- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

10% of Americans don’t use the internet. Who are they?
by Giacomo Tesio April 24, 2019

April 24, 2019

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/22/some-americans-dont-use-th… For instance, seniors are much more likely than younger adults to say they never go online. Although the share of non-internet users ages 65 and older has decreased by 7 percentage points since 2018, 27% still do not use the internet, compared with fewer than 10% of adults under the age of 65. Household income and education are also indicators of a person’s likelihood to be offline. Roughly three-in-ten adults with less than a high school education (29%) do not use the internet in 2019, compared with 35% in 2018. But that share falls as the level of educational attainment increases. Adults from households earning less than $30,000 a year are far more likely than the most affluent adults to not use the internet (18% vs. 2%). ____ Analisi interessante. Da affiancare a https://www.educationnews.org/technology/silicon-valley-tech-execs-sending-… Giacomo

1 0

The Spurious Justifications for Eliminating Price Caps on .org and Other Legacy Domains
by Giacomo Tesio April 24, 2019

April 24, 2019

https://www.circleid.com/posts/20190423_spurious_justifications_for_elimina… ICANN is about to do serious damage to its reputation by making a precipitous, ill-considered leap into the unknown should it follow through on removing price constraints on several legacy extensions, most notably .org. Doing so would expose a global community of non-profits to the risk of quickly-escalating exploitative pricing. The rationale for eliminating price caps relies on three points, all of which are incorrect — 1) that the registries for the legacy gTLDs should be treated the same as the new gTLD registries, that is as owners entitled to capture the entire value of the name spaces, 2) that price competition will restrain prices, and 3) that it is not ICANN's role to set and to regulate prices.

1 1

After the Bust, Are Bitcoins More Like Tulip Mania or the Internet?
by Giacomo Tesio April 24, 2019

April 24, 2019

Scusate, aggiungo in oggetto il titolo dell'articolo. Giacomo On 24/04/2019, Giacomo Tesio <giacomo(a)tesio.it> wrote: > Articolo interessante: sebbene cerchi diplomaticamente di non prendere > posizione sottolinea alcune delle criticità più evidenti dei software > basati sulla blockchain senza portare un singolo argomento a favore > della tecnologia. > Anche se non tratta gli enormi problemi teorici e tecnici, è più serio > di tanti altri. > > > https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/technology/bitcoin-tulip-mania-internet.… > > When you talk to tech industry insiders about where Bitcoin is > heading, two vastly different comparisons are inevitable: the tulip > bulb and the internet. > > Bitcoin’s critics say the digital tokens are like the tulip bulbs of > 17th-century Holland. They generated a wild, speculative rush that > quickly disappeared, leaving behind nothing but pretty flowers and > wrecked bank accounts. > > Bitcoin believers, on the other hand, want us to think about > cryptocurrencies as if they were the internet: a broad technology > category that took some time to reach its potential, even though > expectations got ahead of reality in the early years. If that’s true, > last year’s crash in Bitcoin prices was like the dot-com bust; a > temporary setback before the big ideas come to fruition. [...] > > Speculative transactions accounted for roughly 60 to 80 percent of all > transactions on the blockchain, according to Chainalysis, a start-up > that does analysis of the blockchain for big companies and > governments. Most of those transactions are Bitcoins moving between > cryptocurrency exchanges around the world. [...] > > Many if not most Bitcoin advocates I’ve encountered will admit it > doesn’t offer much of an improvement over traditional electronic > methods of payment. In several ways, it’s worse. Paying with Bitcoin > requires you to become a speculator on its volatile price for the time > you are holding on to tokens and waiting to pay. [...] > > The bigger problem facing Bitcoin is that the practical and legal uses > have struggled to outpace illegal or clearly unethical activity. > > The list of ways that Bitcoin has proved useful to criminals keeps > growing, from the ransom payments on locked-up computer files — or > even hostages — to illegal drug sales. [...] > > Many venture capitalists have made bets on Ethereum and EOS, > alternative cryptocurrency networks that can be programmed for more > sophisticated applications, like financial contracts, than Bitcoin’s > software allows. [...] > > But a majority of these Dapps still focus on legal gray zones, like > gambling. The most prominent use of Ethereum so far has been by > companies, many of them scams and frauds, that wanted to raise money > without complying with securities regulations, through so-called > initial coin offerings. > > I have seen little indication that any of the more legitimate uses > have worked easily enough to have any appeal beyond cryptocurrency > fanatics. [...] > > The latest big cryptocurrency player is Facebook, which is said to be > working on its own digital tokens. So are several other big messaging > companies. >

1 0

(no subject)
by Giacomo Tesio April 24, 2019

April 24, 2019

Articolo interessante: sebbene cerchi diplomaticamente di non prendere posizione sottolinea alcune delle criticità più evidenti dei software basati sulla blockchain senza portare un singolo argomento a favore della tecnologia. Anche se non tratta gli enormi problemi teorici e tecnici, è più serio di tanti altri. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/technology/bitcoin-tulip-mania-internet.… When you talk to tech industry insiders about where Bitcoin is heading, two vastly different comparisons are inevitable: the tulip bulb and the internet. Bitcoin’s critics say the digital tokens are like the tulip bulbs of 17th-century Holland. They generated a wild, speculative rush that quickly disappeared, leaving behind nothing but pretty flowers and wrecked bank accounts. Bitcoin believers, on the other hand, want us to think about cryptocurrencies as if they were the internet: a broad technology category that took some time to reach its potential, even though expectations got ahead of reality in the early years. If that’s true, last year’s crash in Bitcoin prices was like the dot-com bust; a temporary setback before the big ideas come to fruition. [...] Speculative transactions accounted for roughly 60 to 80 percent of all transactions on the blockchain, according to Chainalysis, a start-up that does analysis of the blockchain for big companies and governments. Most of those transactions are Bitcoins moving between cryptocurrency exchanges around the world. [...] Many if not most Bitcoin advocates I’ve encountered will admit it doesn’t offer much of an improvement over traditional electronic methods of payment. In several ways, it’s worse. Paying with Bitcoin requires you to become a speculator on its volatile price for the time you are holding on to tokens and waiting to pay. [...] The bigger problem facing Bitcoin is that the practical and legal uses have struggled to outpace illegal or clearly unethical activity. The list of ways that Bitcoin has proved useful to criminals keeps growing, from the ransom payments on locked-up computer files — or even hostages — to illegal drug sales. [...] Many venture capitalists have made bets on Ethereum and EOS, alternative cryptocurrency networks that can be programmed for more sophisticated applications, like financial contracts, than Bitcoin’s software allows. [...] But a majority of these Dapps still focus on legal gray zones, like gambling. The most prominent use of Ethereum so far has been by companies, many of them scams and frauds, that wanted to raise money without complying with securities regulations, through so-called initial coin offerings. I have seen little indication that any of the more legitimate uses have worked easily enough to have any appeal beyond cryptocurrency fanatics. [...] The latest big cryptocurrency player is Facebook, which is said to be working on its own digital tokens. So are several other big messaging companies.

1 0

How to hide from the AI surveillance state with a color printout - MIT Technology Review
by Antonio Vetro' April 24, 2019

April 24, 2019

https://www.technologyreview.com/f/613409/how-to-hide-from-the-ai-surveilla… av

1 0

Why the huge growth in AI spells a big opportunity for transdisciplinary researchers
by Antonio Vetro' April 24, 2019

April 24, 2019

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01251-1 "[…] current events around digital technology, along with debates about biased algorithms and ethical and regulatory challenges of autonomous systems, underscore the fact that AI is more than a technology of the future. It is impacting today’s sociopolitical climate. More importantly, current events and debates highlight the fact that AI management is more of a social and political issue than an engineering challenge. " Tendenzialmente mi trovo d’accordo con l’autore, pur senza sminuire le sfide tecnologiche. antonio v.

1 0

«Google e Amazon? Vi spiego come l’Antitrust Ue regola i big di internet» - Corriere.it
by J.C. DE MARTIN April 24, 2019

April 24, 2019

https://www.corriere.it/economia/aziende/19_aprile_19/google-amazoncosi-tut… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

9 18

Apple CEO says Europe is leading U.S. with tech regulation
by J.C. DE MARTIN April 23, 2019

April 23, 2019

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/23/apple-ceo-says-europe-is-leading-us-with-te… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

2 1

New Frontiers of Philanthro‐capitalism: Digital Technologies and Humanitarianism - Burns - - Antipode - Wiley Online Library
by J.C. DE MARTIN April 23, 2019

April 23, 2019

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/anti.12534 (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Is cyberwarfare war? Insurers balk at paying for some cyberattacks
by Alberto Cammozzo April 23, 2019

April 23, 2019

Interessante e ampia estensione al cyberwarfare della clausola di esclusione per conflitto armato nei contratti assicurativi. Immagino che possa ulteriormente complicare lo scenario IoT e dei sistemi di guida autonoma: l'assicurazione si defila se l'auto/aereo/drone a guida autonoma o il tostapane/lavatrice/friggitrice IoT causa vittime o danni per effetto di un attacco informatico riconosciuto come "bellico"... A questo punto chi paga? Il produttore dell'oggetto, il proprietario dello stesso (ammesso che non sia parte dannegiata) o nessuno? <https://thebulletin.org/2019/04/is-cyberwarfare-war-insurers-balk-at-paying…> [...] And US businesses may no longer be able to rely on insurance to cover their losses. In an era of unceasing cyberattacks, including cases of state-sponsored hacking, insurance companies are beginning to re-interpret an old line in their contracts known as the “war exclusion.” Stripping away the metaphorical connotation of the term “cyberwarfare,” big insurers like Zurich Insurance have decided that state-sponsored attacks are basically just plain warfare. This shift comes as the US government is increasingly attributing state-sponsored cyberattacks to their alleged perpetrators, a development that some argue is a means of holding bad actors accountable. But the policy certainly doesn’t seem to be doing any favors to the private sector. The New York Times fleshed out the insurance companies’ new legal strategy in a recent article about the woes of Modelez International, the maker of Oreo cookies and other mainstays of the snack food industry. Based in the Chicago suburbs, Mondelez was among the hundreds of companies hit in the so-called “NotPetya” attack of 2017. The Times reported that Mondelez expected its more than $100 million in losses to be covered by its Zurich insurance policy. But Zurich swatted back Mondelez’s claim, citing an exclusion for “hostile or warlike action in time of peace or war … by any government or sovereign power,” according to the complaint Mondelez filed in court last fall, which Crain’s Chicago Business obtained. In February 2018, the White House attributed the NotPetya attack to the Russian military, calling it the “most destructive and costly cyberattack in history.” By blaming the Russians, the government gave Zurich an opening, but not necessarily an airtight argument: “Zurich’s invocation of a ‘hostile or warlike action’ exclusion to deny coverage for malicious ‘cyber’ incidents was … unprecedented,” Mondelez’s complaint asserted. “The purported application of this type of exclusion to anything other than conventional armed conflict or hostilities was unprecedented.” “We still don’t have a clear idea of what cyberwar actually looks like,” cyber risk adviser Jake Olcott told the Times. “That is one of the struggles in this case. No one has said this was an all-out cyberwar by Russia.” [...]

2 1