- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Don’t believe the hype: the media are unwittingly selling us an AI fantasy | John Naughton | Opinion | The Guardian
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 13, 2019

Jan. 13, 2019

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/13/dont-believe-the-hype… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

3 3

MISE: Selezionati gli esperti dei gruppi di Intelligenza Artificiale e Blockchain
by Antonio Vetro' Jan. 12, 2019

Jan. 12, 2019

Notizia pubblicata sul sito del MISE già una settimana fa, mi scuso qualora fosse già passata in lista: “ Intelligenza artificiale e blockchain: selezionati gli esperti Elaboreranno la strategia nazionale sull’intelligenza artificiale e la strategia nazionale in materia di tecnologie basate su registri condivisi e blockchain” - Giovedì, 27 Dicembre 2018 http://adisurv.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it/index.php/it/per-i-media/notizie/it… Qui i link per accedere agli elenchi degli esperti Intelligenza Artificiale https://www.mise.gov.it/index.php/it/10-istituzionale/ministero/2038906-int… <https://www.mise.gov.it/index.php/it/10-istituzionale/ministero/2038906-int…> Blockchain https://www.mise.gov.it/index.php/it/10-istituzionale/ministero/2039024-blo… <https://www.mise.gov.it/index.php/it/10-istituzionale/ministero/2039024-blo…> Un caro saluto av

4 3

I was wrong about Google and Facebook: there’s nothing wrong with them (so say we all)
by Giacomo Tesio Jan. 11, 2019

Jan. 11, 2019

Dopo una breve carrellata di insospettabili "collaborazionisti", una conclusione orwelliana: > War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Surveillance is Privacy > > So, in light of the overwhelming support for surveillance capitalism by generally > well-respected organisations that say they work to protect our human rights, > privacy, and democracy, I have decided that I must be the one who’s wrong. > > If Google, Facebook, etc., were even half as bad as I make them out to be, these > organisations would not be partnering with or endorsing them. > > I just want to apologise for being such a “Negative Nancy” and take this > opportunity to thank the FSF, The Free Software Conservancy, Mozilla, Apple, > The Nordic Privacy Arena, AccessNow and RightsCon, Amsterdam Privacy > Week, CPDP, and GNOME for showing me the error of my ways. I now know, > thanks to their moral leadership on this issue, that it’s perfectly fine for people > working to protect human rights and democracy to take millions and billions from > companies like Google and Facebook and to partner with them. > > I must admit, I feel a little silly. The last five years would have been so much > easier if only I’d understood this earlier. > > Here’s wishing you all a world full of freedom sponsored by Google, > privacy sponsored by Facebook, and democracy sponsored by Palantir. https://ar.al/2019/01/11/i-was-wrong-about-google-and-facebook-theres-nothi… Nel caso della CopyleftConf, credo vi siano ragioni molto più pratiche per non accettare "l'aiuto" di chi è strutturalmente incompatibile con il copyleft, ma nonostante il sarcasmo moralista, i fatti che riporta Aral sono veri. Quando dico che l'open source è uno strumento di marketing, non intendo sminuirne il valore economico ma riportare semplicemente la sua funzione principale: servire esigenze commerciali di chi ne paga lo sviluppo. D'altro canto il software libero non è, in sé, garanzia di privacy o di sicurezza, e non c'è ragione di credere che tutti gli hacker che lo sviluppano siano buoni e interessati alla privacy dei loro utenti. Se è vero che Aral è piuttosto monotematico, ha ragione su un punto: un hacker non può far finta di non vedere per qualche soldo in più da spendere in tortine al rinfresco. Quindi anche se Google non fosse lì per calmierare la conferenza sul Copyleft perché non si spinga su terreni scomodi per i suoi prodotti, sarebbe forse appropriato non accettarne i soldi. Giacomo

1 0

Do social media bots have a right to free speech?
by Alberto Cammozzo Jan. 11, 2019

Jan. 11, 2019

<https://thebulletin.org/2019/01/do-social-media-bots-have-a-right-to-free-s…> People who tweet in their jobs—let’s say 21st century journalists, just for example—might say that writing two million tweets represents a daunting challenge. That’s the rough number, Twitter says, that a Russian-linked set of accounts cranked out on the 2016 US presidential race in just the 10 weeks leading up to the election. Of course, in that case, the prolific “authors” were a collection of about 50,000 automated accounts often called bots. A new law in California will soon force bots that engage in electioneering or marketing to declare their non-human identity. While the Kremlin agents who interfered in the US election likely wouldn’t be beholden to a state-level law in the United States, or deterred by it, domestic political campaigns and businesses might. For at least one constitutional scholar, that possibility raises this question: Do bots, like citizens, have that most sacred right enshrined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, the right to free speech? Laurent Sacharoff, a law professor at the University of Arkansas, thinks the people programming bots may want US courts to answer that in the affirmative. Take a hypothetical bot that engages a voter around a shared concern like motherhood, for instance. “If it has to say, ‘Well look, I’m not really a mother, I’m a chatbot mother, a mother of other chatbots. And when I say I feel your pain, I don’t actually have feelings.’ That’s just not going to be very effective,” Sacharoff says. A court ruling on whether bots have First Amendment free speech rights remains in the realm of conjecture. Meanwhile, bots on Twitter are very real. The Pew Research Center conducted a study in 2017 that looked at 1.2 million tweets that contained links. The researchers found that 66 percent of links were posted by “suspected bots,” with the percentage growing much higher depending on the type of content that was being linked. Bots posted about 90 percent of links to news aggregators, for instance. When a gunman killed 11 people in a synagogue in the US city of Pittsburgh last fall, Robhat Labs, which analyzes bots during big news events, found that bots drove 23 percent of the twitter activity around the issue during one 24-hour period. Bots often amplify extremist views. Twitter claims it is making progress in combating “spammy or automated” accounts and is making it harder to spread fake election content. As court rulings continue to define the scope of the First Amendment, it has grown to include corporations. A 2010 Supreme Court decision in the notorious Citizens United case opened the doors for corporations and unions to spend unlimited money directly on electioneering. In the eyes of the court, the elimination of limits on campaign spending was meant to ensure free speech. Sacharoff says a central point underpinning the ruling was that voters could benefit from hearing the “message of a corporation.” The benefit, he says, is for the audience, but the right lies with the corporation. The same principal could hold for bots. “Even though bots are abstract entities, we might think of them as having free speech rights to the extent that they are promoting or promulgating useful information for the rest of us,” Sacharoff says. “That’s one theory of why a bot would have a First Amendment free speech right, almost independent of its creators.” Alternatively, the bots could just be viewed as direct extensions of their human creators. In either case—whether because of an independent right to free speech or because of a human creator’s right—Sacharoff says, “you can get to one or another nature of bots having some kind of free speech right.” In 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that public schools in West Virginia could not force students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, finding that the requirement violated the First Amendment. After all, “to sustain the compulsory flag salute, we are required to say that a Bill of Rights which guards the individual’s right to speak his own mind left it open to public authorities to compel him to utter what is not in his mind,” Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote in the majority opinion. The so-called compelled speech doctrine was born. “These are cases that say that the First Amendment prohibits the government not just from suppressing speech but also from compelling a person to state a message,” Sacharoff says. “And in this case, the message is, ‘I’m a bot, not a human being.’ If the bot or its human being behind it has a free speech right, then they have a right against being compelled to disclose that they’re bot.” In previous Bulletin coverage, the author of the new California law dismisses the idea that the law violates free speech rights. State Sen. Robert Hertzberg says anonymous marketing and electioneering bots are committing fraud. “My point is, you can say whatever the heck you want,” Hertzberg says. “I don’t want to control one bit of the content of what’s being said. Zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero. All I want is for the person who has to hear the content to know it comes from a computer. To me, that’s a fraud element versus a free speech element.” Sacharoff believes that the issue of bots and their potential First Amendment rights may one day have its day in court. Campaigns, he says, will find that bots are helpful and that their “usefulness derives from the fact that they don’t have to disclose that they’re bots.” “If some account is retweeting something, if they have to say, ‘I’m a bot’ every time, then it’s less effective. So sure I can see some campaign seeking a declaratory judgment that the law is invalid,” he says. “Ditto, I guess, [for] selling stuff on the commercial side.” In First Amendment cases, a court would consider whether there is a compelling reason to limit the scope of a person’s speech. In the case of electioneering social-media bots, the sanctity of elections would probably suffice, Sacharoff says. But then a court would weigh whether the anti-bot law is too broad or even effective. “If you can accomplish the same goal some other way, or if this law doesn’t accomplish the goal, then the court will say, ‘We’re going to strike it down. Sure this is a good, worthy goal, but this law just doesn’t advance it.’” Sacharoff says. “So it will be very fact specific.”

1 0

What a report from Germany teaches us about investigating algorithms - Columbia Journalism Review
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 11, 2019

Jan. 11, 2019

https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/investigating-algorithims-germany-schufa.php (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

3 4

TechReview: "Americans want to regulate AI but don’t trust anyone to do it"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 11, 2019

Jan. 11, 2019

*Americans want to regulate AI but don’t trust anyone to do it** * /The public thinks that AI is likely to cause more harm than good, a new report has shown./ by Karen Hao January 10, 2019 In 2018, several high-profile controversies involving AI served as a wake-up call for technologists, policymakers, and the public. The technology may have brought us welcome advances in many fields, but it can also fail catastrophically when built shoddily or applied carelessly. It’s hardly a surprise, then, that Americans have mixed support for the continued development of AI and overwhelmingly agree that it should be regulated, according to a new study from the Center for the Governance of AI and Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute. […] Continua qui: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612734/americans-want-to-regulate-ai-but…

1 0

"Why Open Source Failed"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 10, 2019

Jan. 10, 2019

Di luglio 2018, ma mi era sfuggito. jc *Why Open Source Failed* /John Mark/ Jul 30, 2018 /(If you like this essay, you may be interested in my follow-up, “Save Open Source, Save the World”, https://medium.com/@johnmark/save-open-source-save-the-world-f2b0bf6ec630) / 2018 is the 20th anniversary of the term “open source”, and a good number of articles have been written and conference talks given about this landmark year, the vast majority of which have been of the self-congratulatory, navel gazing type. Unfortunately, open source proponents seem unable or unwilling to tread into reflective contemplation about the actual impact open source has had on society at large, resulting in a rather large blind spot. I’m afraid, dear reader, that the world has left it to me, the guy who brought you such hits as “There is no Open Source Community” and “It Was Never About Innovation”, to tell you about the gross failure of open source as a mechanism to unlock a more equitable society and why we all need to be better. We may not be entirely responsible for either the problem or the solution, but we’re certainly complicit and, thus, responsible for helping to resolve the issues. [...] continua qui: https://medium.com/@johnmark/why-open-source-failed-6cae5d6a9f6

5 5

Dati, mercato e tecnologie nell'era dell'Artificial Intelligence
by Francesco Ruggiero Jan. 10, 2019

Jan. 10, 2019

Gentilissimi, nell’ambito della discussione intorno all’Intelligenza Artificiale, vi segnalo un evento, svolto al Politecnico di Torino il 13 dicembre scorso, in cui è stata proposta una riflessione sul rapporto fra diritto, mercato e tecnologie nell’era dell’AI. Ai saluti del Rettore del Politecnico di Torino, *Guido Saracco*, e del Direttore del Dipartimento di Ingegneria Gestionale e della Produzione, *Franco Lombardi*, sono seguiti interventi di *Alessandro Mantelero*, *Alessandra Pierucci*,* Francesco Pizzetti*, *Carlo Cambini*, *Antonio Nicita*, *Andrea Camanzi*. Maggiori informazioni sono disponibili alla pagina: http://www.politocomunica.polito.it/events/appuntamenti/(idnews)/12103 In allegato la locandina. Grazie e buona giornata, Francesco -- 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

2 1

Global DNS Hijacking Campaign: DNS Record Manipulation at Scale
by Giacomo Tesio Jan. 10, 2019

Jan. 10, 2019

> FireEye’s Mandiant Incident Response and Intelligence teams have identified > a wave of DNS hijacking that has affected dozens of domains belonging > to government, telecommunications and internet infrastructure entities across > the Middle East and North Africa, Europe and North America. While we do not > currently link this activity to any tracked group, initial research suggests the > actor or actors responsible have a nexus to Iran. This campaign has targeted > victims across the globe on an almost unprecedented scale, with a high > degree of success. We have been tracking this activity for several months, > mapping and understanding the innovative tactics, techniques and procedures > (TTPs) deployed by the attacker. We have also worked closely with victims, > security organizations, and law enforcement agencies where possible to reduce > the impact of the attacks and/or prevent further compromises. > > While this campaign employs some traditional tactics, it is differentiated from > other Iranian activity we have seen by leveraging DNS hijacking at scale. > The attacker uses this technique for their initial foothold, which can then > be exploited in a variety of ways. https://www.fireeye.com/blog/threat-research/2019/01/global-dns-hijacking-c… Al di là della dimensione e della presunta origine, vengono adottate tecniche piuttosto semplici (anche se non così semplici quanto iniettare malware JS in un sito web...) e ben note. La cosa interessante è l'uso di Let's Encrypt (progetto del consorzio LinuxFoundation) per costruire l'attacco Man in the Middle alla radice di 2 delle 3 tecniche adottate. E' interessante (e a suo modo divertente) perché il selling point di Let's Encrypt è prevenire gli attacchi MitM attraverso l'adozione di massa di TLS! :-) Ora cosa è più sicuro? - SAPERE di comunicare su un canale pubblico e comportarsi di conseguenza, o - CREDERE di comunicare attraverso un canale riservato e comportarsi di conseguenza? Sul tema dei trade off da considerare: https://medium.com/berkman-klein-center/the-uncertain-effects-of-https-adop… https://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2018/08/07/securing-sites-made-them-less… Giacomo

1 0

Open Glasgow's Moral Maze
by Giacomo Tesio Jan. 9, 2019

Jan. 9, 2019

> Glasgow City Council has released a treasure-trove of open data. > Nearly one-hundred datasets ranging from Live Traffic > Information - to historic climate data. A fantastic boon > for researches and open government enthusiasts. > > But there's a sting in the tail. [...] > > Eight of the datasets are licenced under the slightly different > Glasgow Open Government Licence (GOGL) [...a CC-BY...] with an > interesting addendum > > > You must not use any of the Information for an illegal or immoral purpose > > [...] > Is this Open Data? > I don't know. The wording seems vague and unenforceable. > Once you have released Open Data it is open. You can impose > some conditions on how it is used, sure. But they need to be > precise and easily understandable across the world. https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2018/12/open-glasgows-moral-maze/ Io sono piuttosto ignorante in materia di open data, ma la questione è estremamente interessante sotto diversi punti di vista. Anzitutto, la clausola suddetta fa riflettere, se si prova a prenderla sul serio. Su un piano legale, si dice che si può limitare legalmente l'uso di dati attraverso una licenza. E il software che viene distribuito sotto forma di dato (sorgente o binario) non si può altresì limitarne l'uso con una licenza? E sul piano politico: perché quando si parla di Open Data la possibilità di una licenza copyleft non viene presa in considerazione? Ci sono ragioni tecniche o legali? O semplicemente non si ritiene questi dati abbastanza preziosi da dover garantire che le deduzioni o i modelli da essi derivati debbano restare proprietà comune? (qui la mia ignoranza sul dibattito in corso a riguardo pesa molto e me ne scuso) Giacomo

1 0