mfioretti: data ownership* + social networks*

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

36 bookmark(s) - Sort by: Date ↓ / Title / Voting / - Bookmarks from other users for this tag

  1. Movim
    When social network meets IM,
    you can expect some surprises…

    Our main motto? Don't reinvent the wheel. Since the beginning all the Movim communications are made using XMPP.
    https://movim.eu/#features
    Voting 0
  2. non voglio farla lunga, ma in allora, come oggi, io non controllavo affatto il dato e l’informazione personale volontariamente o forzosamente appresa ad ogni mio movimento; ciò che in qualche modo mi salvava nella tribolata adolescenza (non sempre invero) era il controllo della situazione sociale e del contesto.

    Il controllo sul dato-informazione non l’avevo con il macellaio del paese e non posso pensare di averlo oggi sul web con Google, Facebook e soprattutto con le mille agenzie statuali affette, per svariate e talvolta encomiabili ragioni, da bulimia informativa. Ma in allora avevo contezza e in qualche modo governavo le banali regole tecniche (le vie del paese, gli orari della corriera) e quelle sociali di prossimità del mio territorio.

    Oggi non ci riesco più. E non è solo per la quantità dei dati captati e memorizzati ad ogni passo ma per la totale opacità del contesto e delle regole tecniche e sociali che governano la nostra vita digitale.

    Algoritmi ignoti, insondabili ai loro stessi creatori, ricostruiscono la nostra immagine, creano punteggi e giudicano rilevanze e congruità a nostra totale insaputa. Banche, assicurazioni, imprese di ogni risma e fattezza (a breve l’internet delle cose ci stupirà) ma soprattutto lo Stato, con le sue mille agenzie di verifica e controllo, accedono ad ogni informazione decontestualizzandola, creando relazioni e correlazioni di cui non abbiamo coscienza, ma di cui subiamo quotidianamente le conseguenze.

    Non possiamo impedire tutto questo, il big data e gli open-data salveranno il mondo, d’accordo. Ma possiamo e dobbiamo pretendere di sapere il chi, il come e il quando. Abbiamo bisogno di sapere qual è il contesto, e quali sono le regole; solo così troveremo strategie, non per delinquere o eludere la legge (come sostiene parte della magistratura), ma per esercitare i diritti fondamentali della persona.

    Nel mondo fisico sappiamo quando lo Stato ha il diritto di entrare in casa nostra, o a quali condizioni possa limitare le nostre libertà personali, di movimento, d’espressione; nel mondo digitale non sappiamo, e neppure ci chiediamo, chi, quando e a quali condizioni possa impossessarsi dei nostri dati, dei nostri dispositivi tramite software occulti, della nostra vita. Accettiamo supinamente un’intollerabile opacità.

    Io ho qualcosa da nascondere da quando ho ricordi: sono riservatezze variabili a seconda dell’interlocutore, del tempo, del luogo e del contesto. E non voglio per me e i miei figli una società stupidamente disciplinata da una costante sorveglianza e decerebrata dagli algoritmi. Vorrei una società in cui l’asimmetria dell’informazione sia l’esatto opposto dell’attuale, dove purtroppo il cittadino è totalmente trasparente e lo Stato e le sue regole sono opache e incerte.
    Mostra commenti ( 0 )
    Carlo Blengino
    Carlo Blengino

    Avvocato penalista, affronta nelle aule giudiziarie il diritto delle nuove tecnologie, le questioni di copyright e di data protection. È fellow del NEXA Center for Internet & Society del Politecnico di Torino. @CBlengio su Twitter
    http://www.ilpost.it/carloblengino/2016/11/02/ho-qualcosa-da-nascondere
    Voting 0
  3. In their report, the researchers imagine a slow start to the tailspin that eventually leads to the collapse of our current Internet Age. It starts with a disillusionment with Silicon Valley (“When did we stop trying to change the world and instead just make indulgent products for rich 30-year-old singles?”) and subsequent developer exodus to Asia. Europe starts regulating technology even more aggressively, and investors start rolling their eyes at buzzwords like “innovation.” Finally, some outside event—a revolution overseas, a contentious election—shakes up markets, and the collapse begins. Stock prices soon fall by 90 percent.

    Desperate companies will resort, if they can, to selling the detailed data they’ve meticulously collected about their users—whether it’s personally identifiable information, data about preferences, habits, and hobbies, or national-security files. That data, formerly walled-off and spoon-fed only to paying advertisers, would be attractive to both licit and criminal buyers. Easily searchable datasets could generate new innovations and investments—but it would be difficult to know who’s buying up sensitive datasets, and why.

    If contracts and privacy policies prevent a floundering company from selling user data, there’s still another way to profit. Most privacy policies that promise not to sell user data include a caveat in case of bankruptcy or sale.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/technology...data-if-the-tech-bubble-bursts/482622
    Voting 0
  4. Since its inception, email has been the best invention in the information age — right on the level of TCP/IP and HTTP. Why?

    It’s ubiquitous. Every device. Every kind of network. Every system. Every person. Everyone has an email address, and anything can be built to accept email. Because of this, everyone can be represented online via a unique email identity.

    It’s asynchronous. Stream-based collaboration tools are all about communication at the moment. When I sign on to our team portal in the morning, I easily could miss everything posted since last night, focusing on what I can see in the window. IM is even worse, if I’m not signed on at the moment, that message is gone. Email is designed to be asynchronous.

    It’s democratic. Email as a standalone product has no central controlling authority, unlike a Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter. A threat to email and its dependencies would be treated as a direct threat to the Internet itself, and any profiteer wouldn’t dare end it.

    It’s open. While spam filters keep out the garbage, and do an increasingly good job, it’s still the most reliable way to reach out to someone, especially a new contact.

    It’s dirt cheap. Sending an email costs nothing. Sending lots of email, you’re paying an email marketing company fractions of a penny per contact to ensure deliverability. How much would it cost to engage purely via LinkedIn InMails, or how limited would you be if you could only communicate via Facebook Messenger?

    It (can be) forever. I’m not sure I ever sent any messages on Friendster, but what happened when they shut down?
    http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/29/the-...nch+%28TechCrunch%29&sr_share=twitter
    Voting 0
  5. the social Web: a glorious dystopia where everybody works for likes — as in, “for free” — while a handful of tech tycoons profit.

    Never has this been clearer than in the past month, as Reddit — a private company that recently accepted $50 million in venture funding — quelled an uprising among the volunteers who actually run the site: its moderators.

    What will happen to the Internet if Reddit shuts down? »

    But insomuch as Reddit relies on digital work to run its business, it is not alone. In fact, that’s basically the elevator pitch of every major Internet institution, from Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to Wikipedia. Even when these sites don’t openly rely on “consumers” to create the content that keeps venture capital, ad revenue or donations pouring in, they’re mining them for other sorts of resources that can be monetized.

    Can something truly be called exploitative, or even labor, if the exploited parties enjoy it? That’s a difficult question and one that theorists haven’t conclusively answered yet.

    And still, there’s plenty to suggest that different sorts of labor arrangements would be really good for users and the sites they work on. When people aren’t paid for their work, for instance, the only people who can contribute are the ones who (a) have money from other sources or (b) are overwhelmingly compelled by motivations like power, popularity or revenge. (The writer and tech theorist David Banks has implied this is one of the reasons that Reddit skews so heavily young and male.)
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...t-youre-working-for-facebook-for-free
    Voting 0
  6. Under every information architecture there hides a power structure.

    what emerges from the view that David proposed to us a decade ago now in The Power of Networks?

    This view quickly makes it clear that in distributed networks, the non-existence of central nodes not only makes it possible to have a network that is much more robust, but hierarchies also disappear, autonomy is favored and the control over others becomes impossible.

    As a result, the nature of distributed networks is completely different from that of decentralized ones. A distributed network is not a more decentralized network. This is why it’s very important to answer the question of whether GNU social has a distributed or decentralized structure.

    This conversation and especially the message belowput us on the track of a broader and more appropriate answer.

    All microblogging and social networking sites are using selectively flawed ideas and should be transformed. Nobody needs ‘microblogging,’ they want socialization.

    The desire to socialize and connect with each other shows the fact that all these systems and sites are not social networks in themselves, but tools that, like instant messaging and mail services, are used by social networks, which is to say, networks of people.

    So we see that GNU social is a free tool for interconnection and communication used by different social networks. What functions will it offer, and what we will exchange through GNU social? That depends on what the social networks that use it want.
    http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/is-gnu-...3A+P2pFoundation+%28P2P+Foundation%29
    Voting 0
  7. If your profile were linked to a domain name that you own, then if your existing hosting company ever deleted your profile (or threatened to), you could simply move your profile to a new hosting company, the same way that any person or company can currently switch their domain name between hosting providers. This, obviously, would instantly render moot any one company's policies about "real names" (or porn, for that matter) -- all you have to do is find at least one company, anywhere in the world, whose policies are permissive enough to host your profile, and that should be possible for all but the most extreme or illegal content.
    http://beta.slashdot.org/story/208883
    Voting 0
  8. Your personal information and content is yours, not ours. We do not spy on you, track your data, or share your information.
    Fun

    MeWe lets you share anything– photos, videos, voice messages, editable documents, mail, chat, and more. Capture your entire world or just a moment in time.
    Next Generation

    Our unique permission controls let you decide who can see your content, preventing creepy strangers and 'friends of friends' from peeking. You can even make yourself invisible to other members if you want.
    Comprehensive

    MeWe delivers awesome features so you can stay connected to your friends, family, and world. Communicate 1:1 and in private groups. You even get your own personal cloud storage with breakthrough content controls for saving content you've already shared.
    https://mewe.com
    Voting 0
  9. già oggi tutti dispongono di almeno una o più caselle e-mail (per lavoro, personale, hobby, famiglia) il cui contenuto è spesso lasciato all’interno dei “capienti” server del provider prescelto; molti di noi hanno svariati profili sui social network, altri ancora conservano le proprie fotografie in servizi di conservazione on-line.

    Ma che fine faranno tutti questi dati, conservati on line, quando l’individuo che ne è “proprietario”, o che ne è l’autore, non ci sarà più? Chi, ed in che modo, potrà accedervi?
    Si tratta di un problema noto da tempo (e conosciuto anche come “eredità digitale” – digital inheritance), ma di cui si parla ancora troppo poco, sia in Italia che nel Mondo.

    Il notariato italiano, da sempre attento alle problematiche inerenti i propri settori di attività, si occupa di tale problematica fin dal 2007 e continua a farlo nonostante l’assenza di una normativa nazionale (ed internazionale) in materia.
    Le difficoltà però rimangono, e sono legate soprattutto al fatto che la maggior parte dei servizi on line è regolamentata da ordinamenti diversi da quello italiano. Pensare quindi di far valere in USA o in Cina i diritti che la legge italiana riserva agli eredi di un cittadino italiano non è affatto semplice, né economico. Ma vi è di più.
    http://www.techeconomy.it/2014/10/14/che-fine-fara-la-nostra-vita-digitale
    Voting 0
  10. “We don’t realize how ingrained Facebook is in our everyday lives,” a drag queen named Heklina told KNTV in San Jose, Calif. “I was shut out of Facebook for 24 hours and felt like I had a limb chopped off.”

    But few users, until they are faced with a similar situation, are aware of how little control they actually have over something they view as their own — their pages, their posts, their photos.

    “When Facebook makes a termination decision, it’s potentially life-altering for some people,” said Eric Goldman, a professor of law at Santa Clara University in California and co-director of the High Tech Law Institute there. “They’re cut off to access to their communities” and possibly to their clients.

    That is not to say that Professor Goldman thinks social media platforms should be completely unregulated. And, he said, Facebook and other social media companies largely do a good job of monitoring so many users and posts.

    His and others’ main criticism focuses on transparency.

    “The average person’s soapbox is now digital, and we’re now in a world where the large social media companies have a governmentlike ability to set social norms,” said Lee Rowland, a staff lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. “It’s a massive power and it comes with a responsibility.”

    These questions arise with all social media, but the relationship users have with Facebook is particularly passionate, Professor Goldman said. Even as some say its impact is waning, it still provides 1.3 billion people — compared, say, to Twitter’s 271 million active monthly users — with access to news about their friends and to community groups.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/you...-facebook-and-wondering-why.html?_r=0
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 4 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: Tags: data ownership + social networks

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle