- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

a proposito di agenda digitale
by Mariella Berra May 4, 2015

May 4, 2015

-------- http://80.241.231.25/Ucei/PDF/2015/2015-05-04/2015050430187093.pdf Renzi e il pasticcio Agid Repubblica 4 maggio 2015

1 0

Goodlatte, Sensenbrenner, Conyers, Nadler Introduce the USA Freedom Act
by Andrea Glorioso May 3, 2015

May 3, 2015

FYI http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/press-releases?id=8C703FBE-0A0C-4261-8… Apr 28 2015 Goodlatte, Sensenbrenner, Conyers, Nadler Introduce the USA Freedom Act <http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=8C703FBE-0A0C-4261-8…> Bipartisan bill will be marked up on April 30th *Washington, D.C.* – Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Ranking Member John Conyers (D-Mich.), and Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet Subcommittee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) today will introduce the *USA Freedom Act <http://judiciary.house.gov/_cache/files/1cb59778-0a72-4c09-920d-0e22bf692bb…>*. This bipartisan bill builds on the Committee’s extensive work on this issue last Congress, containing even stronger protections for Americans’ civil liberties, providing for even greater transparency for both the private sector and government, and preventing government overreach, while enhancing national security. *The House Judiciary Committee will mark up this legislation on Thursday, April 30th at 10:00 a.m. in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building.* In June 2013, unauthorized disclosures of classified information revealed to the American people that the National Security Agency had been collecting bulk telephony “metadata” under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Following the revelation of this information, the House Judiciary Committee worked extensively last Congress to end the NSA’s bulk collection program: it conducted aggressive oversight of our nation’s intelligence-gathering programs operated under FISA and approved bipartisan legislation in Committee, which was ultimately passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives. However, the Senate failed to pass legislation on this issue. Crime Subcommittee Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet Subcommittee Ranking Member Nadler praised the introduction of the bill in the joint statement below. *“As several intelligence-gathering programs are set to expire in a month, it is imperative that we reform these programs to protect Americans’ privacy while at the same time protecting our national security. The bipartisan bill introduced today builds on the Committee’s work on this issue last year. It enhances civil liberties protections, increases transparency for both American businesses and the government, ends the bulk collection of data, and provides national security officials targeted tools to keep America safe from foreign enemies. We look forward to expeditiously moving this strong, bipartisan bill through the House Judiciary Committee and then through Congress so that we rein in government overreach and rebuild trust with the American people. We thank Senators Lee and Leahy for working on this issue and introducing companion legislation in the Senate.”* *Key Components of the USA Freedom Act:* *Protects civil liberties: * · Ends bulk collection: Prohibits bulk collection of ALL records under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the FISA pen register authority, and national security letter statutes. · Prevents government overreach: The bulk collection prohibition is strengthened by prohibiting large-scale, indiscriminate collection, such as all records from an entire state, city, or zip code. · Allows challenges of national security letter gag orders: NSL nondisclosure orders must be based upon a danger to national security or interference with an investigation. Codifies procedures for individual companies to challenge nondisclosure orders. Requires periodic review of nondisclosure orders to determine necessity. *Improves transparency and better information-sharing with the American people:* · Expertise at the FISA court: The bill creates a panel of amicus curie at the FISA court to provide guidance on matters of privacy and civil liberties, communications technology, and other technical or legal matters. · Declassified FISA opinions: All significant constructions or interpretations of law by the FISA court must be made public. These include all significant interpretations of the definition of “specific selection term,” the concept at the heart of the ban on bulk collection. · Robust government reporting: The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will provide the public with detailed information about how they use these national security authorities. · Robust company reporting: Tech companies will have a range of options for describing how they respond to national security orders, all consistent with national security needs. *Strengthens national security:* · Gives the government the tools it needs: Creates a new call detail records program that is closely overseen by the FISA court. · Contains an additional tool to combat ISIL: The bill closes a loophole in current law that requires the government to stop tracking foreign terrorists when they enter the U.S. This provision gives the government 72 hours to track foreign terrorists when they initially enter the United States (it does not apply to U.S. persons) – enough time for the government to obtain the proper authority under U.S. law. · Increases the statutory maximum prison sentence to 20 years for providing material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization. · Enhances investigations of international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. · Protects United States’ maritime activities from nuclear threats, weapons of mass destruction, and other threats by implementing the obligations of various treaties to which the United States is a party. · Provides strictly limited emergency authorities: Creates new procedures for the emergency use of Section 215 but requires the government to destroy the information it collects if a FISA court application is denied. Learn more about the *USA Freedom Act* by clicking here <http://www.judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/usa-freedom-act>. Permalink: http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/2015/4/goodlatte-sensenbrenner-conyers… -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro

3 7

Re: [nexa] sentenze sul web vs privacy: la storia di JurisWiki
by Simone Aliprandi May 1, 2015

May 1, 2015

Ieri su Twitter mi cono confrontato sul tema con l'ex Garante Privacy Franco Pizzetti. Qui trovate lo screenshot del carteggio: http://aliprandi.blogspot.it/2015/05/garante-privacy-juriswiki-sentenze-piz… . Io rimango comunque perplesso; non capisco per quale motivazione si dovrebbero applicare regole diverse a case editrici e CED della Cassazione (che tra l'altro è una "struttura autonoma" rispetto alla Corte e non ha funzioni giurisdizionali). Davvero sto perdendo il filo. Oppure davvero il quadro è così farraginoso che ognuno lo interpreta in modo diverso. Un caro saluto a tutti. -- Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org | http://www.array.eu > Quindi mi state in sostanza dicendo che: > 1) io potrei legittimamente rispondere "cosa volete da me?! > lamentatevi con la Cassazione!" [continuo nella semplificazione > becera] > 2) addirittura io sarei più "pulito" della Cassazione in quanto > http://juriswiki.it/ si avvicina di più ad un servizio di "informatica > giuridica" ex art. 51-52 Codice Privacy?

1 0

Incontro in Cassazione il 14/5 su diritto all'identità e diritto all'oblio
by Giovanni Battista Gallus May 1, 2015

May 1, 2015

Cari tutti, Segnalo un incontro in Cassazione, sul tema del diritto all'identità personale e diritto all'oblio. http://www.cortedicassazione.it/corte-di-cassazione/it/dettaglio_ecs.page;j… Certamente interessante. Buona festa del lavoro. Un saluto G.Battista Gallus

1 0

sentenze sul web vs privacy: la storia di JurisWiki
by Simone Aliprandi April 30, 2015

April 30, 2015

Alcuni dei partecipanti di questa lista (che ringrazio sentitamente) hanno già fornito il loro prezioso contributo al dibattito attraverso i social media e anche scrivendomi in privato; ci tenevo però a coinvolgere tutti, visto il tema delicato che mi tocca personalmente e che di sicura incrocia in più punti l'area di interesse di questa lista. Nelle scorse settimane sono andato online con un mio nuovo progetto in ambito open access/open data: una piattaforma aperta e collaborativa per l'informazione giuridica e la raccolta di giurisprudenza. Si chiama JurisWiki e si trova all'indirizzo http://juriswiki.it/; attualmente è ancora in fase beta ma contiene già più di seicentomila sentenze e quasi ventimila massime. Io non ho fatto altro che scaricare e impastare secondo criteri più "web-friendly" le sentenze già messe a disposizione sui loro siti ufficiali da Corte Costituzionale, Consiglio di Stato e Cassazione. Qualcuno mi ha fatto notare le problematiche in merito alla privacy e al diritto all'oblio che ovviamente avevo già messo in conto. Tuttavia non sono ancora arrivato ad avere pareri netti e concordanti. In questo articolo http://www.mysolutionpost.it/blogs/it-law/piana/2015/04/sentenze-juriswiki-… (pubblicato ieri) ho esplicitato con massima trasparenza (dato che credo di non avere nulla da nascondere in merito alle scelte effettuate) tutte le mie riflessioni su questo specifico aspetto. Attualmente, buona parte dei provvedimenti è oscurata in attesa che la questione si faccia più chiara (spero anche con l'emissione di più chiare linee guida da parte del Garante). Tuttavia continuo a non aver chiaro questo strano principio giuridico secondo cui se i dati personali giudiziari li espone la Cassazione è un atto a favore della trasparenza, se invece Aliprandi li prende così come sono e li raccoglie in altro database allora è un atto contro la privacy. Lo dico ovviamente come "becera" provocazione al dibattito. Commenti, critiche e pareri sono bene accetti. Un caro saluto a tutti. -- Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org | http://www.array.eu

5 6

consultazione del Garante privacy sull'internet delle cose
by Mauro Alovisio April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

Gent.mi segnalo dal sito del Garante interessante consultazione on line sull'Internet delle cose http://www.garanteprivacy.it/web/guest/home/docweb/-/docweb-display/docweb/… cordiali saluti Mauro Alovisio

1 0

Berkman Center Webcast live oggi ore 18 - Intellectual Privacy
by Giuseppe Futia April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

Intellectual Privacy http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2015/04/Richards <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2014/06/sigal> *with author Neil Richards* Today, 6.00 pm Webcast live: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/webcast http://nexa.polito.it/berkman-webcast-live Why is it bad when the government or companies monitor our reading or web-surfing? We have intuitions that this kind of surveillance is bad, but have failed to explain why digital monitoring in an age of terror and innovation is really a problem. In Intellectual Privacy, Neil Richards offers a new way of thinking about monitoring of our thinking, reading, and communications, one that ensures that our ideas and values keep pace with our technologies. Although we often think of privacy and free speech as being in conflict, Richards shows how privacy and free speech are often essential to each other. He explains the importance of 'intellectual privacy,' protection from surveillance or interference when we are engaged in the processes of generating ideas - thinking, reading, and speaking with confidantes before our ideas are ready for public consumption. In our digital age, in which we increasingly communicate, read, and think with the help of technologies that track us, increased protection for intellectual privacy has become an imperative. A timely and provocative book on a subject that affects us all, Intellectual Privacy will radically reshape the debate about privacy and free speech in our digital age. About Neil Neil Richards is an internationally-recognized expert in privacy law, information law, and freedom of expression. He is a professor of law at Washington University School of Law, an affiliate scholar with the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, a member of the Advisory Board of the Future of Privacy Forum, and a consultant and expert in privacy cases. He graduated in 1997 with degrees in law and history from the University of Virginia, and served as a law clerk to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Professor Richards is the author of Intellectual Privacy (Oxford Press 2015). His many writings on privacy and civil liberties have appeared in many academic journals including the Harvard Law Review, the Columbia Law Review, the Virginia Law Review, and the California Law Review. He has written for a more general audience in Time, Slate, Wired, CNN.com, Forbes, the Boston Review, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. Professor Richards regularly speaks about privacy, technology, and civil liberties throughout the United States and Europe, and also appears frequently in the media. At Washington University, he teaches courses on privacy, free speech, and constitutional law, and is a past winner of the Washington University School of Law's Professor of the Year award. He was born in England, educated in the United States, and lives with his family in St. Louis. He is an avid cyclist and a lifelong supporter of Liverpool Football Club.

1 0

Paper: "Towards Multilateral Standards for Surveillance Reform"
by J.C. DE MARTIN April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2551164 *Towards Multilateral Standards for Surveillance Reform* Ian Brown University of Oxford - Oxford Internet Institute Morton H. Halperin Open Society Foundations (OSF) Ben Hayes Independent Ben Scott Independent Mathias Vermeulen European University Institute January 5, 2015 Oxford Internet Institute Discussion Paper, January 2015 Abstract: Edward Snowden’s revelations about the mass surveillance capabilities of the United States’ National Security Agency and its partners have created a unique opportunity to work towards the adoption of multilateral human rights-compliant standards for government surveillance conducted against nationals of other countries. This paper attempts to map a path toward new international standards for foreign intelligence collection, in order to achieve increased transparency, control and oversight of national surveillance practices. We provide a basic comparison of the legal frameworks governing foreign surveillance law in the US and selected EU Member States, and set out the applicable international human rights law and major reform initiatives in as far as they relate to foreign surveillance and its oversight. We attempt to identify key issues relevant to all signals intelligence reform efforts and to provide an analytical framework to guide the development of new standards and realistic options for reform. Number of Pages in PDF File: 40 Keywords: surveillance, interception, signals intelligence, international human rights law, FISA, FISA Amendments Act, European Convention on Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, privacy, sovereignty

1 0

Ars: "NSA spied on EU politicians and companies with help from German intelligence"
by J.C. DE MARTIN April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

*NSA spied on EU politicians and companies with help from German intelligence* /Spies failed to check properly what was being passed across to the US./ by Glyn Moody - Apr 24, 2015 10:21am ART Germany's intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), has been helping the NSA spy on European politicians and companies for years, according to the German news magazine Der Spiegel. The NSA has been sending lists of "selectors"—identifying telephone numbers, e-mail and IP addresses—to the BND, which then provides related information that it holds in its surveillance databases. According to the German newspaper Die Zeit, the NSA sent selector lists several times a day, and altogether 800,000 selectors have been requested. The BND realized as early as 2008 that some of the selectors were not permitted according to its internal rules, or covered by a 2002 US-Germany anti-terrorism "Memorandum of Agreement" on intelligence cooperation. And yet it did nothing to check the NSA's requests systematically. It was only in the summer of 2013, after Edward Snowden's revelations of massive NSA and GCHQ surveillance, that the BND finally started an inquiry into all the selectors that had been processed. […] Continua qui: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/24/nsa-spied-on-eu-politicians-a…

1 0

la copia di cortesia... telematica
by Simone Aliprandi April 27, 2015

April 27, 2015

Torno periodicamente sul tema del processo telematico e delle sue estrinsecazioni più bizzarre. Adesso arriva anche la copia di cortesia TELEMATICA. Ecco il decreto di un giudice monogratico di Salerno: http://aliprandi.blogspot.it/2015/04/copia-cortesia-telematica-salerno.html Un caro saluto. -- Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org | http://www.array.eu

2 2