- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Valore legale della blockchain e smart contract: primo via libera al Senato
by Guido Noto La Diega Jan. 29, 2019

Jan. 29, 2019

"Primo via libera alla norma – come emendamento al decreto Semplificazioni, ora al Senato – che inserisce per la prima volta nel nostro ordinamento le “tecnologie basate su registri distribuiti come la Blockchain” e una definizione di smart contract. Il primo aspetto è “la possibilità di dare un valore giuridico a una transazione che sfrutti un registro elettronico distribuito e informatizzato, senza passare da notai o enti certificatori centrali”, spiega Fulvio Sarzana, avvocato e membro del team degli esperti blockchain avviato dal ministero dello Sviluppo economico. «La norma sullo smart contract invece dà a un contratto eseguito in automatico da un programma informatico il valore giuridico di un contratto normale, scritto e firmato», aggiunge Sarzana." https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/tecnologie/2019-01-23/valore-legale-blockch… -- Guido Guido Noto La Diega, PhD FHEA Senior Lecturer / European Research Partnerships Coordinator @ Northumbria Law School Director @italiot | Fellow @nexacenter | Co-convenor @NINSOrig | Co-founder @DPA2018 Northumbria Law School City Campus East, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST noto.la.diega(a)gmail.com +44(0)191 349 5562 You can access my papers on Academia.edu <http://northumbria.academia.edu/GuidoNotoLaDiega> and on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1794950>) This e-mail and any attachment hereto are strictly confidential and are exclusively intended for the person above identified. Without intended recipient’s entitlement, use, copy and dissemination of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error, please advice us immediately by telephone and return the documents received to the above address, deleting the files. Thank you. Unless necessary, please do not print this e-mail.

2 1

CFP Urbino
by Fabio Giglietto Jan. 29, 2019

Jan. 29, 2019

Ciao a tutti, sono un lettore silenzioso ma vorace della vostra ML. Ho pensato che a qualcuno di voi potessero interessare questi due eventi che ospiteremo a Urbino a giugno. ☑️ 24th June 2019 | Association of Internet Researchers (#AoIR) Symposium - Below the Radar: Private Groups, Locked Platforms and Ephemeral Content ( https://aoir.org/aoir2019symposia/) ☑️ 25-29 June 2019 | 15th Conference of Sociocybernetics - “Dark Ages 2.0”: Social Media And Their Impact (https://easychair.org/cfp/ICSC2019) Sperando di aver fatto cosa gradita. A presto, Fabio Giglietto -- Fabio Giglietto Associate Professor at University of Urbino "Carlo Bo" Twitter: @fabiogiglietto <https://twitter.com/fabiogiglietto> Google Scholar profile <http://scholar.google.it/citations?user=FmenbcUAAAAJ&hl=en>

1 0

Facebook drafts a proposal describing how its new content review board will work
by Matteo Flora Jan. 29, 2019

Jan. 29, 2019

Facebook drafts a proposal describing how its new content review board will work https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/28/facebook-drafts-a-proposal-describing-how…

1 0

ALGORITHMIC ENTITIES
by Giacomo Jan. 28, 2019

Jan. 28, 2019

Ho trovato questo articolo di LYNN M. LOPUCKI estremamente interessante. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2954173 Le conclusioni sembrano interessati da un punto di vista legale (almeno così sembrani ad un profano come me) ma sono ingenuamente catastrofiste da un punto di vista tecnico. Siamo tanto vicini a produrre intelligenze artificiali generali quanto siamo vicini a visitare la galassia di Andromeda. Il vero pericolo delle Artificial Entities non sta nella loro mente artificiale, ma in quelle biologiche che le controllerebbero senza risponderne. Di seguito abstract e conclusioni: In a 2014 article, Professor Shawn Bayern demonstrated that anyone can confer legal personhood on an autonomous computer algorithm by putting it in control of a limited liability company. Bayern’s demonstration coincided with the development of “autonomous” online businesses that operate independently of their human owners—accepting payments in online currencies and contracting with human agents to perform the off-line aspects of their businesses. About the same time, leading technologists Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Stephen Hawking said that they regard human-level artificial intelligence as an existential threat to the human race. This Article argues that algorithmic entities—legal entities that have no human controllers—greatly exacerbate the threat of artificial intelligence. Algorithmic entities are likely to prosper first and most in criminal, terrorist, and other anti-social activities because that is where they have their greatest comparative advantage over human-controlled entities. Control of legal entities will contribute to the threat algorithms pose by providing them with identities. Those identities will enable them to conceal their algorithmic natures while they participate in commerce, accumulate wealth, and carry out anti-social activities. Four aspects of corporate law make the human race vulnerable to the threat of algorithmic entities. First, algorithms can lawfully have exclusive control of not just American LLC’s but also a large majority of the entity forms in most countries. Second, entities can change regulatory regimes quickly and easily through migration. Third, governments— particularly in the United States—lack the ability to determine who controls the entities they charter and so cannot determine which have non-human controllers. Lastly, corporate charter competition, combined with ease of entity migration, makes it virtually impossible for any government to regulate algorithmic control of entities. [...tutto l'articolo...] CONCLUSIONS AEs are inevitable because they have three advantages over humancontrolled businesses. They can act and react more quickly, they don’t lose accumulated knowledge through personnel changes, and they cannot be held responsible for their wrongdoing in any meaningful way. AEs constitute a threat to humanity because the only limits on their conduct are the limits the least restrictive human creator imposes. As the science advances, algorithms’ abilities will improve until they far exceed those of humans. What remains to be determined is whether humans will be successful in imposing controls before the opportunity to do so has passed. This Article has addressed a previously unexplored aspect of the artificial-intelligence-control problem. Giving algorithms control of entities endows algorithms with legal rights and gives them the ability to transact anonymously with humans. Once granted, those rights and abilities would be difficult to revoke. Under current law, algorithms could inhabit entities of most types and nationalities. They could move from one type or nationality to another, thereby changing their governing law. They could easily hide from regulators in a system where the controllers of nonpublicly-traded entities are all invisible. Because the revocation of AEs’ rights and abilities would require the amendment of thousands of entity laws, the entity system is less likely to function as a means of controlling artificial intelligence than as a means by which artificial intelligence will control humans. Entity law is not only incapable of regulating AEs, it is incapable of regulating much of anything. The entity system is grounded in three principles. First, an entity can incorporate anywhere, regardless of the location of its operations. Second, an entity chartered in one jurisdiction can do business in virtually any other jurisdiction. Third, while operating in those other jurisdictions, the entity continues to be governed by the entity law under which it was formed. Together, those principles implicitly define a regulatory competition through the sale of entity charters. Each government competes for a share in billions of dollars of revenues annually by promoting and selling its entities and the regulation that accompanies them. To regulate is to restrict. A competition to sell restrictions will, of course, be won by the jurisdiction that provides the fewest. Thus, the natural culmination of charter competition is a system that does not restrict at all. That result is not unintended. It is essentially what Romano touted as the “genius of American corporate law.”328 By embracing the charter competition, the United States has become the world’s largest supplier of anonymous entities and enabled its corporate service providers to achieve the world’s lowest rate of compliance with the international standards designed to prevent terrorist financing and money-laundering. Because they believed that government should not regulate the relationship among the corporation and its officers, directors, and shareholders, charter competition advocates have perpetuated a system that hardly regulates at all. What the advocates apparently failed to realize is that entity law applies to much more than the entities’ internal affairs. AEs have no internal affairs, yet entity law will govern the key issues that determine their viability. Chartering governments decide who—or what—can have the rights of a person by acting through an entity. Chartering governments also decide what information about the human actors will be available to the public, what information will be available to police and prosecutors, how quickly that information will be made available and at what expense, how quickly and easily an entity can flee a jurisdiction to avoid the jurisdiction’s current or proposed regulations, and even whether a tort creditor can recover against an entity’s owner. Chartering governments decide these issues even when the effects are felt entirely outside the chartering jurisdiction. The AE threat dramatically illustrates the fundamental weakness of regulatory competition as a policy tool. Once the charter competition was up and running, the economic, political, and legal systems adjusted. Ending the competition now would be so disruptive it is almost impossible. The entity system is not merely a system that will not regulate when regulation is not needed, it is a system that cannot regulate even when regulation is needed. The assertion that charter competition is harmless because entity law governs only entities’ internal affairs is no longer plausible. As the example of AEs illustrates, entity law governs far more than the internal affairs of a corporation. It determines the very nature of the corporate personality. The survival of the human race may depend on recognition of that fact.

1 0

Uso degli algoritmi e distorsioni programmate | 6 febbraio 2019
by Francesco Ruggiero Jan. 28, 2019

Jan. 28, 2019

Carissimi, vi segnalo un incontro in programma mercoledì *6* *febbraio 2019*, a partire dalle ore 17.30, dal titolo: *Uso degli algoritmi e distorsioni programmate.* L’incontro avrà luogo nella sala Conferenze del *Polo del Novecento *in corso Valdocco 4/a, Torino. Ne discutono *Ugo Pagallo* (Università degli Studi di Torino - Centro Nexa), *Pietro Jarre* (Sloweb) e *Antonio Santangelo* (Centro Nexa). In allegato la locandina. Grazie per l'attenzione. -- Francesco Ruggiero Communication Manager Nexa Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino - DAUIN Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 - 10129 Torino web: http://nexa.polito.it mail: francesco.ruggiero(a)polito.it tel: 011 090 7219

1 0

Victory! Illinois Supreme Court Protects Biometric Privacy
by Alberto Cammozzo Jan. 28, 2019

Jan. 28, 2019

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/01/victory-illinois-supreme-court-protec… Today the Illinois Supreme Court ruled unanimously that when companies collect biometric data like fingerprints or face prints without informed opt-in consent, they can be sued. Users don't need to prove an injury like identity fraud or physical harm—just losing control of one’s biometric privacy is injury enough. In Rosenbach v. Six Flags, a 14 year old brought a challenge against an amusement park for collecting his thumbprint without his informed consent, in violation of Illinois law. The law in question, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), prohibits companies from gathering, using, or sharing biometric information without informed opt-in consent. EFF, along with ACLU, CDT, the Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation, PIRG, and Lucy Parsons Labs, filed an amicus curiae brief urging the Illinois Supreme Court to adopt a robust interpretation of BIPA. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed with us and soundly rejected the defendants’ argument that BIPA required a person to show an injury beyond loss of statutory privacy rights. The Court rejected the company’s argument that violation of a privacy statute is a mere “technical violation of the law.” In fact, the Court ruled, it inflicts a serious harm that supports a lawsuit. The court recognized that, through BIPA, the legislature had codified an individual’s “right to privacy in and control over their biometric identifiers and biometric information.” The need to codify this right was supported by the legislature’s findings that biometrics may be used to access sensitive information, but unlike other identifiers like social security numbers, biometrics are unique to each individual and can’t be changed. As a result, the Court ruled, quoting the legislature: “once compromised, the individual has no recourse, is at heightened risk for identity theft, and is likely to withdraw from biometric-facilitated transactions.” [...]

1 0

A Study on Driverless-Car Ethics Offers a Troubling Look Into Our Values | The New Yorker
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 28, 2019

Jan. 28, 2019

https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/a-study-on-driverless-car-ethics… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

2 1

Nouveau monde. Luc Julia : "L’intelligence artificielle n’existe pas et la voiture autonome n’existera jamais"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 27, 2019

Jan. 27, 2019

*Nouveau monde. Luc Julia : "L’intelligence artificielle n’existe pas et la voiture autonome n’existera jamais"* / //Par franceinfo, Jérôme Colombain – Radio France// // //Mis à jour le 27/01/2019 | 17:39 – publié le 25/01/2019 | 15:16// / *Luc Julia, l'un des pères de l’assistant vocal Siri d’Apple prend le contrepied du discours marketing actuel sur l’IA.* Luc Julia, l’un des inventeurs de l’assistant vocal Siri d’Apple, actuel vice-président innovation de Samsung Monde, et directeur du laboratoire de recherche en IA de Samsung, signe un livre décalé sur l’intelligence artificielle dans lequel il prend le contrepied du discours marketing ambiant sur l’IA. Le concept d’intelligence artificielle est né en 1956 d’un besoin de financement pour la recherche en informatique. Les scientifiques américains John McCarthy et Marvin Lee Minsky ont eu l’idée d’enrober leurs travaux avec cette notion afin de susciter l’adhésion. 60 ans après, on parle à nouveau partout d'intelligence artificielle. Luc Julia, l’un des pionniers du domaine, met en garde contre les exagérations. […] Continua qui: https://mobile.francetvinfo.fr/replay-radio/nouveau-monde/nouveau-monde-luc…

1 0

From Policing Screen Time To Weighing Screen Use | The Children’s Media Foundation (CMF)
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 27, 2019

Jan. 27, 2019

https://www.thechildrensmediafoundation.org/archives/7165/from-policing-scr… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

2 1

The Power of Platforms | Public Seminar
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 27, 2019

Jan. 27, 2019

http://www.publicseminar.org/2019/01/the-power-of-platforms/ (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

2 1