- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

prototipo rilasciato: come misurare la filter bubble?
by Claudio Agosti Aug. 23, 2016

Aug. 23, 2016

Buongiono Nexa, https://facebook.tracking.exposed è un prototipo reccentemente rilasciato, non vi suggerisco ancora di usarlo, ma vorrei raccontarvi un po' il piano che ho in mente. ho scritto un piccolo tool che sta sul browser (come un'estensione, ma non proprio un add-ons), che vi monitora il feed di facebook. estrae pochi metadati da ogni post: 1. il post-ID del post che vedete 2. quando è stato pubblicato 3. la ragione per cui lo vedete (perchè una persona ci ha fatto attività, perchè è promosso, o non ha un motivo particolare per essere lì) 4. il momento in cui vi appare. la filter bubble, o qualunque altra manipolazione protratta dagli algortmi, si basa sul fatto che dei contenuti vi appariranno in testa al feed, altri in posizioni meno favorevoli (ad esempio, solo se scorrete due o tre volte) altri vi appariranno solo una volta per non tornare più. Voglio visualizzare questo comportamento e permettere ad altri di far ricerche: quali contenuti [1] vengono penaizzati ? ci sono pattern nazionali, regionali ? ci quanto FB può spingersi per favorirti un contenuto ? possiamo dire che un contenuto visualizzato una volta sola, senza priorità, abbia subito l'equivalente di una censura? Ogni utente che fa girare l'estensione sul browser starà contribuendo a queste analisi. ogni utente avrà anche il personale beneficio di veder le sue timeline comparate con quello che sarebbe stato l'ordine cronologico (perchè di questo si tratta: più si ignora l'ordine cronologico, più l'ingerenza dell'algoritmo si palesa) Chi fa ricerca, avrà a disposizione delle API con la quale interrogare il database e far ricerche. Idealmente si potrebbe provare ad aver un gruppo di utenti uniformi così da studiarli prima in condizione di uguaglianza. Offro supporto agli enti di ricerca che volessero farlo. ciao, Claudio [1] io non estraggo contenuti, per ora: miglioramenti sono possibili -- Claudio Agosti, http://www.journalismfestival.com/news/guilty-by-proximity-ijf16-hackers-co…

4 4

Is the Shadow Brokers leak the latest in a series?
by Alberto Cammozzo Aug. 22, 2016

Aug. 22, 2016

<http://electrospaces.blogspot.it/2016/08/is-shadow-brokers-leak-latest-in-s…> Earlier this week, a group or an individual called the Shadow Brokers published a large set of files containing the computer code for hacking tools. They were said to be from the Equation Group, which is considered part of the NSA's hacking division TAO. The leak got quite some media attention, but so far it was not related to some earlier leaks of highly sensitive NSA documents. These show interesting similarities with the Shadow Brokers files, which were also not attributed to Edward Snowden, but seem to come from an unknown second source. []

1 0

Autonomous AI guards to stalk the internet fighting hackers
by Alberto Cammozzo Aug. 18, 2016

Aug. 18, 2016

Smart programs can seek out and patch up weakness in online security, but if one goes rogue, it could unleash the worst hack ever seen <https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130870-900-autonomous-ai-guards-to…> The Grand Cyber Challenge at the Black Hat cybersecurity conference in Las Vegas pitted artificial intelligences against each other, while their human creators sat back and watched. Fighting for a $4 million prize pot from the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), each AI tried to hack its opponents’ computer systems. They sought weak spots and figured out how to exploit them while defending their own computers. The sophistication of the artificial hackers impressed many of those present. “This really caught me by surprise,” says Matt Devost of cybersecurity firm FusionX in Washington DC. It could transform the security scene in the next 10 years, he says. The aim of the competition was to encourage the development of automated systems that can defend the internet against hackers. The winner, called Mayhem, was created by ForAllSecure in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It’s the first time this kind of software has been shown to work, says the firm’s CEO David Brumley, who is also a cybersecurity researcher at Carnegie Mellon University. [] “You can make autonomous defence entities,” says Devost. “You might unleash one of these and its sole job is just roving around, probing your networks, finding vulnerabilities and patching them.” ForAllSecure has started probing the Linux operating system, which is used by many of the computers that run the internet. The firm plans to release its software online and have it score the security of the systems it encounters. “The turning point is that we can now start inspecting every piece of software autonomously,” says Brumley. The idea is to give consumers an idea of how safe a device is before buying it, letting them avoid a baby monitor that is found to be vulnerable to hackers, for example. “All these devices have not been looked at in depth,” he says. “If you go to Amazon and buy a router, there’s a huge chance that it has major vulnerabilities.” But there’s a flip side. “You now also have the potential for creating autonomous attackers,” says Devost. “Launch one of these and you can automate something like the 2014 Sony hack.” Devost is not the only one with concerns. Shortly after the Las Vegas competition, digital-rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in San Francisco published an article on its website praising DARPA’s initiative, but calling for researchers to come together to discuss how to keep such systems from going rogue and doing catastrophic damage. Software like Mayhem could be used to take control of connected devices in far greater numbers than human hackers could by themselves, opening up new kinds of attack. By hijacking smart thermostats, for example, cybercriminals could hold electricity providers to ransom by threatening to crank up the air conditioning and crash the grid. The EFF wants researchers to work through the risks of building software that can probe and attack on its own. The issues are similar to those faced when working with highly infectious diseases. Just as modifying and studying the H5N1 flu virus in a lab lets us prepare for an epidemic, for example, it also opens the door for that research to be used to spread disease.

1 0

Call for Proposals: “Internet Freedom: Present and Future” at the Internet Freedom Festival
by J.C. DE MARTIN Aug. 18, 2016

Aug. 18, 2016

-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Call for Proposals: “Internet Freedom: Present and Future” at the Internet Freedom Festival, March 2017 Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 10:00:43 -0400 From: IFF Research <research(a)internetfreedomfestival.org> <mailto:research@internetfreedomfestival.org> Organization: Internet Freedom Festival Call for Proposals: “Internet Freedom: Present and Future” at the Internet Freedom Festival Where: Internet Freedom Festival, Las Naves, Valencia, Spain When: March 6-10,2017 Submission deadline: Oct 2, 2016 Since 2015, the Internet Freedom Festival has gathered the community keeping the internet open and uncensored for a week of multidisciplinary collaboration among front-line activists, policy experts, tool developers, digital security trainers, and academic researchers from around the world. This year, the “Internet Freedom: Present and Future” theme will promote exchange and collaboration between the scholarly and practitioner communities. In preparing their submissions, researchers should consider the following provocations: * What should practitioners from the various sectors represented at the Festival know from the scholarly literature? * What is the canon of Internet Freedom literature? In what ways is the canon being contested? * What is the cutting edge of scholarly research in this field? * How can this information best be conveyed to lay audiences? Proposals can structured as solo presentations of original research, critical literature reviews, panel discussions, roundtables, debates, or any other format suitable to sharing scholarly research with Internet Freedom practitioners. Standard formats for the IFF include: * Workshop * Training * Hackathon * Presentation * Panel discussion * Networking event * Off-site session * Other: you can also create your own formats, as long as they fit within the allocated times and spaces. The full submission guidelines are at https://internetfreedomfestival.org/host-a-session/ <https://internetfreedomfestival.org/host-a-session/> Graduate students, early-career academics, and scholars from the Global South are especially encouraged to apply. The Theme How should the future of the Internet Freedom space look? How can we get there from here? The Internet Freedom: Present and Future Theme is dedicated to explore the current state of the Internet Freedom space, its overarching issues, the latest research findings, and the upcoming threats and opportunities. Naturally, sessions that explore the history of Internet Freedom are also relevant. How to Apply Proposals should be submitted through <https://internetfreedomfestival.org/host-a-session/>https://internetfreedomfestival.org/host-a-session/ <https://internetfreedomfestival.org/host-a-session/>, selecting the “Internet Freedom: Present and Future” theme. Please refer to the “Research” theme in the session description. Submissions will be evaluated through a peer-review process comprising academics as well as internet freedom practitioners. Questions can be sent to research(a)internetfreedomfestival.org <mailto:research@internetfreedomfestival.org> -- The Internet Freedom Festival Team @InternetFF |www.internetfreedomfestival.org <http://www.internetfreedomfestival.org>

1 0

Paper: "Uber as For-Profit Hiring Hall: A Price-Fixing Paradox and its Implications"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Aug. 17, 2016

Aug. 17, 2016

*Uber as For-Profit Hiring Hall: A Price-Fixing Paradox and its Implications* Sanjukta Paul University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) August 2, 2016 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2817653 *Abstract: * The conventional antitrust norms against price-fixing prohibit coordination of prices of services. Two currently pending antitrust cases involving Uber, one arising from its relationship to Uber drivers (Chamber of Commerce v. City of Seattle) and the other arising from its relationship to Uber riders (Meyer v. Kalanick), reveal a paradox that inheres in the regulation of Uber's business model. Uber simultaneously benefits from the nonenforcement of price-fixing norms in the consumer market and from the enforcement of price-fixing norms between itself and drivers. In developing this argument, I offer a model for understanding Uber’s activity that differs from -- or at least, does not require -- a position often taken by worker advocates, that Uber is selling ride services and is legally the employer of Uber drivers, and which also differs from Uber’s own position, that it is a technology firm that does not sell ride services at all. I suggest that Uber’s relationship to riders and drivers can rather be understood as a twist on a familiar creature of organized labor: the hiring hall. This model has the advantage of accounting for Uber’s claim that it is not selling ride services, while also explaining how it is that Uber derives an economic benefit from price coordination in a market for services. I argue that more generally, the labor exemption from antitrust law has interacted with price-setting by firms in services markets in a peculiar way, effectively shielding such firms from antitrust scrutiny even where they engage labor outside the bounds of employment, and thus outside the conventional bounds of the labor exemption. Where true, this creates an internal inconsistency in the regulation of workers and firms dealing in services. Number of Pages in PDF File: 24 Keywords: labor, antitrust, price-fixing, labor exemption, collective action, collective bargaining, independent contractor, gig economy, employee, services

1 0

Lavoratori delle piattaforme in sciopero: il caso Deliveroo
by Antonio Casilli Aug. 17, 2016

Aug. 17, 2016

Altro settore (ristorazione), altro paese (Regno Unito) ma stessa storia: piattaformizzazione del lavoro e lavoratori che si sindacalizzano (leggere il comunicato del sindacato indipendente IWGB alla fine, e se ve la sentite c'è anche uno "strike (crowd)fund" al quale si può contribuire). #DeliverooStrike: sciopero selvaggio per i lavoratori on demand "Mercoledì 10 agosto, alle 17.00, i corrieri di Deliveroo sono scesi in sciopero e in più di cento si sono riuniti a Torrington Place, davanti alla sede centrale dell'azienda. I piloti protestano contro la proposta di modifica contrattuale che stabilisce il passaggio da una paga su base oraria (7£ all'ora + 1£ a consegna) ad una a cottimo (£3.75 a consegna)." http://www.chicago86.org/lotte-in-corso/europa/regno-unito/1019-deliveroost… -- Antonio A. Casilli Associate Professor, Telecom ParisTech Research Fellow Edgar-Morin Center (EHESS)

1 1

Chart 2001-2016: The Largest Companies by Market Cap
by J.C. DE MARTIN Aug. 17, 2016

Aug. 17, 2016

1 0

Autonomous weapons: My Droneski Just Ate Your Ethics
by Alberto Cammozzo Aug. 16, 2016

Aug. 16, 2016

La corsa verso le armi autonome mi pare alimentata dalla stessa retorica che guidò la corsa verso le armi nucleari. <http://warontherocks.com/2016/08/my-droneski-just-ate-your-ethics/> [...] The question of autonomous, lethal robots presents us with a sort of prisoner’s dilemma, in which uncertainty regarding other players’ decisions drives us to pursue a sub-optimal strategy in order to avoid the most damaging outcome. Consider a game with two combatants who have two possible strategies for using lethal robots in a contest: full autonomy and human control. (We categorize any human interventions in the robot’s decision-making as human control, even if the human’s role is limited to approving the release of a weapon.) Neither side seeks to create humanity’s future robot overlords, so full autonomy is an unappealing strategy given the risk (however small it may seem) that humans could lose control over fully autonomous weapons. However, maintaining human control exposes players to other disadvantages that may be decisive should the other player opt for full autonomy. First, fully autonomous systems could operate in a much faster decision cycle than human-in-the-loop systems. An inferior platform can defeat a superior one if the inferior platform can, to borrow a phrase from John Boyd, get inside its enemy’s decision loop. This places a manned, semi-autonomous future force at significant risk when encountering a fully autonomous first echelon or defensive screens of a less scrupulous enemy. Second, fully autonomous systems can operate in a compromised network environment. A lethal, autonomous drone would not require a reliable link to the robot. In contrast, telying on human-controlled systems, requires total confidence in the integrity of our communications during a conflict. These two assumptions — the superior decision speed of fully autonomous systems and the vulnerability of networks in future wars — are likely to drive players in the game to embrace full autonomy. They may prefer to risk creating Skynet than take the chance that they will be decisively defeated by a human adversary. This is the dilemma of fully autonomous, lethal robots. [...] Autocracies may therefore view automation as a way to extend state control and reduce the potential for internal opposition to regime policy. If the Russians and Chinese are already moving rapidly towards autonomous lethal systems, how will other nation-states and non-state actors approach the development of fully autonomous systems? Ultimately this quest for greater autonomy is resulting in a “drone race” in which we must maintain the technological and operational lead. We should temper our concerns about “killer robots” with the knowledge that our adversaries care about the morals and ethics of lethal, autonomous systems only insofar as those concerns give them a competitive advantage. If full autonomy gives them supremacy on the battlefield, they will care little about what human rights lawyers think, even if an international agreement to prohibit autonomous weapon systems emerges. [...]

1 0

Doctorow: "How a digital-only smartphone opens the door to DRM (and how to close the door)"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Aug. 16, 2016

Aug. 16, 2016

*How a digital-only smartphone opens the door to DRM (and how to close the door)** * Cory Doctorow / 7:45 am Fri Aug 12, 2016 Fast Company's Mark Sullivan asked me to explain what could happen if Apple went through with its rumored plans to ship a phone with no analog sound outputs, only digital ones -- what kind of DRM badness might we expect to emerge? Start by understanding this: copyright lets you do a lot of stuff without permission (and even against the wishes) of rightsholders. For example, it let Apple launch the Ipod and Itunes, both of which were bitterly denounced by the record industry at their launch -- as far as they were concerned, "Rip, Mix, Burn" was an invitation to piracy, and Apple was wrong to encourage this behavior. But because copyright has limits -- fair use, and the limits on copyrightability itself -- Apple was able to revolutionize music. […] Continua qui: http://boingboing.net/2016/08/12/how-a-digital-only-smartphone.html

1 0

Paper: "Understanding Privacy Policies: Content, Self-Regulation, and Markets"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Aug. 16, 2016

Aug. 16, 2016

*Understanding Privacy Policies: Content, Self-Regulation, and Markets* Florencia Marotta-Wurgler New York University School of Law January 3, 2016 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2736513 NYU Law and Economics Research Paper No. 16-18 *Abstract: * The current regulatory approach to consumer information privacy is based on a “notice and choice” self-regulation model, but commentators disagree on its impact. I conduct a comprehensive empirical analysis of 261 privacy policies across seven markets and measure the extent to which they comply with the self-regulatory guidelines of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), US-EU Safe Harbor Agreement, and others. I track terms involving notice, data collection, sharing, enforcement, security, and other practices, and create a measure of substantive protections. The average policy complies with 39% of the FTC guidelines issued in 2012, and there is no evidence that firms have updated their policies in response to these guidelines. Terms that require firms to bear costs or constrain their behavior are less likely to be included. Protections vary widely across markets, however: Adult sites offer the clearest notice of practices and report less data collection and sharing than other sites, while cloud computing firms report more extensively on data security practices. Overall, the results suggest that privacy policies are being shaped as much by market forces as by the current regulatory regime. Number of Pages in PDF File: 43 Keywords: privacy, privacy policy, standard form contracts, boilerplate, safe harbor, FTC JEL Classification: D12, D18, K00, K12, L81 Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper Date posted: April 5, 2016 ; Last revised: May 4, 2016

2 1