- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

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

"WEF: Blockchain will become the 'beating heart' of finance"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Aug. 16, 2016

Aug. 16, 2016

*WEF: Blockchain will become the 'beating heart' of finance* Oscar Williams-Grut Aug. 12, 2016, 10:00 AM 893 The World Economic Forum (WEF) has concluded that blockchain technology "will fundamentally alter the way financial institutions do business around the world" after a year-long study of the emerging technology. WEF's "Future of Financial Infrastructure" report, published on Friday, said distributed ledger technology, more commonly known as blockchain, "has great potential to drive simplicity and efficiency" in financial services and "will redraw processes and call into question orthodoxies that are foundational to today’s business models." […] Continua qui: http://uk.businessinsider.com/world-economic-forum-potential-of-blockchain-…

1 0

Pokémon Go: un lavoro come un altro...
by Antonio Casilli Aug. 15, 2016

Aug. 15, 2016

"[...] Even gamers who never spend a cent on in-app purchases or promotions are effectively producing information that becomes a commodity owned by Niantic. The free distribution of Pokemon Go can be likened to the free distribution of a tool that lets us make stuff that then belongs to someone else. This tool is pretty fun to use. But this should not distract us completely from what's at stake. Work might be fun but that doesn't make it any less a form of labour. And as our everyday urban lives are increasingly commodified, it's time to start seeking answers about how the spoils of our labour (or "playbour'') are collected and distributed." http://www.smh.com.au/comment/how-pokemon-go-will-make-money-from-you-20160… -- Antonio A. Casilli Associate Professor, Telecom ParisTech Research Fellow Edgar-Morin Center (EHESS)

2 2

Is Your Sex Toy Spying on You?
by Alberto Cammozzo Aug. 15, 2016

Aug. 15, 2016

Hackers reveal smart sex toy sends intimate information back to manufacturer. <http://europe.newsweek.com/your-sex-toy-spying-you-489328?rm=eu> Hackers have revealed that an internet-connected sex toy is sending intimate information back to its manufacturer for the purpose of “market research.” The We-Vibe 4 Plus is designed to be controlled remotely through a smartphone app, so that couples can use it when they are not together. It was revealed that data from the device, such as its temperature and vibration intensity, is being collected by the manufacturer. The privacy issue was brought to light at the Def Con hacking convention by two hackers, who use the online monikers Goldfisk and Follower. In a talk titled “The Internet of Vibrating Things,” the pair demonstrated how data is sent to We Vibe maker Standard Innovation. They also demonstrated that it is possible for third parties to intercept the data, as well as remotely take control of the vibrator and commit what is “potentially sexual assault.” The presentation description stated: “As teledildonics come into the mainstream, human sexual pleasure has become connected with the concerns of privacy and security already familiar to those who previously only wanted to turn on their lights, rather than their lover.” Standard Innovation has admitted to collecting the information but says that it is doing so for “market research purposes, so that we can better understand what settings and levels of intensity are most enjoyed.” In a statement, Standard Innovation president Frank Ferrari said that the temperature data collected is not precise enough to know how it is being used by the user. Ferrari said: “Our reason for collecting CPU temperature data is purely for hardware diagnostic purposes. Our EULA and privacy policy does disclose that we may collect data, but we are currently in the process of reviewing our privacy and data collection protocols in an effort to provide more transparency for our customers.” It is not the first time that vulnerabilities with smart sex toys have been exposed. In March, security researchers demonstrated how a web-connected vibrator could be hacked. According to experts, companies too often treat security as an afterthought when producing internet-enabled devices. Chris Boyd, an analyst at the security firm Malwarebytes, told Newsweek in an interview earlier this year: “The problem here is that many Internet of Things devices [smart devices connected to the internet] are horribly broken security-wise because it costs money to ensure a reasonable standard of protection on a product.”

2 1

How to Hack an Election in 7 Minutes
by Alberto Cammozzo Aug. 14, 2016

Aug. 14, 2016

chiunque esca vincitore dalle prossime elezioni USA forse non sapremo mai se è quello che la gente ha effettivamente votato. With Russia already meddling in 2016, a ragtag group of obsessive tech experts is warning that stealing the ultimate prize—victory on Nov. 8—would be child’s play. <www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-elections-russia-hack-how-to-h…> "We read the code, and found really, really bad problems,” Wallach tells me, sitting in his Houston dining table. He catches himself. “Actually, let me change that,” he says. “We found unacceptable problems.”

1 0