > Regulation in the EU Member States. In June 2016, BEREC published the > draft guidelines that confirm strong protections for net neutrality and > open internet. > > ACTA > > In 2012, the MEPs voted against an international trade agreement called > the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which, if concluded, > would have likely resulted in online censorship. It would have had major > implications for freedom of expression, access to culture and privacy, > it will harm international trade and stifle innovation. Therefore, > people decided to demonstrate and there were protests against this draft > agreement in over 200 European cities calling for a rejection. In the > end, the Parliament listened to the concerns of the people and voted > against ACTA. > > Protecting whisteblowers > > Whistleblowers fight for transparency, democracy and the rule of law, > reporting unlawful or improper conduct that undermine the public > interest and our rights and freedoms. In 2017, the European Parliament > called on legislation to protect whistleblowers, making a clear > statement recognising the essential role of whistleblowers in our > society. This Resolution started the process of putting into place > effective protections for whistleblowers throughout the EU. In April > 2019, the Parliament adopted the new Directive, which is still to be > approved by the EU Council. > > Your vote matters for digital rights > > In many occasions, the EU Parliamentarians have stood for our rights and > freedoms. It's important that also the new EU Parliament will be a > strong defender of our digital rights – because there are so many > important fights coming up. > > The European elections are one of the rare occasions where we can take > our future and the future of Europe into our own hands. Your vote > matters. Please go and vote for digital rights on 23-27 May! > > You can find more information about the elections online, for example at > https://www.european-elections.eu, https://www.thistimeimvoting.eu/ and > https://www.howtovote.eu/. > > ======================================================================= > 3. Pseudo-counter-terrorism at the cost of human rights? > ======================================================================= > > The Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Arden showed compassionate and > empathetic leadership in her response to the Christchurch terrorist > attack on a mosque in her country on 15 March 2019. On 16 May in Paris, > Arden and the French President Emmanuel Macron co-launched the > Christchurch Call to Action to Eliminate Terrorist and Violent Extremist > Content Online. > > The day before, EDRi joined a meeting the New Zealand government held > with civil society and academics. The purpose of the meeting was to > present the call and to hear recommendations moving forward on the call > implementation and joint work to combat terrorism and white supremacy. > > While the approach of the New Zealand government is sensible, and the > final text of the call to action does include human rights safeguards > for a free and open internet, the initiative is naïve as it relies on > questionable companies and governments’ practices, inefficient in > combatting terrorism, and opens the door to serious human rights breaches. > > A “sacrificed process” > > In the words of Arden herself, civil society consultations were > “sacrificed” to allow for a swift process and for the call to be > launched, on the occasion of the Tech for Good conference and the G7 > Digital Ministers meeting. NGOs and other stakeholders such as > journalists, academics and the technical community did not get a chance > to submit contributions before the finalisation of the call. The rushed > timeline was an obstacle to any meaningful participation in the process. > The lack of anti-racism organisations or organisations from the Global > South in the consultative meeting in Paris is a major gap for an > initiative purporting to address “violent extremism” globally. > > Failure to address social media business model > > The call to action refrains from criticising and questioning the > business model of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple in order to get > them to sign the initiative. However, as long as profit is made mainly > from behavioural advertising revenue which increases by showing > polarising, violent or illegal content, the entire system will continue > to promote such content and lead people to share it. Human nature and > all of its addictions are encouraged and amplified by opaque artificial > intelligence. > > Human rights concerns > > As state authorities are unable to call out the big tech for larger > issues, the Christchurch call places emphasis on content removal and > filtering of broadly and ill-defined content. “Terrorist and violent > extremist” content can be left to the appreciation of law enforcement > authorities and companies, which opens risks of arbitrariness against > legitimate dissent from groups at risk of racism, human rights > defenders, civil society organisations or political activists. Solutions > such as upload filters or rapid removals of content can be turned into > censorship and are error-prone, as the European Commission acknowledges, > by stating that “biases and inherent errors and discrimination can lead > to erroneous decisions”. Invaluable and unique evidence of human rights > abuses committed by groups or governments can also disappear, as > examples from the war in Syria show. UN Special Rapporteur on human > rights and counter-terrorism estimates that around 67% of people > affected by counter-terrorism or security policies are human rights > defenders. > > Handing over policing powers and regulating freedom of expression to the > private sector, with no accountability or possibility of redress, is > highly problematic for the rule of law. Companies' terms of services do > not replace laws when it comes to assessing what is legal and what is > not. In addition to this problem, there should be redress mechanisms to > review whether in fact only illegal terrorist content has been removed − > otherwise human rights will be at risk in countries that do not have the > same respect for the rule of law than New Zealand. > > Algorithms used to prevent uploading or delete content are not > transparent, and do not allow for accountability or redress mechanisms. > Therefore unaccountable removal of content and incentives for > over-removal of content must be explicitly rejected. Likewise, law > enforcement authorities must be held accountable by being obliged to > submit transparency reports regarding the requests to remove content, > including the number of investigations and criminal cases opened as a > result of these requests. There are many initiatives addressing the > broad range of “harmful online content” such as the upcoming G7 Biarritz > Summit, France and the UK’s online harms/platform duties proposals and > the EU Regulation on Terrorist Content Online. The overall impact of > initiatives that risk limiting freedom of expression needs to be > evaluated based on evidence. This is currently not the case. > > Broader societal efforts are needed to effectively combat terrorism - > online and offline. These include education, social inclusion, > questioning the impact of austerity, accountability for politicians > using hate speech and stigmatising rhetoric, and real community involvement. > > What the YouTube and Facebook statistics aren’t telling us (24.04.219) > https://edri.org/what-the-youtube-and-facebook-statistics-arent-telling-us/ > > Commission working document - Impact assessment accompanying the > Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council > on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online (12.09.2018) > https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/soteu2018-preven… > > Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of > human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism on the > role of measures to address terrorism and violent extremism on closing > civic space and violating the rights of civil society actors and human > rights defenders (18.02.2019) > https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Terrorism/SR/A_HRC_40_52_EN.pdf > > (Contribution by Claire Fernandez, EDRi) > > [ … OMISSIS …] > > ============================================================ > 12. About > ============================================================ > > EDRi-gram is a fortnightly newsletter about digital civil rights by > European Digital Rights (EDRi), an association of civil and human rights > organisations from across Europe. EDRi takes an active interest in > developments in the EU accession countries and wants to share knowledge > and awareness through the EDRi-gram. > > All contributions, suggestions for content, corrections or agenda-tips > are most welcome. Errors are corrected as soon as possible and are > visible on the EDRi website. > > Except where otherwise noted, this newsletter is licensed under the > Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. See the full text at > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ > > Newsletter editor: Heini Jarvinen - edrigram(a)edri.org > > Information about EDRi and its members: http://www.edri.org/ > > European Digital Rights needs your help in upholding digital rights in > the EU. If you wish to help us promote digital rights, please consider > making a private donation. > https://edri.org/donate/ > > - EDRi-gram subscription information > subscribe by e-mail > To: edri-news-request(a)mailman.edri.org > Subject: subscribe > You will receive an automated e-mail asking to confirm your request. > Unsubscribe by e-mail > To: edri-news-request(a)mailman.edri.org > Subject: unsubscribe > > - Newsletter archive > Back issues are available at: > http://www.edri.org/newsletters/ > > - Help > Please ask edrigram(a)edri.org if you have any problems with subscribing > or unsubscribing. Dott. Diego Latella - Senior Researcher CNR-ISTI, Via Moruzzi 1, 56124 Pisa, Italy (http:www.isti.cnr.it) FM&&T Lab. (http://fmt.isti.cnr.it) http://www.isti.cnr.it/People/D.Latella - ph: +390506212982, mob: +39 348 8283101, fax: +390506212040 =================== The quest for a war-free world has a basic purpose: survival. But if in the process we learn how to achieve it by love rather than by fear, by kindness rather than compulsion; if in the process we learn how to combine the essential with the enjoyable, the expedient with the benevolent, the practical with the beautiful, this will be an extra incentive to embark on this great task. Above all, remember your humanity. -- Sir Joseph Rotblat

1 0