finalized last section and conclusion sections, to review

source/sections/blackbox.tex

@@ -1 +1,5 @@
 \section{Our Black Box}
+\textit{Biondi} in her presentation makes another last point, saying that a program of global surveillance through bulk data collection may put at risk the and violate the most intimate part of a person, the essence of the human being. As said in the introduction it is really difficult to define what we mean by essence of a person, but what we are referring to here is in fact what we may define the black box of ourself, that part of the inner person that would never be possible to share with the others, what in fact represent what we are and what we feel as human beings.\\
+If we accept to open that \textbf{black box}, I think that we may ultimately loose what defines us as humans. We would loose the ability to have control over the relationships that we have with each other, risking to fall in the situation depicted by \textbf{Rachels}, in which we would have a flattening of all the interactions. We would be no more able to decide what we are, we would be only a copy of what data tells about us.\\
+And what about the relation that we have with \textbf{ourselves}? What if for the fear of influencing the data copy of ourselves we are forced to behave in a way that is not what we are, what we feel? We would never have a second chance in anything, we would be too tightly bound to the past, we would ultimately loose our free will. We would not even be able to search for something on a search engine without the fear that maybe 20 years from now that thing could be used against us.\\
+We would not be able to be honest and sincere with our inner self, and at that point what really makes us humans? What separates one individual from the rest of the world?

source/sections/conclusions.tex

@@ -1,2 +1,7 @@
 \section{Conclusions}
-this is a dummy citation TO BE REMOVED\cite{privacyimportant} \cite{thecircle} \cite{cccvideo}
+To conclude I would try to better detail the implications of my thesis.\\
+I'm not saying that we have to reject all forms of on-line communications, of social media etc... Of course often these instruments can be really helpful, and for example the free circulation of knowledge that we have today in scientific and research fields would not have been possible without the technological instruments that we developed.\\
+What I tried to highlight is that we, as a society, need to really start to think that the off-line and on-line world is becoming something unified, and in particular that we need to take action against the state of surveillance that is gradually becoming something seen as normal and that is done for our own good.\\
+And responding to this with merely technological solutions can't be enough, we really need to promote a discussion on an ethical and moral level on the implications of surveillance and the loss of privacy.\\
+We don't have a ready to use solution for this problem, we have seen that technology alone can't solve the problem, but neither we can expect that laws made by non technical people will solve the issue by simply adapting the norms that we have in a different context. The technology is evolving at a too high speed to simply try to keep the pace with it. We need to at least try to think ahead and to develop a discussion framework suitable for this purpose, starting by creating committees that have heterogeneous types of competences and backgrounds to try to sketch solutions and norms for these kind of problematic situations.\\
+In particular what I have tried to show here is that we really need to deal with the problem of surveillance as soon as possible, because I am deeply convinced that the direction that we will follow will shape our society and us as individuals in the (not so distant) future. And I really believe that we should not loose this opportunity to decide what we want it to be and what we want us to be.