3 years, 7 months ago-
Hi guys,
I would like to share my impressions of Mr Lotito conference. Like all of you, I got very impressed by how he and his co-founder created everything and reaching that kind of results. As well I would like to try their platform and system of research in order to touch personally their engine. I enjoyed a lot his story but I wanted to see how the platform works.
In answer to @chiarasperto, I think that now it’s time to try. Start-ups should start to test their invention in the medical field, for example, also to have the opportunity to improve their invention and give hope to all suffering people and help doctors, nurses and ecc.
Personally, I hope that after this period our government aims to start-ups field in order to boost the economy because thanks to their potential they can become new pillars for us. After all, our economy needs more programming, especially after the hardest period for humanity after WWII. we should exploit this translation to digital tath is taking place.
what do you think about?
have a nice day
Lorenzo
Hello everyone! How are you?
First of all, thank you all for sharing your considerations with me.
I would like to answer the interesting question from @chiarasperto: “will we be able to respect the limit between the use and abuse of technology? In your opinion, could machines be a threat or an opportunity tomorrow?”
To try to answer I would like to refer to a text by Hannah Fry entitled “Hello World: How to be Human in the Age of the Machine” of 2018. Hannah Fry teaches Mathematics of the cities at University College London. In his research he uses mathematical models to reveal behavioral patterns of the population, often collaborating with governments, law enforcement agencies and health analysts and supermarkets.
In the book, thas was later translated and published in Italian by Bollati Boringhieri in 2019, Mrs. Fry analyzes the application of algorithms in many fields of our daily lives: power, data, justice, medicine, cars, crime and arts.
I would like to mention some introductory and conclusive parts which in my opinion partially contain an answer to the question.
“[…] Behind each of these inventions there is an algorithm. To the algorithms, invisible fragments of code that make up the gears of the modern era of machines, we owe everything, from the news that reaches us through social media to search engines, from satellite navigation to music suggestion systems. Algorithms are an integral part of modern infrastructure […] “.
“[…] Nobody doubts the absolutely positive impact of automation on every aspect of our existence. [..] Apparently, however, the unstoppable push of automation and the urgent desire to solve many of the evils that afflict humanity have led us to replace one problem with another. The algorithms, however useful and capable of incredible things, have left us a great skein to unravel. [..] Perhaps the solution is this: to create algorithms whose decisions can be questioned at any level. Algorithms designed to help us decide and not to give us instructions, which do not just give us the result of a calculation but show us the reasons for that particular choice. Personally, I believe that the best algorithms are those that never lose sight of the human component. Those who recognize our tendency to overly trust the output of a machine and who are not ashamed to show their defects and limitations. […] ”
Personally, I agree with the author. I also see some of the FacilityLive philosophy in this story. The future of innovation will push towards the creation of new technologies to improve human life. Mr. Lotito concluded the conference with these words: “in this situation it is evident that the human being is more important than an algorithm or a machine“.
But I would like to know your opinion. Do you agree with the vision of the future told by Hannah Fry?
As for the question posed by @giorgiaamatemaggio “will people accept this type of control from the health of national security? Or will there be privacy issues in your opinion? “, I’d like to share with you an article from TechCrunch entitled “What are the rules wrapping privacy during Covid-19?”
https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/20/what-are-the-rules-wrapping-privacy-during-covid-19/
Finally, to complete the roundup of techs initiatives to deal with the emergency we are experiencing, I would also like to mention one (which you will surely know). I leave you the link to an article taken from the online newspaper LaStampa.
I wish you a good weekend.
Marco
Good evening guys,
Thank you @marco-canciani for the article you proposed in response to my question about data protection. I have found it enlightening and very detailed about what is going on in different countries of the world. I would like to express my opinion by citing a part of it “Many of those measures are based on extraordinary powers, only to be used temporarily in emergencies. Others use exemptions in data protection laws to share data. Some may be effective and based on advice from epidemiologists, others will not be. But all of them must be temporary, necessary, and proportionate. It is essential to keep track of them. When the pandemic is over, such extraordinary measures must be put to an end and held to account.” People should not feel reluctant to give their personal data for a health security problem, but there should be a limit to this power on personal data untill the end of this emergency. After Covid-19 (hopefully, soon), the data recollected by these new app and technologies should remain anonymous and not employed in any commercial use.
For what concern the question posed by @chiarasperto: “will we be able to respect the limit between the use and abuse of technology? In your opinion, could machines be a threat or an opportunity tomorrow?” I completely agree with the point of view of Hannah Fry. “I believe that the best algorithms are those that never lose sight of the human component.” I think that technologies should be just an extension of human intelligence but should never become a substitute to it. Machines should be invented to simplfy humans’ lives, but they must never outsmart us. Innovations and Ideas will always develop in the next years, but I think that we are intelligent enough to understand the limit between use and abuse of technology That’s why in my opinion machines will not become threats for human beings. However, we are aware that anything could change in just a second, a smart idea could lead humanity to a completely different approach to machines and technology, we will never be sure until it happens. Talking about this subject I would like to suggest a popular tv series called “Black Mirror” (since we have a lot of time to occupy). I have found it brilliant and it made me reflect on the current, and possible future, relationship with technology.
Have a nice evening!
Giorgia
Good evening everyone!
I thank @giorgiaamatemaggio for the suggestion to Black Mirror. I saw all the Netflix series and loved it.
A light bulb came on and I went to look for some ideas in the old notes of a course that can be interesting to share with you all. I noticed there are some of my classmates and maybe someone will already know. In the first half I attended the course “Sounds and noise in the era of big data” (from which Hannah Fry’s book also comes) and Mr. Costa suggested this short video of which I will leave you the link. In the article you can find more detailed information.
Good night!
Marco
Hello guys! Hope everything is well and safe with you 🙂
Once again I want to say how much I appreciate the interactions with me and the other forum members.
Now I have a new input for you about something that is matching technology and pandemic these days: the use of data from big players to help public authorities for monitoring the respect of the rules about lockdown. This opens issues related to public health, to public safety and to privacy. Many have raised the privacy topic over the last few years, but what is different in this situation? Why they should, or should not, use those information? This opens many scenarios, even because we do not know what will happen after the pandemic and how our everyday lives will be.
Here you find two link to interesting articles from
Let me know your perspective! 😉
Thanks @marco-canciani for the video you wanted to share.
As far as I’m concerned, a life like this scares me a little. So I go back to talking about the limit between use and abuse of technology. It is clear that we are moving towards simplifying human life, but such a vision creates anguish.
And as I observed in the video, the protagonist was also quite panicked. At each step, cartoons or informative drawings appeared which, in my opinion, disturb the peace of a person. It almost seemed that the woman was acting forced and conditioned by what was offered to her, for example, in the supermarket.
Let’s take the virtual dog as an example: in my opinion Juliana Restrepo seems to adopt the dog not so much because she really felt it, but more to “bugger off” the notifications that appeared in front of her.
The video also sent me a sense of anxiety and frenzy. A rushing, chaotic, incomprehensible life.
We act without thinking too much about it, because life goes on without waiting for anyone and we have to get a move on.
In this scenery, we are literally submerged, almost crushed by technology and on which we depend. As in the case of the woman whose identity is stolen. Terror arises within her and a sense of bewilderment: without identity one cannot live, because we would not be anyone. So what can be done?As I write my thoughts, the situation reminded me a little of the film “In time” written and directed by Andrew Niccol, in which our life is conducted and based on the use of technology. Very interesting and recommended, which really makes you think about a possible and science fiction way of living our life.
Why not spend a Saturday night with popcorn and a good movie?I await your comments. Best wishes to all and good day!!
Good morning guys!
Thanks @ismaelepaoli for the interesting articles.
As we know, in recent years we have witnessed the growing demand for the protection of our data. After the scandals involving Zuckerberg’s Facebook and Alexander Nix’s Cambridge Analytica, the blind trust we previously placed in social media was suddenly supplanted by many doubts about it. As Hannah Fry said “[…] And this is where we begin to move dangerously away from the creepy line, from that limit that should not be exceeded: when private and delicate information concerning you is collected without your consent and then be used for manipulative purposes or for profit […] “.
From my point of view, I believe that the situation today is very different. First, in Europe every action taken by any actor in terms of data collection must be carried out in compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679. Then we should consider (speaking of Italy) the powers of the State in emergency situations such as the one we are experiencing.
In this regard, I would like to report two questions and related answers from an interview with Antonello Soro, president of the authority responsible for the protection of personal data.
Mr. Borrelli, director of civil protection, says you have already discussed a hypothetical insurmountable boundary between the right to privacy and the right to health. And you concluded that, I quote Borrelli, “the right to health is first seen that without health there can be no privacy”. Is this so?
“The Guarantor for Privacy and Civil Protection have spoken on this issue. The Guarantor gave a favourable opinion on the first measure, which was only two days later than the decree which on January 31 declared the existence of a state of emergency, in the most serious form between those required by law. They are the same powers that are attributed to the Commissioner during earthquakes and other events. In emergency situations, a different balance between individual and constitutional rights is envisaged. For example, a series of initiatives was not appropriate do-it-yourself in the workplace between those who could enter and who could not. A single discipline was decided, and we conformed. The role of the Guarantor in such difficult moments, which we do not imagine are short-lived, is to supervise for find the right measure and avoid dangerous blank delegations. However, we must collaborate with those who have the difficult task of managing new dynamics, known to most. Surely you need control hierarchies. ”
In Lombardy they used cell phone to understand if people move from home. That’s right?
“Yes, if we are dealing with truly anonymous data that describe mobility flows but do not identify people. Other would be if we wanted to collect identification data: in this case, adequate guarantees and precise rules with time limits are needed. The theme, in the season that we are living, is that in any case we must lose the share of our freedoms necessary to fight the pandemic “.
I personally believe that what is happening is not a violation of privacy. As Borrelli said “the right to health is first seen that without health there can be no privacy” and I fully agree on this. The collaboration between the state and large service providers such as Google and Vodafone can only be positive, obviously if all the mechanisms have been conducted in respect of our privacy.
Have a Good day!
Marco
Hello everyone! I would like to reply to @ismaelepaoli.
Right now, I think that safeguarding public health has priority over protecting other very important rights such as privacy. States are allocating millions of euros to try to contain the virus. A deployment of resources and forces I’ve never heard of before. And despite everything, the number of infected and dead people continues to grow.
Many companies have had to suspend their activities, many citizens do not receive wages and are in precarious economic situations. In the light of all this upheaval, it is everyone’s moral duty to help avoid being the cause of further infection.
For the good of all we are asked, indeed, we are forced to stay at home. Going out for unnecessary reasons contributes to the spread of the virus. It is not a difficult concept to understand, but then why do some (fortunately a minority) not want to comply with this legislative provision?
We are not asked to go to fight, we are asked to rediscover life at home, inventing new ways to spend time or rediscovering old ones that are now forgotten. Instead, right now, many have become “new runners“.
Our Prime Minister, Giuseppe Conte, has already issued five orders, one stricter than the other to try to force people not to go out. If some, despite everything, do not feel compelled to do their part, control is welcome through Google’s IT systems, digital platforms, etc. It is not permissible to hide behind the excuse of privacy to be able to evade the laws and do what you want.
But it is also true that, as a well-known proverb says “Laws are made to be broken”, if a person goes out without a cell phone the data is not detected by the search engines therefore, the numbers provided by these operators may not be entirely truthful.
If this were indeed so, all this would lead to further problems! And you, What do you think?
Good Evening everyone! I hope you’ve all spent a nice Saturday.
Thank you @ismaelepaoli for raising awareness on a fundamental topic nowadays: data protection and privacy. How I was explaining few posts ago, technology and data collection could be use as one of the greatest resources to fight the diffusion of the virus. As correctly pointed out by @chiarasperto even if we are just asked to stay home in order to help each other’s, many people are still going out not respecting the decision taken by the Italian Government in order to protect the population. By this mean, my opinion is the same as @marco-canciani and @chiarasperto : world health safeguard is nowadays as far more important as data protection as far as the data used by researchers collected by companies such as Google or Facebook, are not only anonymized but also not used for any other purpose.
As explained in one of the two articles @ismaelepaoli proposed is comprehensible how anonymized data collection is avoiding not only the diffusion of the virus, but mostly to prevent a second wave of infection, to monitor if the measurements applied are enough or should they be stricter and so on. Taking also in consideration what @marco-canciani said about the GDPR 2016/679, we should care more about world’s population health than the fact that our data, perhaps anonymized, which means that no one could ever track us down, are being used and monitored. Moreover, everyday people give their personal data to much more unsafe websites or pages, such as spam e-mails or absurdly fake websites that promise an incredible winning.
To conclude I wanted to cite Chiara: “It is not permissible to hide behind the excuse of privacy to be able to evade the laws and do what you want.” – what we need today is to stay united and cooperate and collaborate looking forward to every citizens’ health. It is true, and many of us can confirm, that also staying at home every single day is not the most suitable situation, but the sooner the situation we’ll be controlled, thanks also to its monitorization, we’ll be able to start again to enjoy our lives
One step at the time.
The real question maybe is: “should we trust that companies will not use our data once the emergency period is over?” I think that we will never know for sure, but what we need today is far more important than a hypothetical question.
Wish you all a good night x
Giorgia
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/giorgia-amatemaggio
Hi guys!
The peculiarity of the circumstance in which we find ourselves can be traced back to the legitimacy of the extraordinary<span style=”font-weight: 400;”> powers </span><span style=”font-weight: 400;”>that</span><span style=”font-weight: 400;”> our governments have obtained consequently to the magnitude of the public health crisis, therefore built on a legal ground;</span><span style=”font-weight: 400;”> as the article shared by @marco-canciani points out, is important to keep in mind that these measures are</span><span style=”font-weight: 400;”> “only to be used temporarily in emergencies”. </span><span style=”font-weight: 400;”>In Italy, for instance, the Constitution stipulates restriction of rights can be imposed “due to safety or health reasons“, legitimized by the principle </span><span style=”font-weight: 400;”>that indicates the right of health as not an individual right but as a collective heritage that must be safeguarded and preserved also through the limitation of rights temporarily not compatible with it. This principle guarantees </span>highly legitimization to the<span> usage of said data, at least in our country; however, </span>the deployment of such measures must be regulated, controlled and most of all proportionated and based on advice from experts and scientists.
However, my concerns, stand on different but equally relevant issues; firstly I would like to dwell on a more technical problem: to what extent are these tracking methods effective on a population such as ours? Does such approach take into account the homeless or the irregular immigrants that are part of our community? The article shared by @ismaelepaoli focuses, at one point, on a statement given by Nick Ruktanonchai:” With the location data, we are testing different scenarios and simulating what might happen if countries don’t end their lockdowns in a coordinated way. It’s about buying time. We want to make sure a big second epidemic doesn’t happen months down the line.” The epidemiologist draws attention to the concerns of the possibility of the second wave of the epidemic. After all, a second circle of outbreak can spark from a singular unidentified positive patient, an untraced patient. I believe that the tracking methods fail to recognize that not the entirety of our population owns technological means from which to be traced. I am referring to a small percentage that however, represents a major risk. How do you think we are going to overcome this first issue?
The second concern worth debating on, is the fact that allowing our governments to access and analyze location data can set a precedent on mass surveillance; in order to avoid said risk, our legal apparatus has to make haste to fill the legislative void, often present in cyberspace regulation. Furthermore, as @ismaelepaoli pointed out, the ongoing crisis might cause many future scenarios, one of which could lead to the risk of sensitive data leaks. Personal data leaks can include information such as political view, and sexuality; disclosure of such knowledge can fuel discrimination in countries where the leadership is not necessarily distinguished for its democratic values but more for its restrictive and oppressive policies. In addition, one also has to acknowledge ” the fact that the majority of people lack cybersecurity education to evaluate the potential consequences of sharing their data” as stated by Naomi Hodges, a cybersecurity adviser. The topic, therefore, raises public safety concerns that are not necessarily inherently bound to us and to our country.
With all this in mind, I am personally supportive of such measures for what concerns Europe; in regard to other countries, I think one should make a thorough analysis based on past governmental trends and conduct as well as the range of compliance of standard rights to deeply understand future risks and consequences of such measures on different populations. We must try, nevertheless, to legislate and limit the usage of such data and ensure that this rather invasive, localization tracking system remains at any rate, anonymous. After all, we have to rely on the goodwill of tech companies and of our government, which has shown to be keeping the population’s interest in mind in the past months. There is nothing left than to find the right balance between public safety and governmental action. I also think that the information provided, through the analysis of the data, will only be beneficial to the population as the awareness of the magnitude of the crisis might help people realize the gravity of the disease and give further legitimacy to the governmental policies, therefore boosting compliance towards them.
I hope I made myself clear enough! Thank you all for sharing interesting videos and extremely updated articles, I’ll leave you this article that focuses the attention on surveillance policies in China during the crisis and raises concerns on the current issue. (<span style=”font-weight: 400;”>https://www.ft.com/content/760142e6-740e-11ea-95fe-fcd274e920ca) </span>
I wish you a good evening,
Gabriella
I would like to thank @ismaelepaoli for the interesting topic.
Despite they are written down in several Costitutional Charts of most countries, rights are not fixed. They evolve during time, the right of privacy today is not perceived like it was 15 years ago.
As many of you, I think that general health is more important than the prevervation of datas but we must pay attention about it. I believe that the whole point is the one expressed by @gabriellalocati. The population must be educated at least in the basic principles about cybersecurity; this is one of the biggest lacks in today’s people awareness. When the consumer consciousness is high, it is also more dangerous for companies being careless about this important topic. In fact, like @ismaelepaoli showed us, Google decided to public the list containing datas and involved authorities in order to get this operation crystal clear.
I agree when some of you say that the situation generated by this pandemy will represent a precedent. Especially if, as European countries, we will not manage to stop the virus effectively and avoid a second wave of spreading, as some epidemiologists fear. I am pretty sure that, at that time, the virus defeat will be a top priority, by several means, now considered risky.
I am referring especially to Europe because it is one of the regional global areas that is paying most attention about on this topic, risking at the same time to discourage some linked investements in its territory. While in other global areas are preparing themselves to obtain an acceptable level of “cyber-recilience”, as I call it. I prefer to utilize this term than “cyber-security”, since a 100% security today is likely impossible to be reached. Some European agencies, such as the ECSO, have prepared programs of funds, which are still insufficient if compared to the USA or China program investments. Europe needs to promote the cooperation of public and private funds in this area. As mentioned by Mr Lo Tito during the last conference, one of the results of the current pandemy is that Europe it’s moving toward that direction, but there is a lot of work to do.
For example, at the end of 2019, Russia has completed the first tests and simulations of a “Russian Intranet”, called RUNET, which could be a “security net” detached from the global Internet in case of any cyber attack.
As I said, the construction of a real awareness of citizens is a main point. Because fear allocates where ignorance is present and this can be fatal for companies. I point out the case of the app “Houseparty”- one of the many videocalling app used by most of us during this quarantine period. It was cancelled from many users because a fake news informed that their server had been hacked.
As far as health and innovation, I want to share with you the case the Switzerland decision of postponing the 5G antennas programme because of popular protest against their use, which is thought to be dangerous though health authorities assured that there is no risk- a further investigation started consequently.
https://www.ft.com/content/848c5b44-4d7a-11ea-95a0-43d18ec715f5
An article about Russia’s “RUNET”: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50902496
Have a good Sunday!
Gabriele
Hi everyone!
I thanks to Ismael for the topic, cause I care much about it.
This subject, as well as all the sensitive issues, takes to polarizing opinions where arguments in favor and in opposition are both supported by valid and good reasons which have to be heard. So I respect all your ideas but I do not agree with some prior statements. I think that under no circumstances the use of our data by governments can be justified, even if they are anonymous. I agree with privacy EXPERTS which say that “governments are not called to disregard rights such as privacy and freedom of expression in the name of tackling a public health crisis.” We have to be aware of our rights, they are based on the sense of human dignity and of respect for the individual, and it is in our duty to defend them. For me, it is a bit superficial to say “without health, there can be no privacy” cause it underestimates the problem.
In this particular situation of crisis, I sincerely think that we must not under-estimate the psychological effects that it could have on the population. People are close in their houses for over a month, each of us is living in a continuous state of stress, so taking those invasive measures could further destabilize citizens causing serious social damage. People are tired, they feel deprived of their freedom, they feel removed from any decision, they feel not taken into consideration, the perception is to live in a pseudo-dictatorship. So I believe that they don’t need to be tracked and controlled in a such way because it would increase their discomfort.
All this situation makes me think of the “big brother” by Orwell, and that’s horrible.
Also, I don’t think that the use of these methods is really necessary cause as we know it does not resolve the “real” problem, but as I pointed out, it creates new ones. There is a limit to everything and we have to be careful not to cross the line. Technology is fantastic but if it is used in the wrong way it can become dangerous.
I leave you with a point of reflection: do you think that anonymized data may be real? Do you think that our identity is protected by anonymity? It makes a difference to be identified with name and surname or dataset?
I think no!…
See you guys, have a nice day!
Hi guy!
Firstly, thank you @fabianadurso for sharing your opinion with us! It can only be positive to have a different insight on the subject, however, I personally think that comparing the situation we find ourselves to a pseudo-dictatorship is a bit of an overstatement. We must realize that the decisions our government has to take aim to restrict the spread of the contagion, furthermore their policies are based on constitutional ground, therefore legitimized. @chiarasperto pointed out that we are not asked to go off to war, however, I must agree with Fabiana admitting that being confined in our houses is more stressful and tiresome than expected; said that, I also want to say that I do not consider such restriction as something imposed on me but rather as a contribution each of us is willingly giving to our community. I would rather describe as Orwellian the sequence of events occurring in Hungary at the moment than the ones in our country.
In favor of this rather invasive method, one must acknowledge that “the current state of tracking in the West is built around two core pillars—data should be anonymous and aggregated. […] no data records should link back to an individual and the data should be viewed en masse. These are patterns and trends, not finger pointing.” Therefore, governments such as ours are not given access to the wholeness of the data, and that is per se, encouraging and reassuring. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/04/05/coronavirus-phone-tracking-now-impacts-all-of-us-what-happens-next-is-critical/#452b6881333a)
Furthermore, I realize that many might be uncomfortable and contrary to such methods but I believe that it is not just caused of vexation and problems; in fact, understanding the trend of an epidemy and tracing it, is a key asset to our governments and our society must rely on. What has changed is the method through which we receive information since the traditional public health tracing approach has appeared to be incomplete and therefore ineffective to keep up with the outbreak. To understand, forecast and prevent the outbreak is an equally essential strategy and, at the moment, our main one, at least until a vaccine won’t be ready for use and it will allow governments to make critical decisions.
Regarding Fabiana’s questions, I believe our identities to be protected, at the moment. I think, however, that our identities might be disclosed perhaps if the necessity surges to prevent an asymptomatic patient to further spread the virus and to initiate a formal quarantine. Nothing is really intrinsically anonymous, the issue stands on how difficult is the reidentification of said data; essentially, “it’s mostly a question of the controls you have in place to ensure the process that leads to generating those aggregates does not contain privacy risks” as points out an expert in data reidentification interviewed by TechCrunch.
Have a good evening,
Gabriella
To answer @giorgiaamatemaggio’s question “should we trust that companies will not use our data once the emergency period has ended?”. I also agree that we will never know for sure, also because for now there is no law that regulates this specific problem in detail. We could require the various organizations to delete all data once we are out of the pandemic but as we all know when some data enters the network and spreads, it is practically impossible to delete all traces.
In my opinion, the problem will become economic. What value will all this sensitive data have? Who will be interested in buying them? What will be the main reasons why someone will consider investing capital? It is on this that attention must be paid: will the end benefit or harm the community?With reference to the @marco-canciani quote on control measures that “must be used only temporarily in an emergency and that in Italy the Constitution establishes that the limitation of rights can be imposed for safety or health reasons”, I am I ask a question: how do you determine when an emergency of this magnitude can be declared definitively over? We have no historian to rely on, we have no previous experience of pandemics in Italy!
Considering the fact that we must necessarily keep in mind that there is an actual risk of a return infection, the emergency may not be temporary. We will certainly be out of danger only when a mass vaccine will be developed to which the entire world population will have to undergo.
How long will it take to achieve this result? Years? And how will it be possible to prevent data leakage all this time especially if the parties concerned are governments or commercial giants? (as I have already written commenting on the answer of @giorgiaamatemaggio) without considering the non-secondary fact that information leaks could reduce trust in the government and therefore discourage citizens to collaborate, as underlined in a passage contained in the link proposed by Gabriella Locati.To complete @gabriellalocati’s question regarding the problems relating to the location of people who do not have effective technological means such as the homeless or irregular immigrants, it must also be specified that, as indicated in a passage contained in the link proposed by her: “The data on the position they are not always precise: depending on the coverage of the cell tower, the estimated positions can be extended up to 2 km “.
This means that even people with effective technological means are not always precisely located so the problem highlighted is more extensive than you think.Furthermore, the disclosure of sensitive data can fuel discrimination especially in countries where the law is not based on democratic values, but rather on restrictive and oppressive policies.
This problem clashes with the need to acquire information aimed at limiting the spread of the infection. Disclosure of sensitive data could seriously cause discrimination and social differences. In such a situation, can we say with absolute certainty that public health comes before individual dignity and respect for people? Is it correct to disclose information concerning the most intimate sphere to safeguard a greater good? And if so, how could subjects who protect themselves, under the risk of leakage of sensitive data, fear to enter into a spiral of derision or social estrangement? Evaluating the consequences, would not many people be induced not to cooperate or even worse to declare false, thus invalidating the result of statistical calculations on which future measures will then be based?
In light of the above, the gap in the law must necessarily be filled before that, in order to protect a right, another would not be respected.
Good evening everyone! I hope you had a good weekend.
First, I would like to answer the question of @giorgiaamatemaggio: “should we trust that companies will not use our data once the emergency period is over?”
Our Constitution and the institutes set up to protect our data guarantee that they will not be disclosed except for the purpose for which they were collected. I agree with @gabriellalocati. We must give data brokers the benefit of the doubt, at least in this specific season we are experiencing. I would like to remind you that the data that we citizens are currently providing to actors such as Google or Vodafone remain limited to our location in space and time (many articles have already been mentioned about it).
Doubts could arise in the use of applications such as “AllertaLOM“, made available by Lombardy in order to use data driven technologies to develop accurate statistical models on the evolution of the epidemic. The questionnaire to be filled in daily remains anonymous, but psychographic and demographic data (age, gender, and residence) are requested inside.
The juice is worth the squeeze. Let me explain better: having ascertained that these data end up in the hands of the region and the Italian technical-scientific committee, and therefore they are not used for profit, I am in favour of the processing of my data. To give an example, the situation that saw the use of user data for manipulation and persuasion purposes through misleading advertising was quite different. For example, the scandal involving Facebook and Cambridge Analyica (which I think we all know well) about Trump‘s presidential campaign and the recent Brexit.
I agree in part on what @gabrieleverde said “the construction of a real awareness of citizens is a main point“. Although I am a digital native who lives in technology, I do not consider myself very aware. Since 2016, anyone who uses the famous Cookies must specify in detail which types of information are requested, in order to make this transfer of data transparent. In my everyday life I think that nothing has changed: I continue to surf without asking myself the problem of being tracked on the web.
Finally, to answer @fabianadurso ‘s questions, various experiences teach us that the data, however anonymous they may be, will always keep a small string of identification code of your person. I am hopeful, in recent years many countries around the world have moved in favour of us network users through regulations and laws such as the European GDPR, also taken as an example overseas.
Good night!
Marco
- The topic ‘UniPV Silicon Valley 2020’ is closed to new replies.