Sept. 8, 2019

Blog

Experience shows that in the digital the legal technique of consent is not protective enough.
 
If only because a simplest technology neutralizes the link that should exist between the "consent" of the user and the "free will" of the latter: the consent of the user only protects the latter to the extent that this one can in Law and in fact to say "no.
 
 
I. THE EXPERIENCE 
 
For example I found on my Facebook New an access to an unknown web site which puts online an article on "the rights of trees" ...
I go. In accordance with the European Regulation (GDPR) transposed into French legal system, the site informs that there is possibility for the user to accept or refuse the use of their personal data for the benefit of "partners".
If they continue reading, the user is supposed to accept everything, but they can click to "customize".
I click: there I find two options: "accept everything" or "reject everything". But the "reject all" option is disabled. It is only possible to click on the "accept all" option.
 
It is also possible, because the law obliges, to consult the list of the partners of this website: I click and find a list of unknown companies, with foreign denominations, which without doubt once will collect my personal data (and those of my contacts) , having their own head office outside the European Union.
It is stated in a text, which can not be copied, that these "partners" can use my data without my consent and for purposes that they do not have to inform me. But, again, these things I can "refuse everything". Here again the "reject all" mention exists but the fonctionality is not active, while the mention "accept all" is an active fonctionality.
 
As I can not refuse (since it's disabled), and as 99% of Internet users have never clicked on the first two buttons, all their data has been fed into the data market that allows the targeting of products that spill out in the digital space, to their detriment and that of their contact.
While believing to read a free article on the "right of the trees".
At the end, I do not read this article, since I did not click on the only active buttons: "accept everything".
 
In more than 50% of cases, the "reject all" or "customize" options are only images but are not active. And data absorption is also about contacts.
In exchange for a whimsical article about trees and their rights, or creams to be always young, or celebrities who change spouses, or about so-called tests to find what king or queen you should be if the all recognized all your merits, etc.
Proposed on the digital news feed by unknown sites; in partnership with foreign companies that you will never reach.
And mass-viewed by Internet users who are also told that "consent" is the proven solution for effective protection ....
While these are just panels hastily built by new Potemkins ...
 
II. WHAT TO DO ? 
 
1. Not be satisfied with "consent" from the moment that it is a mechanism that may not be the expression of a free will: how could it be if the option "to refuse" is not active?
 
2. The link between will and consent must therefore be "presumed" only in a simple presumption and in a non-irrefutable way, because we must refuse to live in a dehumanized society, operating on "mechanical consents", to which the digital does not lead necessarily.
 
3. Entrust by the Compliance Law to the "crucial digital operators" (in the case of Facebook thanks to which these proposals for free reading are made on the thread of news of the Net surfers) the care to verify in Ex Ante the effectiveness of the link between Will and Consent: Here and concretely the possibility for the user to read while refusing the capture of all its data (for the benefit of operators who do not even have the concrete obligation to give the information of the use that will be made of these personal data).
 
_____

June 20, 2019

Publications

Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Analyse des blockchains au regard des usages qu'elles peuvent remplir et des fonctions que les officiers ministériels doivent assurer, in Revue Défrenois, Lextenso, n°25, 20 juin 2019, pp. 23-29.

 

Résumé : La blockchain est une technologie qui n'est pas, en soir, bonne ou mauvaise. Elle est plus ou moins adaptée aux fonctions qu'elle est apte à remplir. Ce qu'il faut ensuite confronter aux fonctions que l'État a dévolues aux officiers ministériels. Or, autant les fonctions de conservation et de duplication des actes gagnent à être transférées et développées dans cette technologie, autant la fonction d'élaboration des instrumentums ne peut être assumée que par des officiers ministériels auxquels l'État demande de vérifier la correspondance entre les mentions des instrumentums et la réalité des négotiums, ce que seuls des êtres humains peuvent mener et ce qu'aucune machine ne peut faire.

 

Lire l'article.

 

Lire le document de travail ayant servi de base à l'article publié, document de travail bilingue comprenant des notes de bas de page, des références techniques et de liens hypertextes.

Updated: May 27, 2019 (Initial publication: May 13, 2019)

Publications

First of all, this working document was used as a support for an oral intervention done in French on the general topic.  L'officier ministèriel est-il soluble dans la blockchain ? (Is the ministerial officer soluble in the blockchain?) at the "Club du Droit", which took place at the Conseil supérieur du Notariat on May 14, 2019, in Pars.

Consult the general presentation of the conference (in French).

Then it serves as a basis for an article to be published in the Revue Defrénois (in French).

______

Introduction & Summary.

The technical analysis of the confrontation between the tool that is the blockchain and the function that ensure these particular people who are the "ministerial officers"!footnote-1542, might make it possible to deduce the use that they must make of it. .

For this, it is necessary to keep in mind this distinction so simple: the blockchain is a tool, a thing, a machine, an algorithm, a mechanical, mathematical power, while the ministerial officer is a human being.

This refers to the distinction that the Western legal system, whether Civil Law or Common Law, poses as summa divisio: the distinction between human beings and things. This first distinction is formulated so that we do not treat human beings as things, since they are legally qualified as "person"!footnote-1584. This is not a natural idea, because if the opportunity arises we would be inclined to treat the other human being as thing. It would be nice and effective. But Law, in its first principle, opposes it, to protect the one who can not afford to be a wolf for the other. This political reason implies that this distinction remains very clear and strong. Now, many try at any moment to make us forget it.

For this essential distinction to remain effective, not only should we not imagine human beings as things (reduced to their bodies, for example, or reduced to mechanical acts of consumption!footnote-1543), like this is notably described and denounced by Alain Supiot in his successive works!footnote-1582, but it is also necessary that, especially by an imagined vocabulary, one represents things as acting like people, whereas it does not only machines and tools.

But technology represents more and more things with anthromophormi forms and reactions , through robots which "speak", "intelligent" machines, etc. The economic success of promoters of machines and other human-like robots, mechanical solutions presented as "intelligent", is based on forgetting the distinction between the person and things. It is certainly possible to erase this distinction from our system of thought. The difficulty is that it is the basis of Western Lawl!footnote-1583 and that there are strong reasons to keep it because this distinction protects the weak human being from injustice, permits him and her to participate in the general  order, to avoid an order built on a pure balance of power which can only lead to violence.

It is this background that is played in the practical questiond of insertion of blockchains and other technologies and the way in which the various professions must exercise their functions today. If these tools are consistent with these functions, or even improve them, professionals must welcome them without suspicion, or even participate directly in developing them. If these tools are not capable of fulfilling certain functions entrusted to these professionals, then these functions must not be inadvertently or maliciously inserted into a blockchain, whose capacity for preservation and reliability does not amount to anything, because a thing doesn't have any ability to think.

This is why we must start from the functions, by dinstinguising the technical function of conservation, duplication and elaboration of acts (I).

It seems that assuming the technical reliability of preservation and duplication acquired through the blockchain, as soon as there is a part of elaboration in the act, human intervention must step in because a machine is unfit to check the facts. Here we find the distinction between the retranscribed negotium, this retranscription never being mechanical, and the instrumentum itself, which, split from what gave rise to it, can be subjected to duplicative and conservation technologies. These technologies of conservation and duplication could be so efficient that the notions of original and copy could be questioned because of the reliability of the blockchain (II).

Thus the blockain is an effective technology on the instrumentum as documents divided from the negotium, but it can not guarantee the correspondence between the two ; it has only the reliability in the conservation, the availability and the duplication to infinity of the instrumentum, of what is extremely useful, and justifies that ministerial officers incorporate this technology. But the function of these are not limited to being agents of conservation and duplicators. We do not simply move from the copyist monk to the blockchain. The main and so precious function of the ministerial officers is to check the accuracy of the mentions of the instrumentum in relation to the reality of the negotium. This is so precious for a market economy to have this correspondance!footnote-1585. The ministerial officer does so as a human being, while a machine can neither check this correspondence nor advise the parties - especially not the weak part in the negotium. This is why the State - which has never ignored the effectiveness of "decentralization" techniques - has decentralized its office and its correspondance. With a sole and autonomous machine, it is not possible to know if  acts correspond to the objective reality of the transactions (their object) as well as to their subjective reality (consent). If we choose not to entrust this to human beings carrying this function, for which a machine is unfit, it would be a political choice It will have a price (III).

This would be the choice of a very liquid and unsecured market (without intermediary, with the benefit of lower cost in Ex Ante and higher risk for the long term). In policy, the balance is always between security and liquidity, especillay in financial systemic policy. This was done by American Law, wich prefered low costs and high liquidity, especially for real estate loans, which were securitized by subprime mortgages. For the moment, this choice is not made in this sense by European Law, safety concern in the elaboration of the acts being preferred and the distinction between the human aptitude and the mechanical aptitude remaining. And we know that in the first system the reajustment takes the form of a general crisis, which reinjects the reality of the negotiums, lost in the instrumentums.  What price are we ready to pay ?

Once this distinction is clearly made, because the elaboration of an acte mus be made bye the ministerial officer, human being invested by the State of the particular charge ensures the accuracy of the mentions of the act with the reality of people, wills, obligations and goods, it is all the more expedient for ministerial officiers to organize themselves to develop blockchain technology. Indeed, once this act has been developed reliably, ans as such deserves to be "authentic", because of the continuum between elaboration, preservation and duplication, because it is up to the ministerial officiers to draw up the deeds more incontestably reliable. It is up to them to equip themselves with the technological means of best conservation and duplication of acts elabored by them (IV). 

1

Sur la confrontation déjà faite dans l'analyse économique de la "régulation" et la fonction notariale, v. Frison-Roche, M.-A., ....

3

Anders, G., notamment dans son ouvrage central L'obsolescence de l'homme (1956)présentant l'être humain réduit à l'état de "machine désirante" par une société de pure et simple consommation. Le souci qu'il en a comme philosophe rejoint le souci qu'en avait Jacque Ellul, comme juriste, s'inquiétant de la "société technicienne" (...). Or, les machines correspondent aujourd'hui au dessin que ces auteurs du milieu du XXième siècle en faisaient. De la même façon, Alain Supiot rapporte à Kafka le souci du "machinisme" dans le fonctionnement des institutions humaines (....) ; il ne fait notamment dans son analyse de Kafka comme "artiste de la Loi" (2019).

4

Par exemple Supiot, A., La gouvernance par les nombres, 2015 ; Mondialisation ou globalisation ? Les leçons de Simone Weil, 2019 ; Le droit au XXIème siècle : droit, technique et écoumène (dernière leçon au Collège de France, 22 mai 2019).

Sur cette idée folle et dévastatrice qu'il faut faire davantage confiance aux machines qu'il ne faut faire confiance aux êtres humains, ce qui justifierait donc de "mécaniser" les autres humains, idée folle reprise le plus souvent par les auteurs avec entrain, v. par ex. Caprioli, E.A., La blockchain ou la confiance dans la technologie, JCP 2016. 672, n° 3. 

6

Frison-Roche, M.-A., L'acte authentique, acte de marché, 2010. 

May 14, 2019

Conferences

Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., participation à la table-ronde L'officier public ministériel est-il soluble dans la blockchain?, conférence-débat organisée par  Le Club du Droit & le Conseil supérieur du Notariat, 14 mai 2019, Paris.

 

Consulter la présentation générale du colloque.

 

Consulter le document de travail sur la base duquel l'intervention a été faite.

 

Lire le compte-rendu qui en a été fait dans la presse. 

 

Dans cette table-ronde, un professeur d'économie expose la dimension technologique et économique de la blockchain. 

Puis est abordée la dimension juridique, dont l'exposé m'était plus particulièrement confié.

_____

 

 

A ce titre, après avoir replacé la question technique dans ce que doit garder le Droit, à savoir la distinction entre la Personne et les choses, ce que la technologie présentée aujourd'hui comme un ensemble de choses "intelligentes" et "décidantes" remettant en cause...., l'intervention porte sur 4 points (qui sont développés dans le document de travail).

En premier lieu, avant de porter une appréciation sur ce qui est adéquat et sur l'avenir il faut distinguer les fonctions techniques de conservation des actes, de duplication des actes et d'élaboration des actes, la distinction entre negotium et instrumentum n'étant en rien effacée par la technologie des blockchains.

En deuxième lieu, dès l'instant qu'il y a une altération substantielle de l'acte instrumentaire parce qu'un nouveau negotium a eu lieu, parce que les mentions doivent mesurer la reproduction de la réalité de ce qui fut décidé par les parties, l'on n'est plus dans l'acte de conserver et de dupliquer à l'identique, mais dans l'acte d'élaboration. Or, dans l'acte de conservation et de duplication, la blockchain peut être un atout technologique très précieux, en ce qu'à supposer sa fiabilité acquise, l'erreur étant exclue, c'est comme si l'on pouvait produire des originaux indéfiniment. La fiabilité est telle que la distinction entre original et copie n'aurait plus lieu d'être. Mais pour l'élaboration de l'instrumentum au regard du negotium , comment une machine pourrait-elle "dresser" un acte, c'est-à-dire en vérifier son rapport d'exactitude par rapport à la réalité ? Elle ne le peut pas. Seul un être humain le met, l'Etat ayant "déconcentré" son pouvoir de dresser uniléralement des actes (en cela, les notaires sont issus de la même idée de déconcentration....) en exigeant qu'ils vérifient la conformité à la réalité pour que l'incontestabilité soit ensuite attachée aux mentions.

En troisième lieu, il apparaît alors que la blockain est un outil de conservation et de duplication, mais que l'intermédiation d'un tiers de confiance humain vérifiant l'exactitude des mentions est nécessaire si l'on veut par sécurité que ce qui est dit dans l'acte écrit, puis conservé, puis dupliqué, soit la reproduction de la réalité. S'opère alors un choix de politique économique, souvent lié à la culture des pays. L'on peut considérer que le coût de l'intermédiation est élevé et qu'il faut mieux assumer le risque de l'inexactitude des mentions (quant aux parties, à la réalité de leur consentement, à la consistance de l'objet, à l'ampleur des obligations, etc.) et s'assurer ainsi un marché liquide. Le réajustement des actes par rapport à la réalité des choses se fait alors par la crise, qui réinjecte l'information, l'exemple en étant la crise des prêts immobiliers financiarisés des subprimes. C'est le choix anglais et américains. L'on peut préférer la sécurité par l'intermédiation en ralentissant le marché. C'est le choix du droit romano-germanique. Ces options demeurent ouvertes. La technologie du blockchain n'interfère pas, parce qu'elle ne doit pas viser l'établissement des actes. Si elle devait la viser, alors on aurait choisi la liquidité à la sécurité. Ou en termes plus généraux, l'on aurait choisi la Concurrence contre la Régulation. Mais plus que jamais le souci Ex Ante des risques systémiques (et le fossé entre la réalité et les actes qui doivent la transcrire est un risque systémique majeur) est premier. 

En quatrième lieu, en ayant ainsi un tableau des fonctionnalités, l'on voit que les notaires peuvent avoir grand usage des blockchains. Sans laisser des machines établir des actes, ils peuvent les utiliser comme le furent des coffreforts et des photocopieuses, avec une fiabilité et une mise en commun que seul le numérique et la capacité de calcul peuvent offrir à travers cette nouvelle technologie. Plus encore, l'articulation de l'amont (élaboration) et de l'aval (conservation et duplication) étant de nouveau reconnue comme la plus efficace, les officiels ministériels sont les mieux placés, en tant qu'ils dressent des actes instrumentaires dont ils ont vérifié les mentions et après avoir conseillé les parties, à conserver et à dupliquer ceux-ci.

_____

Nov. 27, 2018

Publications

Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Droit de la concurrence et droit de la compliance, novembre 2018, in Revue Concurrences n° 4-2018, Art. n° 88053, pp. 1-4. 

__________

Resumé : Le droit de la compliance est une branche du droit nouvelle, encore en construction. L’on peut en avoir une “définition restreinte”, consistant à la concevoir comme l’obligation qu’ont les entreprises de donner à voir qu’elles se conforment en permanence et d’une façon active au Droit. L’on peut en avoir une définition plus riche, de nature substantielle, la définissant comme l’obligation ou la volonté propre qu’ont certaines entreprises de concrétiser des “buts monumentaux” dépassant la seule performance économique et financière. Le droit de la concurrence intègre en partie ses deux conceptions de la compliance. Précurseur, le droit de la concurrence concrétise avec dynamisme la première conception du droit de la compliance. C’est avec davantage de difficultés mais aussi beaucoup plus d’avenir que le droit de la concurrence peut exprimer en dialectique la seconde conception du droit de la compliance comme internationalisation de “buts monumentaux”, notamment dans l’espace numérique.

 

Abstract : Compliance Law is a new branch of Law, still under construction. One can have a “narrow definition” of seeing it as the obligation of businesses to show that they are constantly and actively complying with the law. One can have a richer definition, of a substantive nature, defining it as the obligation or the own will of certain companies to achieve “monumental goals” that go beyond economic and financial performance. Competition Law partly integrates its two conceptions of Compliance: Precursor, Competition Law concretizes dynamically the first conception of Compliance Law. It is with more difficulties but also much more future that Competition Law can express in dialectic the second conception of Compliance Law as internationalization of these “monumental goals”, especially in the digital space.

 

Lire l'article.

Lire le document de travail ayant servi de base à l'article rédigée par Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, enrichie dans sa version numérique par des notes de bas de page, des références techniques et de liens hypertextes.

July 11, 2018

Documentary Base : Doctrine

Complete reference : Randell, Ch., How can we ensure that big Data does not make us prisoners of technology ?, Reuters Newsmaker event, London, 2018.

 

To read the speech.

July 3, 2018

Documentary Base : Doctrine

Référence complète : Caprioli, É.A., La blockchain dans la banque et la finance (éléments de réflexion juridique), in Études en l'honneur de Philippe Neau-Leduc, Le juriste dans la cité, coll. « Les mélanges », LGDJ- Lextenso,  2018, pp.189-206.

 

 

Lire une présentation générale dans lequel l'article est publié.

Jan. 10, 2018

Documentary Base : Doctrine

Référence complète : Parachkévova, I., et Teller, M., (dir.) Quelles régulations pour l'économie collaborative ? Un défi pour le droit économique, Dalloz, coll. "Thèmes et commentaires", 2018, 202 p.

 

Lire la quatrième de couverture.

Lire le sommaire.

Updated: Oct. 25, 2017 (Initial publication: May 27, 2016)

Publications

This working paper initially served as a basis for a synthesis report made in French in the colloquium organized by the Association Henri Capitant in the International German Days on the subject of "Le Droit et la Mondialisation" (Law and Globalization).

It serves as a second basis for the article (written in English, with a Spanish Summary) to be published in the Brezilian journal Rarb - Revista de Arbitragem e Mediação  (Revue d`Arbitrage et Médiation).

In it French version, it serves as a basis for the article, written in French, to be published in the book La Mondialisation.

In this working paper, notes are included, including developments, references and links to work and reflections on the theme of globalization.
It uses the Bilingual Dictionary of the Law of Regulation and Compliance.

To access the French version of the working paper, click on the French flag.

____

 

Globalization is a confusing phenomenon for the jurist. The first thing to do is to take its measure. Once it has been taken, it is essential that we allow ourselves to think of something about it, even if we have to think about it. For example, on whether the phenomenon is new or not, which allows a second assessment of what is taking place. If, in so far as the law can and must "pretend" to defend every being, a universal claim destined to face the global field of forces, the following question - but secondary - is formulated: quid facere? Nothing ? Next to nothing ? Or regulate? Or can we still claim that the Law fulfills its primary duty, which is to protect the weak, including the forces of globalization?

Let us begin the peripheries of Law in globalization.

____

Globalization is a confusing phenomenon for everyone. It is no doubt even more so for the jurist for whom words are normative acts and which stumbles on the definition of globalization!footnote-927.

Perhaps this is why lawyers are as impressed by the argument of globalization, which is often cited to argue that the time of imperative legislations is over, or that Roman law may well turn into its grave, Globalization would pass over the corpse of the Civil Code. The more mysterious the notion is, the more names it has, the more it sets back the jurist of good tradition, global trade being as upgraded when it is designated as "globalization", the zest of English leading to the globalization that parses Of reports, even written in French or Spanish or Italian. . The global language being English, the Globalization is English also.

If we take up the movement of this wave, it is appropriate first of all to take stock of what is globalization (I). It is only relevant that the usefulness, if not necessity, is posed to think about this movement of globalization. There is a legal imperative to formulate an assessment if it is posited that the Law has the mission of protecting every human being, a concern that is supported by the Law. Then, because Law is also a technique, we can ask ourselves the question of Quid facere? But in practice it can not be said that under the pretext that the field of the world forces is very powerful and that the Law appears to be very weak in its claims to protect every human being in its dignity, it would for this reason disappear from the World stage (II).

On the contrary. It is at the foot of the wall of Globalization that today we can measure the claim of Law to defend humanity.

1

S. for ex. Frison-Roche, M.-A., Les deux mondialisations (The two globalizations), written en French,

April 10, 2002

Documentary Base : Doctrine

Référence générale :  Anders, G., L'Obsolescence de l'homme. Sur l'âme à l'époque de la deuxième révolution industrielle, Traduction de l'allemand par Christophe David 1956, éd. l'Encyclopédie des Nuisances,  coll." Editions IVREA", Paris, 2002, 360 p.

 

Lire la table des matières.

Lire la quatrième de couverture.

 

April 5, 2001

Documentary Base : Doctrine

Référence complète : CARBONNIER, Jean, Transparence in Flexible droit. Pour une sociologie du droit sans rigueur, 10ème éd., LGDJ, 2001, pp. 315-323.

________

 

 

Consulter la présentation de l'ouvrage.

 

 

Les étudiants peuvent accéder à l'article via le Drive de Sciences Po, dossier "MAFR-Régulation".