- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Cina e USA trovano un accordo contro il cybercrime
by Diego Giorio Sept. 26, 2015

Sept. 26, 2015

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34360934 Più che altro un patto di non-belligeranza, almeno manifesta. Saluti e buon WE a tutti Diego

1 0

Frediani: "E alla Camera dei Deputati arrivano gli hacker anti-censura"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 26, 2015

Sept. 26, 2015

E alla Camera dei Deputati arrivano gli hacker anti-censura /Montecitorio ospita un raduno di attivisti digitali che mapperanno chi blocca siti online/ carola frediani “La Rete interpreta la censura come un danno e la aggira”. È ancora valida la famosa frase di John Gilmore, hacker e attivista per i diritti digitali? Allora era il 1993. Oggi, come internet, anche la censura online ha fatto molti passi avanti. Si integra con sistemi di sorveglianza del traffico. A volte arriva non solo a inibire l’accesso a un sito, ma a farlo sparire del tutto dalla Rete bombardandolo di richieste (avete presente il Grande Cannone cinese? Ne abbiamo scritto qua . Insomma la censura assume forme diverse, e non sempre riconoscibili. Quando navigando finiamo ad esempio su una pagina di errore, di fronte a cosa ci troviamo? Un errore di configurazione, una pagina cancellata da chi l’aveva creata, o un contenuto censurato dallo Stato? E quando si tratta effettivamente di censura, qual è il miglior modo per eluderla? Un fatto è certo. Per aggirare una censura che innova servono sempre nuovi strumenti. E dati aggiornati. Quali Stati censurano e come? E che tipo di contenuti? Non sono domande banali. Per rispondere alle quali l’1-2 ottobre calerà su Montecitorio una piccola legione di hacker, che passeranno due giorni fra le mura della Camera dei Deputati a mappare filtri, blocchi e “buchi neri” della Rete a livello globale. Armati dei loro pc, un gruppo di programmatori, ricercatori ed esperti di visualizzazione dei dati, provenienti da tutto il mondo, dalla Nuova Zelanda agli Emirati Arabi Uniti, colonizzeranno dunque la Nuova Sala Gruppi di Montecitorio per una maratona di due giorni. […] Continua qui: http://www.lastampa.it/2015/09/26/tecnologia/e-alla-camera-dei-deputati-arr…

1 0

Traffico internet: un mercato 'inumano'
by Antonio Casilli Sept. 25, 2015

Sept. 25, 2015

Bell'articolo di Bloomberg sulla struttura del mercato del traffico internet non umano. ps. unico punto dolente, l'uso disinvolto del termine "fake" (Bruno Latour e i suoi hanno consacrato trent'anni di studi agli "attanti non umani", ma non tutti sembrano averli letti). Marketers thought the Web would allow perfectly targeted ads. Hasn’t worked out that way. http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-click-fraud/ "Increasingly, digital ad viewers aren’t human. A study done last year in conjunction with the Association of National Advertisers embedded billions of digital ads with code designed to determine who or what was seeing them. Eleven percent of display ads and almost a quarter of video ads were “viewed” by software, not people. According to the ANA study, which was conducted by the security firm White Ops and is titled The Bot Baseline: Fraud In Digital Advertising, fake traffic will cost advertisers $6.3 billion this year." -- Antonio A. Casilli Associate Professor, Telecom ParisTech Research Fellow Edgar-Morin Center (EHESS)

1 0

Fwd: Forza con le adesioni alla eu Code Week 2015!
by Mariella Berra Sept. 24, 2015

Sept. 24, 2015

Carissimi a proposito dell''interessantissimo dibattito su Computers don't improve.... vi segnalo questo evento. Grazie Mariella -------- Messaggio Inoltrato -------- Oggetto: Forza con le adesioni alla eu Code Week 2015! Data: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:44:19 +0200 Mittente: Fiorella Operto <operto(a)scuoladirobotica.it> A: Fiorella Operto <operto(a)scuoladirobotica.it> *Forza con le adesioni alla eu Code Week 2015! * Scuola di Robotica ha aderito come Referente e vi invita a partecipare alla * Settimana europea 2015 della programmazione* Dal 10 al 18 ottobre 2015 si svolge la settimana europea della programmazione, Europe Code Week, arrivata alla terza edizione. Nel corso della settimana si svolgeranno migliaia di eventi in ogni parte d'Europa per offrire a giovani e giovanissimi l'opportunita' di iniziare a programmare! Non si trattera' di semplici seminari, ma di vere e proprie esperienze di programmazione, che consentiranno anche ai piu' piccoli di divertirsi in modo costruttivo vedendo le proprie idee prendere forma. I materiali e i metodi sperimentati nel corso del CodeWeek resteranno a disposizione di chiunque voglia utilizzarli ed estenderli. L'Italia partecipa da protagonista a Europe Code Week. Dopo la straordinaria partecipazione italiana all'edizione 2014, all'Italia è stato affidato il coordinamento generale dell'iniziativa europea. *Organizzate il vostro evento*, compilate il vostro modulo di adesione, pubblicatelo. Fateci sapere che cosa stiate programmando.. Trovate qui http://codeweek.it/ tutte le informazioni. Ma le riassumiamo: Qui per aggiungere il vostro evento http://events.codeweek.eu/add/#_=_ Qui la pagina degli eventi europei già programmati http://events.codeweek.eu/?next=/add/#!IT <http://events.codeweek.eu/?next=/add/#%21IT> Qui una breve guida per insegnanti http://www.slideshare.net/alessandrobogliolo/come-partecipare-a-code-week-g… Qui come partecipare in generale http://codeweek.it/partecipa/ Vi possiamo aiutare? *INOLTRE: CAMPAGNA DI ADESIONI* il 10 ottobre alle 9 la Commissione Europea lancerà sui social network un messaggio per annunciare l'inizio di Europe Code Week. Il messaggio è stato impostatao su Thunderclap, un sistema che consente a chiunque di aderire alla campagna affinchè il messaggio venga lanciato in automatico anche dal proprio account. Tante più persone aderiscono, tanto più efficace sarà il messaggio e avremo la soddisfazione di essere i primi ad annunciare l'inizio di CodeWeek insieme alla Commissione Europea. Ma c'è una soglia. Il messaggio partirà solo se entro l'ora stabilita ci saranno 500 account registrati! Per questo *ho bisogno del vostro auiuto* e vi chiedo sia di aderire con i vostri account (Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr), sia di invitare i vostri contatti a farlo. Ecco il link alla campagna: https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/31230-codeweekeu Ed ecco il link a un post su CodeWeek che parla di questa campagna: http://codeweek.it/thunderclap-passa-parola/ A presto e grazie. Fiorella Operto Fiorella Operto Scuola di Robotica www.scuoladirobotica.it <http://www.scuoladirobotica.it> operto(a)scuoladirobotica.it <mailto:operto@scuoladirobotica.it> 348 09 61 616 "I myself but write one or two indicative words for the future". Walt Whitman, Poets to Come.

1 0

Computers 'do not improve' pupil results, says OECD
by Alessandro Mantelero Sept. 24, 2015

Sept. 24, 2015

Computers 'do not improve' pupil results, says OECD http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34174796 -- Avv. Alessandro Mantelero Full-Tenured Aggregate Professor, Politecnico di Torino Director of Privacy and Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet and Society Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law, Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University of Shanghai Visiting Professor, Internet Interdisciplinary Institute - Universitat Oberta de Catalunya http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero http://nexa.polito.it/people/amantelero EMAIL POLICY: twice a day (Mon-Fri)

7 9

Tufekci: "Volkswagen and the Era of Cheating Software"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

*Volkswagen and the Era of Cheating Software* SEPT. 23, 2015 Zeynep Tufekci FOR the past six years, Volkswagen has been advertising a lie: “top-notch clean diesel” cars — fuel efficient, powerful and compliant with emissions standards for pollutants. It turns out the cars weren’t so clean. They were cheating. The vehicles used software that cleverly put a lid on emissions during testing, but only then. The rest of the time, the cars spewed up to 40 times the legal limit of nitrogen oxide emissions. The federal government even paid up to $51 million in tax subsidies to some car owners on the false assumption of environmental friendliness. In a world where more and more objects are run by software, we need to have better ways to catch such cheaters. As the Volkswagen case demonstrates, a smart object can lie and cheat. It can tell when it’s being tested, and it can beat the test. […] Continua qui: www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/opinion/volkswagen-and-the-era-of-cheating-softw…

2 1

Report: "Exploring Zero-Rating Challenges: Views From Five Countries"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

https://www.publicknowledge.org/documents/exploring-zero-rating-challenges-… A Public Knowledge Working Paper by Carolina Rossini and Taylor Moore July 2015

1 0

"How open data became proprietary in the European Court of Justice" (Prof. Maria Bottis, Ionian University) - 24 settembre 2015
by Giuseppe Futia Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

Se non visualizzi correttamente questo messaggio clicca qui <http://nexa.polito.it/2015/09/mbottis> NEXA Giovedì 24 settembre 2015, ore 16.00 - 18.00 Via Boggio 65/a, Torino (primo piano) http://nexa.polito.it/2015/09/mbottis How open data became proprietary in the European Court of Justice Speaker Maria Bottis (Attorney-at-law and Assistant Professor, Ionian University) Ingresso libero This event will be webcast live: http://nexa.polito.it/upcoming-events The presentation deals with the legal protection of databases in Europe. An unfair competition model, as proposed before the enactment of the databases Directive 96/9 turned into a clear copyright model, with the difference that this time, a new sui generis right was instituted to protect not original works of the mind but data collections. The cases that came before the ECJ on the interpretation of the Directive gave the chance to “domesticate”, as Professor Hugenholtz has aptly described, this unruly database right. The Court for a long time limited the application of the Directive to cases where unfair use was truly present. But in 2015, with Ryanair, the Court took an abrupt step to the entirely wrong direction: towards rendering proprietary, at any terms, data that never before one would deem possible to be enclosed as such. The choice is now ours: either we fight, as quickly as we can, to negate the results of this manifestly wrong decision, or we decide that in the EU, there can be no open data, public data, anymore. BIOGRAFIA - e informazioni supplementari [Maria Bottis] MARIA BOTTIS is an Attorney-at-law and an Assistant Professor, School of Information Science and Informatics, DALMS, Ionian University. She graduated from Arsakeion High School of Patras with High Honors (20/20 graduation certificate, first of class) and had been under full tuition scholarship throughout high school. In 1985, she topped the Greek National examinations for entrance in all Universities/all disciplines with 1998 points over 2000, and entered in Athens Law School first. She is a Honors graduate of Athens Law School (graduated first of class). She is a holder of a LL.M degree (Cambridge Law School UK) a LL.M degree from Yale Law School and a PhD on medical information law and ethics from the University of Athens. More information available at: http://nexa.polito.it/2015/09/mbottis. Letture consigliate e link utili: * M.J, Davison and P.B. Hugenholtz, /Football fixtures, horse races and spin-offs: the ECJ domesticates the database right <http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/947>/, EIPR 113 at 115, 2005 * F. De Santis, /ECJ clarifies Database Directive scope in screen scraping case <http://www.globallegalpost.com/blogs/global-view/ecj-clarifies-database-dir…> /, The Global Legal Post, 27 February 2015 Che cosa sono il Centro Nexa e i cicli di incontri “Mercoledì di Nexa” e “Nexa Lunch Seminar” Il Centro Nexa su Internet & Società del Politecnico di Torino (Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica) è un centro di ricerca indipendente e interdisciplinare che studia Internet e il suo effetto sulla società. Maggiori informazioni all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/about. Durante i “*Mercoledì di Nexa*”, che si tengono *ogni 2° mercoledì del mese* alle *ore 18 in punto*, il Centro Nexa su Internet e Società apre le sue porte non solo agli esperti e a tutti coloro i quali lavorano con Internet, ma anche a semplici appassionati e cittadini. Il ciclo di incontri intende approfondire, con un linguaggio preciso ma divulgativo, i temi legati alla Rete: motori di ricerca, Creative Commons, social networks, open source/software libero, neutralità della rete, libertà di espressione, privacy, file sharing, big e open data, smart cities e molto altro. Al centro di quasi tutti gli incontri un ospite pronto a dialogare con i direttori del Centro Nexa, il Prof. Juan Carlos De Martin del Politecnico di Torino e il Prof. Marco Ricolfi dell'Università di Torino, nonché lo staff e i Fellows del Centro Nexa. Maggiori informazioni sui Mercoledì di Nexa, incluso un elenco di tutti i “Mercoledì” passati, sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi. Si segnala inoltre che dal maggio 2012 *ogni 4° mercoledì* del mese *dalle ore 13 alle ore 14* il Centro Nexa organizza anche i "*Nexa Lunch Seminar*". Una lista di tutti i “Lunch Seminar” passati è disponibile all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/lunch-seminars. See our events calendar <http://nexa.polito.it/events> if you're curious about future luncheons, discussions, lectures, and conferences not listed in this email. Our events are free and open to the public, unless otherwise noted. Maggiori informazioni sui Mercoledì di Nexa e i Nexa Lunch Seminar, sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/events. Weekly Events Newsletter. Sign up <http://nexa.polito.it/mailing-lists> to receive this newsletter if this email was forwarded to you. To manage your subscription preferences, please click here <https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa>. Connect & get involved: Jobs, internships, and more <http://nexa.polito.it/get-involved> Nexa Center for Internet and Society Newsletter

1 1

EUCoJ - Advocate General's Opinion on Safe Harbor (Case C-362/14)
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 106/15 Luxembourg, 23 September 2015 Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-362/14 Press and Information Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner *According to Advocate General Bot, the Commission decision finding that the protection of personal data in the United States is adequate does not prevent national authorities from suspending the transfer of the data of European Facebook subscribers to servers located in the United States * The Advocate General considers furthermore that the Commission decision is invalid The Data Protection Directive1 provides that the transfer of personal data to a third country may take place only if the third country in question ensures an adequate level of data protection. The directive also provides that the Commission may find that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection. If the Commission adopts a decision to that effect, the transfer of personal data to the third country concerned may take place. Maximillian Schrems, an Austrian citizen, has been a Facebook user since 2008. As is the case with other subscribers residing in the EU, some or all of the data provided by Mr Schrems to Facebook is transferred from Facebook’s Irish subsidiary to servers located in the United States, where it is kept. Mr Schrems lodged a complaint with the Irish data protection authority (the Data Protection Commissioner), taking the view that, in the light of the revelations made in 2013 by Edward Snowden concerning the activities of the United States intelligence services (in particular the National Security Agency ‘the NSA’), the law and practices of the United States offer no real protection against surveillance by the United States of the data transferred to that country. The Irish authority rejected the complaint, on the ground, in particular, that in a decision of 26 July 20002 the Commission considered that, under the ‘safe harbour’ scheme,3 the United States ensures an adequate level of protection of the personal data transferred. The High Court of Ireland, before which the case has been brought, wishes to ascertain whether that Commission decision has the effect of preventing a national supervisory authority from investigating a complaint alleging that the third country does not ensure an adequate level of protection and, where appropriate, from suspending the contested transfer of data. In today’s Opinion, Advocate General Yves Bot takes the view that the existence of a Commission decision finding that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection of the personal data transferred cannot eliminate or even reduce the national supervisory authorities’ powers under the directive on the processing of personal data. He considers furthermore that the Commission decision is invalid. The Advocate General states first of all that, in the light of the importance of the role played by the national supervisory authorities with regard to data protection, their powers of intervention must remain intact. If the national supervisory authorities were absolutely bound by decisions adopted by the Commission, which would inevitably limit the total independence to which they are entitled 1 Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31). 2 Commission Decision 2000/520/EC of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce (OJ 2000 L 215, p. 7). 3 The safe harbour scheme includes a series of principles concerning the protection of personal data to which American undertakings may subscribe voluntarily. www.curia.europa.eu under the directive. The Advocate General thus draws the conclusion that, if a national supervisory authority considers that a transfer of data undermines the protection of citizens of the EU as regards the processing of their data, it has the power to suspend that transfer, irrespective of the general assessment made by the Commission in its decision. The power conferred by the directive on the Commission does not affect the powers which the directive has conferred on the national supervisory authorities. In other words, the Commission is not empowered to restrict the powers of the national supervisory authorities. While the Advocate General acknowledges that the national supervisory authorities are legally bound by the Commission decision, he considers, however, that such a binding effect cannot require complaints to be rejected summarily, that is to say, immediately and without any examination of their merits, in particular as the competence to find that a level of protection is adequate is one that is shared between the Member States and the Commission. A Commission decision does, admittedly, play an important role in ensuring uniformity in the conditions governing transfers that are applicable within the Member States, but that uniformity can continue only while that finding is not called into question, including in the context of a complaint which the national supervisory authorities must deal with under the investigative and banning powers that they are granted by the directive. Furthermore, according to the Advocate General, where systemic deficiencies are found in the third country to which the personal data is transferred, the Member States must be able to take the measures necessary to safeguard the fundamental rights protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, which include the right to respect for private and family life and the right to the protection of personal data. Given the doubts expressed during the present proceedings as to the validity of Decision 2000/520, the Advocate General considers that the Court should determine this issue and he comes to the conclusion that the decision is invalid. It is apparent from the findings of the High Court of Ireland and of the Commission itself that the law and practice of the United States allow the large-scale collection of the personal data of citizens of the EU which is transferred, without those citizens benefiting from effective judicial protection. Those findings of fact demonstrate that the Commission decision does not contain sufficient guarantees. Owing to that lack of guarantees, that decision has been implemented in a manner which does not satisfy the requirements of the directive or the Charter. The Advocate General considers furthermore that the access enjoyed by the United States intelligence services to the transferred data constitutes an interference with the right to respect for private life and the right to protection of personal data, which are guaranteed by the Charter. Likewise, the inability of citizens of the EU to be heard on the question of the surveillance and interception of their data in the United States amounts, in the Advocate General’s view, to an interference with the right of EU citizens of the to an effective remedy, protected by the Charter. According to the Advocate General, that interference with fundamental rights is contrary to the principle of proportionality, in particular because the surveillance carried out by the United States intelligence services is mass, indiscriminate surveillance. Indeed, the access which the United States intelligence authorities may have to the personal data covers, in a generalised manner, all persons and all means of electronic communication and all the data transferred (including the content of the communications), without any differentiation, limitation or exception according to the objective of general interest pursued. The Advocate General considers that, in those circumstances, a third country cannot in any event be regarded as ensuring an adequate level of protection, and this is all the more so since the safe harbour scheme as defined in the Commission decision does not contain any appropriate guarantees for preventing mass and generalised access to the transferred data. Indeed, no independent authority is able to monitor, in the United States, breaches of the principles for the protection of personal data committed by public actors, such as the United States security agencies, in respect of citizens of the EU. www.curia.europa.eu Given such a finding of infringements of the fundamental rights of citizens of the Union, according to the Advocate General the Commission ought to have suspended the application of the decision, even though it is currently conducting negotiations with the United States in order to put an end to the shortcomings found. The Advocate General indeed observes that, if the Commission decided to enter into negotiations with the United States, that is because it considered beforehand that the level of protection ensured by that third country, under the safe harbour scheme, was no longer adequate and that the decision adopted in 2000 was no longer adapted to the reality of the situation. NOTE: The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General to propose to the Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible. The Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case. Judgment will be given at a later date. NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised. Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice. The full text of the Opinion is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery. Press contact: Christopher Fretwell(+352) 4303 3355 Pictures of the delivery of the Opinion are available from "Europe by Satellite"(+32) 2 2964106 According to Advocate General Bot, the Commission decision finding that the protection of personal data in the United States is adequate does not prevent national authorities from suspending the transfer of the data of European Facebook subscribers to servers located in the United States

2 2

Fwd: rapporto OCSE
by meo Sept. 23, 2015

Sept. 23, 2015

molto gentilmente Marco Ajmone Marsan mi ha mandato questo rapporto che mi pare, molto interessante. Raf -------- Messaggio Inoltrato -------- Oggetto: rapporto OCSE Rispedito-Data: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:40:02 +0200 Rispedito-Da: d000704(a)polito.it Data: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:39:38 +0200 Mittente: Marco Ajmone Marsan <ajmone(a)polito.it> Organizzazione: Dip. Elettronica - Politecnico di Torino A: meo(a)polito.it in allegato. ciao. marco

1 0