quando ero a Roma qualcuno voleva fare il data lake della PA, un bacino
dove infilare tutti i dati di tutti i cittadini.
ci fu anche un atto normativo, la PDND che pero' si scontro sulle nostre
fondamenta istituzionali e divenne un centro di autorizzazione e
gestione di interoperabilita'...

On 27/04/25 17:27, Federico Guerrini via nexa wrote:
> Cosa succede, quando un governo "democratico" vira verso l'autoritarismo
> e ha a disposizione un'immensa quantità di dati sui propri cittadini?
> Probabilmente, nulla di buono.
>
> Da The Atlantic <https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/04/
> american-panopticon/682616/>:
>
> "In March, President Trump issued an executive order aiming to eliminate
> the data silos that keep everything separate. Historically, much of the
> data collected by the government had been heavily compartmentalized and
> secured; even for those legally authorized to see sensitive data,
> requesting access for use by another government agency is typically a
> painful process that requires justifying what you need, why you need it,
> and proving that it is used for those purposes only. Not so under
> <https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/stopping-waste-
> fraud-and-abuse-by-eliminating-information-silos/> Trump."
>
> "Advancements in artificial intelligence promise to turn this unwieldy
> mass of data and metadata into something easily searchable, politically
> weaponizable, and maybe even profitable. DOGE is reportedly attempting
> to build a “master database <https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/25/politics/
> doge-building-master-database-immigration/index.html>” of immigrant data
> to aid in deportations; NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya has floated the
> possibility of an autism registry <https://www.npr.org/2025/04/23/nx-
> s1-5372695/autism-nih-rfk-medical-records> (though the administration
> quickly walked it back <https://www.statnews.com/2025/04/24/no-new-
> autism-registry-hhs-says-contradicting-nih-director-jay-bhattacharya-
> claim/>). America already has all the technology it needs to build a
> draconian surveillance society—the conditions for such a dystopia have
> been falling into place slowly over time, waiting for the right
> authoritarian to come along and use it to crack down on American privacy
> and freedom."
>
> "Trump and DOGE are not just undoing decades of privacy measures. They
> appear to be ignoring that they were ever written. Over and over, the
> federal experts we spoke with insisted that the very idea of connecting
> federal data is anathema."
>
> "Musk has said that his goal with DOGE is to serve his country. He says
> he wants <https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c23vkd57471o> to “end the
> tyranny of bureaucracy.” But around Washington, people are asking one
> another what he /really /wants with all those data. Keys to the federal
> dataverse could, for example, be extremely useful to a highly ambitious
> man who is aggressively trying to win the AI race.
>
> "We already know that Musk’s people have access to large swaths of
> information from federal agencies—what we don’t know is what they’ve
> copied, exfiltrated, or otherwise taken with them. In theory, this
> material, whether usable together or not, could be recombined with other
> identifying information from private companies for all kinds of
> purposes. There has been speculation already that it could be fed into
> third-party large language models to train them or make the information
> more usable (Musk’s xAI has its own model, Grok); outside firms could
> use their own technologies to make sense of disparate sets of data, as
> well. Such approaches, the federal workers told us, could make it easier
> to turn previously obfuscated information, such as the individual
> elements of a tax return, into something to be mined."
>
> "The thought that the government would centralize or even give away
> citizen data for private use is scandalous. But it’s also, in a way,
> expected. The Vietnam War and Watergate gave Americans reasons to
> believe that the government can’t be trusted. The Cold War issued a
> constant, decades-long threat of annihilation and the necessary
> surveillance to avoid it. The War on Terror extended the logic into the
> 21st century. Optical, recording, and then computer technologies arose,
> offering new ways to watch the public. During the 2010s, Edward
> Snowden’s NSA surveillance leaks took place, and the Facebook–Cambridge
> Analytica scandal was brewing. By then, the 20th-century assumption that
> U.S. intelligence agencies were running mind-control experiments,
> infiltrating and disrupting civil-rights groups, or carrying out
> surreptitious missions at home like they do abroad had been fully
> internalized, and fused with the suspicion that Google, Facebook,
> Amazon, and Walmart were—in their own ways—following suit."
>
> Buona lettura,
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/04/american-
> panopticon/682616/ <https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/
> archive/2025/04/american-panopticon/682616/>
>
> F.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/federicoguerrini/ <http://www.forbes.com/
> sites/federicoguerrini/>
>

--
You can reach me on Signal: @quinta.01 (no Whatsapp, no Telegram)