♾️ suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

♾️ s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, Automated Compliance, a pertinent tool for Compliance Law, the whole, document de travail, novembre 2022.

____

📝Ce document de travail sert de base à une participation à un débat sur "Automated Compliance : "the" solution or "a" solution?, qui déroule dans le Sommet global de Gaia-X  le 17 novembre 2022.  

____

►Résumé du document de travail : s'appuyant sur la présentation préalablement faite au débat par un membre de la Commission européenne, il s'agit de souligner trois éléments qui montrent que l' Automated Compliance (ou Compliance by design) est à la fois un outil central, mais qu'il n'est un outil du Droit de la Compliance dont il ne saurait remplir par sa seule performance technologique toutes les fonctions dans un Etat de Droit.

En premier lieu, l'Union européenne semble en difficulté lorsqu'elle veut tout à la fois bâtir un système juridique qui lui est propre sur la base de Lois dont chacune est la pièce d'un gigantesque puzzle pour obtenir une industrie pérenne et autonome dans une économie numérique mondiale totalement renouvelée, ce qui fait peser sur les entreprises une charge considérable d'intégration de toutes ces règles du jeu, tout en affirmant qu'il faut alléger la charge que la "réglementation" fait peser sur elles.

En second lieu, la meilleure solution pour résoudre cette ambition contradictoire est effectivement dans la technologique, les algorithmes intégrant directement les réglementations. Mais plus encore, l'ensemble de ces textes reposent sur une autonomie laissée en Ex Ante aux entreprises européennes pour s'organiser entre elles afin de concrétiser les "buts monumentaux" que l'Union européenne a décidé d'atteindre, dont la réalisation d'un cloud souverain est au centre.

Ainsi la distinction et l'articulation d'un "Droit de la Compliance", défini par ces "buts monumentaux", dont lequel l'intelligence artificielle est un outil, le "tout" (Compliance Law) et la "partie" (Automated Compliance) est essentielle.

En troisième lieu, cette distinction et articulation est non seulement bénéfice mais elle est obligatoire. En effet, même si le Droit de la Compliance constitue une branche du Droit, elle fonctionne dans le système juridique générale, qui ne fonctionne que par l'esprit des textes, les outils algorithmiques ne capturant que la lettre de ceux-ci. Ces tribunaux sont et seront au cœur du Droit de la Compliance, le cas Schrems l'a bien montré. C'est pourquoi la Technologie et le Droit doivent travailler ensemble, et davantage à l'avenir, notamment parce qu'un outil pour l'effectivité du Droit ne pourra jamais rendre compte de la vie même du système juridique.

________

🔓Lire ci-dessous les développements⤵️

Full reference: CJEU, Grand chamber, Judgment Facebook Ireland e.a. v. Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit, C-645-19, June 15, 2021

Read the judgment

Read the abstract of the judgment done by the Court

Read the press release

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., "Let's Use the Power of GAFAMs in the Service of General Interest!" ("Utilisons la puissance des GAFAMs au service de l'intérêt général!"), interview done by Olivia Dufour, Actu-juridiques Lextenso, 11st of January 2021

Read the interview (in French)

To read the article translated in English by us, read the working paper on which this interview is based

Summary of the interview by Olivia Dufour:

Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulation and Compliance Law, reported to the government in 2019 about Internet governance. For this expert, giving a disciplinary power to GAFAMs is the only effective solution. And the suppression of Donald Trump's account is not likely to call this analysis into question.

The three questions (translated in English here by ourselves) asked by Olivia Dufour are: 

• The deletion of Donald Trump's Twitter account arouses strong emotions on social networks, and not only among his supporters. What do you think about this ?
• However, this incident does raise concern. Are we not giving too much power to these private companies? This raises the question in France of the relevance of the Avia system ...
• Should we therefore resolve by default to give our freedoms to private and opaque mastodons?

Read the answers to these three questions (in French)

To go further, especially about the logics that guide the Avia system, see:

• Frison-Roche, M.-A., "Hate on internet: we need to responsibilize digital operators" ("Haine sur internet: il faut responsabiliser les opérateurs numériques"), 2020
• Frison-Roche, M.-A., The contribution of Compliance Law to Internet Governance, report to Government, 2019

Full reference: Vergnolle, S., L'effectivité de la protection des personnes par le droit des données à caractère personnel (The effectiveness of the protection of people by personal data Law (our translation)), Passa, J. (dir.), thesis, Law, Panthéon-Assas University (Paris II), 2020, 531 p.

Read the thesis (in French)

Read directly and only the table of contents (in French)

To go further about regulation of personal data, read: 

• Frison-Roche, M.-A., Rethinking the world from the notion of data, 2016
• Frison-Roche, M.-A., The regulatory conséquences of a world redesigned from the concept of data, 2016. 

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Facebook: Quand le Droit de la Compliance démontre sa capacité à protéger les personnes (Facebook: When Compliance Law proves its ability to protect people), interview with Olivia Dufour, Actu-juridiques Lextenso, 23rd of November 2020

Read the interview (in French)

Read the news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation about this question

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance Law, an adequate legal framework for GAIA-X", in Pan-European GAIA - X Summit, The World with GAIA-X, November18, 2020.

____

🧮See the general presentation of the Summit

____

📈​See the slides, basis of this intervention.

____

► Summary of the intervention: Europe may offer an adequate legal framework for the GAIA-X project through Compliance Law. Compliance Law is a new form for Regulatory Law, driven by "Monumental Goals", negative Monumental Goals, for instance prevention of systemic failures, and positive Monumental Goals, for instance innovation or stability. This very new branch of Law works on these Monumental Goals, which must be explicit and internalized in Crucial Enterprises. These Crucial Enterprises concretize these Goals, supervised by public Authorities. 

European Compliance Law already works, for instance about Personal Data protection (case law and GDPR) or prevention banking systemic failures (Banking Union), Compliance Tools being in balance with Competition principle. European Union Law is moving from the Ex-Post Competition Law to the Ex-Ante Compliance Law, internalizing Monumental Goals in Crucial Enterprises. 

There is a perfect adequacy between European Compliance Law and GAIA-X. This project built by Crucial Enterprises must be supervised by public authority, maybe a specific or the European Commission. The governance of GAIA-X must be transparent and accountable. This private organization must use it powers in respect of the proportionality principle, controlled by the public supervisory body. The legal framework is required but it is sufficient. 

___

📈see the slides, basis of this intervention.

____

🎥watch the video of this intervention. 

________

This working paper served as a basis for an interview organized by Olivia Dufour in French in Actu-juridiques-Lextenso on 11st of January 2021. 

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Due process and Personal Data Compliance Law: same rules, one Goal (CJEU, Order, October 29, 2020, Facebook Ireland Ltd v/ E.C.), Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 1st of November 2020

Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Read Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's interview in Actu-juridiques about this decision (in French)

Summary of the news: 

As part of a procedure initiated for anti-competitive behaviors, the European Commission has three times requested, between the 13th of March and the 11th of November 2019, from Facebook the communication of information, reitarated in a decision in May 2020.  

Facebook contests it alleging that the requested documents would contain sensitive personal information that a transmission to the Commission would make accessible to a too broad number of observers, while "the documents requested under the contested decision were identified on the basis of wideranging search terms, (...) there is strong likelihood that many of those documents will not be necessary for the purposes of the Commission’s investigation". 

The contestation therefore evokes the violation of the principles of necessity and proportionality but also of due process because these probatory elements are collected without any protection and used afterwards. Moreover, Facebook invokes what would be the violation of a right to the respect of personal data of its employees whose the emails are transferred. 

The court reminds that the office of the judge is here constraint by the condition of emergency to adopt a temporary measure, acceptable by the way only if there is an imminent and irreversible damage. It underlines that public authorities benefit of a presumption of legality when they act and can obtain and use personal data since this is necessary to their function of public interest. Many allegations of Facebook are rejected as being hypothetical. 

But the Court analyzes the integrality of the evoked principles with regards with the very concrete case. But, crossing these principles and rights in question, the Court estimates that the European Commission did not respect the principle of necessity and proportionality concerning employees' very sensitive data, these demands broadening the circle of information without necessity and in a disproportionate way, since the information is very sensitive (like employees' health, political opinions of third parties, etc.). 

It is therefore appropriate to distinguish among the mass of required documents, for which the same guarantee must be given in a technique of communication than in a technic of inspection, those which are transferable without additional precaution and those which must be subject to an "alternative procedure" because of their nature of very sensitive personal data. 

This "alternative procedure" will take the shape of an examination of documents considered by Facebook as very sensitive and that it will communicate on a separate electronic support, by European Commission's agents, that we cannot a priori suspect to hijack law. This examination will take place in a "virtual data room" with Facebook's attorneys. In case of disagreement between Facebook and the investigators, the dispute could be solved by the director of information, communication and medias of the Directorate-General for Competition of the European Commission. 

___

We can draw three lessons from this ordinance: 

1. This decision shows that Procedural Law and Compliance Law are not opposed. Some often say that Compliance guarantees the efficacy and that Procedure guarantees fundamental rights, the protection of the one must result in the diminution of the guarantee of the other. It is false. As this decision shows it, through the key notion of sensitive personal data protection (heart of Compliance Law) and the care for procedure (equivalence between communication and inspection procedures; contradictory organization of the examination of sensitive personal data), we see once again that two branches of Law express the same care, have the same objective: protecting people. 
2. The judge is able to immediately find an operational solution, proposing "an alternative procedure" axed around the principle of contradictory and conciliating Commision's and Facebook's interests has shown that it was able to bring alternative solutions to the one it suspends the execution, appropriate solution to the situation and which equilibrate the interest of both parties. 
3. The best Ex Ante is the one which anticipate the Ex Post by the pre-constitution of evidence. Thus the firm must be able to prove later the concern that it had for human rights, here of employees, to not being exposed to sanctioning pubic authorities. This Ex Ante probatory culture is required not only from firms but also from public authorities which also have to give justification of their action. 

__________

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., "Health Data Hub est un coup de maître du Conseil d'Etat", interview realized by Olivia Dufour for Actu-juridiques, Lextenso, 22nd of October 2020

Read the news of 19th of October 2020 of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation on which relies this interview: Conditions for the legality of a platform managed by an American company hosting European health data​: French Conseil d'Etat decision 

To go further, on the question of Compliance Law concerning Health Data Protection, read the news of 25th of August 2020: The always in expansion "Right to be Forgotten"​: a legitimate Oxymore in Compliance Law built on Information. Example of​ Cancer Survivors Protection 

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Conditions for the legality of a platform managed by an American company hosting European health data​: French Conseil d'Etat decision, Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 19th of October 2020

Read by freely subscribing the other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

___

News Summary: In its ordinance of 13th of October 2020, Conseil national du logiciel libre (called Health Data Hub), the Conseil d'Etat (French Administrative Supreme Court) has determined the legal rules governing the possibility to give the management of sensitive data on a platform to a non-europeans firm, through the specific case of the decree and of the contract by which the management of the platform centralizing health data to fight against Covid-19 has been given to the Irish subsidiary of an American firm, Microsoft. 

The Conseil d'Etat used firstly CJEU case law, especially the decision of 16th of July 2020, called Schrems 2, in the light of which it was interpreted and French Law and the contract linking GIP and

The Conseil d'Etat concluded that it was not possible to transfer this data to United-Sates, that the contract could be only interpreted like this and that decree and contract's modifications secured this. But it observed that the risk of obtention by American public authorities was remaining. 

Because public order requires the maintenance of this platform and that it does not exist for the moment other technical solution, the Conseil d'Etat maintained the principle of its management by Microsoft, until a European operator is found. During this, the control by the CNIL (French Data Regulator), whose the observations has been taken into consideration, will be operated. 

We can retain three lessons from this great decision:

• There is a perfect continuum between Ex Ante and Ex Post, because by a referred, the Conseil d'Etat succeed in obtaining an update of the decree, a modification of the contractual clauses by Microsoft and of the words of the Minister in order to, as soon as possible, the platform is managed by an European operator. Thus, because it is Compliance Law, the relevant time of the judge is the future. 
• The Conseil d'Etat put the protection of people at the heart of its reasoning, what is compliant to the definition of Compliance Law. It succeeded to solve the dilemma: either protecting people thanks to the person to fight against the virus, or protecting people by preventing the centralization of data and their captation by American public authorities. Through a "political" decision, that is an action for the future, the Conseil found a provisional solution to protect people against the disease and against the dispossession of their data, requiring that an European solution is found. 
• The Conseil d'Etat emphasized the Court of Justice of The European Union as the alpha and omega of Compliance Law. By interpreting the contract between a GIP (Public interest Group) and an Irish subsidy of an American group only with regards to the case law of the Court of Justice of European Union, the Conseil d'Etat shows that sovereign Europe of Data can be built. And that courts are at the heart of this. 

___________

Read the interview given on this Ordinance Health Data Hub

To go further about the question of Compliance Law concerning health data protection, read the news of 25th of August 2020: The always in expansion "Right to be Forgotten"​: a legitimate Oxymore in Compliance Law built on Information. Example of​ Cancer Survivors Protection 

Full reference: CJEU, Grand Chamber, 6th of October 2020, Privacy International c/ Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, C-623/17.

Read the judgment 

Read the summary of the judgment (in French)

Read the opinion of the Advocate General 

Read the reference for a preliminary ruling from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal - London (United Kingdom)

Full reference of the guidelines: Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL), Délibération n°2020-091 du 17 septembre 2020 portant adoption de lignes directrices relatives à l'application de l'article 82 de la loi du 6 janvier 1978 modifiée aux opérations de lecture et écriture dans le terminal d'un utilisateur (notamment aux "cookies et autres traceurs") et abrogeant la délibération n°2019-093 du 4 juillet 2019 

Full reference of the recommendation: Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL), Délibération n°2020-092 du 17 septembre 2020 portant adoption d'une recommandation proposant des modalités pratiques de mise en conformité en cas de recours aux "cookies et autres traceurs". 

Read the guidelines (in French)

Read the recommendation (in French)

Read the presentation of these guilines and of this recommendation by the CNIL (in French) 

Read Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's comment about this in the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Regulation & Compliance of 1st of October 2020

This working paper is an extraction of an eponym newsletter published in the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Regulation & Compliance on 21st of September 2020 on LinkedIn.

Read the newsletter of 21st of September 2020

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Responding to an email with "serious anomalies"​,transferring personal data, blocks reimbursement by the bank: French Cour de cassation, July 1st 2020, Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 10th of September 2020

Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Summary of the news

"Phishing" is a kind of cyber criminality aiming to obtain, by sending fraudulent emails which look like to those sent by legitimate organisms, recipient's personal information in order to impersonate or steal him or her. As it is difficult to find the authors of "phishing" and to prove their intentionality in order to punish them directly, on mean to fight against "phishing" could be to entitle banks to secure their information network and, to accompany this obligation with a strong incentive, to convict them to reimburse the victims in case of robbery of their personal data.  

In 2015, a client victime of this kind of fraud asked to his bank, the Crédit Mutuel, to reimburse him the amount stole, what the bank refused to do on the grounds that the client committed a fault, transferring its confidential information without checking the email, however grossly counterfeit. The Court of first instance gave reason to the client because although he committed this fault, he was in good faith. This judgment was broken by the Chambre commerciale de la Cour de cassation (French Judicial Supreme Court) by a decision of 1st of July 2020 which states that this serious negligence, exclusive of any consideration of good faith, justifies the absence of reimbursement by the bank.

___

From this particular case, we can draw three lessons: 

1. The Cour de Cassation states that good faith is not a salient criterion and that, as the bank must react when a banking account is objectively abnormal, the client must react face to an obviously abnormal email. 
2. The Cour de Cassation describes the repartition of proof burden. Proof obligations are alternatively distributed between the bank and its client. First, the bank must secure its information network but, secondly, the client must take every reasonable measure to preserve its safety. It results from this that, if the email seems normal, phishing damages must be supported by the bank, and more generally of by the firm, while if the email is obviously abnormal, they must be supported by the client, but the burden to prove the abnormality of the email must be supported by the firm and not by the client. 
3. Such a proof system shows that Compliance Law includes a pedagogic mission by educating each client in order to he or she would be able to distinguish among his or her emails, those which are normal and those which are obviously suspect. This pedagogic dimension, with the legal consequences associated to it, will not stop to spread. 

______

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., For regulating or supervising, technical competence is required: example of the French creation of the "Pôle d'expertise de la régulation numérique"​, Newsletter MAFR - Law, Regulation, Compliance, 2nd of September 2020

Lire par abonnement gratuit d'autres news de la Newsletter MAFR - Law, Regulation, Compliance

Summary of the news

Through a decree of 31st of August 2020, the government created a national service, the "Pôle d'expertise de la régulation numérique" (digital regulation expertise pole). It has to furnish to State services a technical expertise in computer science, data science and algorithm processes in order to assist them in their role of control, investigation and study. The aim is to favor information sharing between researchers and State services in charge of regulating digital space. 

As its acronym indicates, this pole of expertise aims to represents constance in a changing world. Moreover, more than being a national service, this organism must adopt a transversal dimension, its creation decree being signed by the Prime Minister, Minister of Economy, Minister of Culture and Minister of Digital Transition. The creation of such a pole shows the awareness of the government of the importance of technical competency in the regulation of digital space and of the necessity to centralize these expertises in one organ. 

However, as the decree indicates, this pole of expertise could be consulted only by "State services", that excludes regulators which are independent from the State and which could put the pole in conflict of interest, and courts even if they are supposed to play a central role in the regulation of digital space and even if they are allowed to ask the advice of the regulator about some cases. But if regulators cannot size the pole, to whom does it benefit except the legislator and a few officials? 

It would therefore have been better for this pole of expertise to be placed under the direction of regulatory and supervisory bodies, which would have enabled it to be able to be consulted both by regulators and by judges, both of whom are key players in digital regulation.

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance by Design, a new weapon? Opinion of Facebook about Apple new technical dispositions on Personal Data protection, Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 31st of August 2020

Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Summary of the news:

Personal Data, as they are information, are Compliance Tools. They represent a precious resource for firms which must implement a vigilance plan in order to prevent corruption, money laundering or terrorism financing, for examples. It is the reason why personal data are the angular stone of "Compliance by design" systems. However, the use of these data cannot clear the firm of its simultaneous obligation to protect these same personal data, that is also a "monumental goal" of Compliance Law. 

In order to be able to exploit these data in an objective of Compliance and protecting them in the same time, the digital firm Apple adopted for example new dispositions in order to the exploitation of the Identifier For Advertisers (IDFA) integrated in the iPad and in the iPhone and broadly used by targeted advertising firms, is conditioned to the consumer's consent.

Facebook reacted to this new disposition explaining that such measures will restrict the access to data for advertisers who will suffer from that. Facebook suspects Apple to block the access to advertisers in order to develop its own advertising tool. Facebook guaranteed to advertisers who work with it that it will not take similar measures and that it will always favor consultation before decision making in order to concile sometimes divergent interests. 

We can sleep and already make some remarks:

• GDPR imposing to companies that they guarantee a minimal level of protection for personal data does not apply in the United-States. It is then possible that Apple acted through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), more than through legal obligation. 
• The mode of regulation used here is the "conversational regulation" theorized by Julia Black. Indeed, regulators let the forces in presence discuss. 
• This "conversational regulation" does not seem to be very efficient in this case and an intervention of administrative authorities or of judges could be justified via Competition Law, Regulation Law or Compliance Law, knowing that Competition Law will favor access right to information and Regulation or Compliance Law private life right. 

The whole paradox of Compliance Law rests in the equilibrium between circulation of information and secret. 

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., "Interregulation"​ between Payments System and Personal Data Protection: how to organize this "interplay"​?, Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 27th of August 2020

Read by freely subscribing the other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Summary of the news

Regulation Law, in order to recognize and draw the consequences from the specificities of some objects, has been build, at the start, around the notion of "technical sector" although their delimitation is partially related to a political choice. But, in facts, there are multiple points of contacts between sectors, actors moving from one to another as objects. The regulatory solution is so to climb over some technical borders through the methodology of interregulation which is by the way the only one to enable the regulation of some phenomena going beyond the notion of sector and related to Compliance Law. 

This news takes the exemple of companies furnishing new payment services. In order to they can provide these services, these firms needs to access to banking accounts of concerned people and so to very sensitive personal data. Regulation of such a configuration needs a cooperation between the banking regulator and the personal data regulator. Legislation being not sufficient to organize in Ex Ante this interregulation, the European Data Protection Board has published some guidelines on 17th of July 2020 about the way it conceives the articulation between the PSD2 (European directive about payment services) and GDPR and has announced that it intended to expand the circle of its interlocutors to do this interregulation. Such an initiative from EDPB can be justified by the uncertainty  about how interpreting both texts and articulating them.   

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Being obliged by Law to unlock telephone is not equivalent to self-incrimination: Cour de cassation, Criminal Chamber, Dec. 19, 2019, Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 21st of August 2020

Read by freely subscribing the other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Summary of the news

The Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Judicial Court) made a decision on 19th of December 2019 about a case concerning a refusal to communicate his mobile phone's unlock code to the police while the police found him with a significant quantity of narcotic and a lot of cash and that there was a certain probability that this mobile phone get proofs of culpability of its owner. The individual was indicted not for narcotic trafficking but for not having communicate its unlock code which constitute an offense to article 434-15-2 of code pénal, from the loi du 3 juin 2018 renforçant la lutte contre la criminalité organisée, et le terrorisme et leur financement (law reinforcing organized crime, terrorisme and their financing).

The accused invokes before the court its right to not incriminate oneself. Indeed, the configuration face to policemen was such that if he refused to communicate its unlock code, he will be punished because of this obligation to communicate his code and that if he accepted, he will also be sanctioned because of the proofs contained into the mobile phone. Such a configuration therefore offered him no alternative to confessing, which is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights and to European and national jurisprudence.

Face to such a case, the Cour de Cassation chose to segment the information and proposed the following solution: if the researched information cannot be obtained regardless of the suspect willingness, it is not possible to constraint this person to communicate this information without violating its procedural rights, but if the information can be obtained regardless of the suspect willingness then the individual is obliged to communicate his code. In the current case, as it was possible for policemen to obtain information contained in the phone by technical means, longer but existent, then the refuse of communication of the unlock code by the suspect constitute an obstruction that should be sanctioned. 

Such a decision is an exemple of the conciliation by the judge of two fundamental but contradictory "monumental goals" of Compliance Law: transparency of information towards public authorities and very sensible personal data protection. 

​To go further, read Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's working paper: Rethinking the world from the notion of data

Full reference: Féral-Schuhl, C., Cyberdroit. Le Droit à l'épreuve de l'internet, Collection Praxis Dalloz, Dalloz, 8th edition, 2020, 1731p.

Read the forth of cover (in French)

Read the table of contents (in French)

Ce working paper sert de base à une conférence qui a lieu à Bordeaux le 23 septembre 2016.

Dans sa recommandation n°11, le rapport Lévy-Jouyet recommande la mise en ligne des données publiques pour améliorer le service public (open data), son financement se faisant au besoin par la publicité. C’est à un autre titre que par sa recommandation n°12, le rapport préconise d’aider la diffuser de la création française à l’étranger.

Dans une économie de l’immatériel devenue une « économie de l’accès », ces deux recommandations pourraient se rapprochent, se fondre peut-être. En effet, si l’on relit par exemple les « lieux de mémoires » de Pierre Nora, on observe que les personnes publiques portent le patrimoine immatériel de la France. Il est d’une grande valeur. Il a été créé notamment par l’Histoire. L’État en organise l’accès, par l’open data. En cela, il organise l’accès à une création collective. En cela, il remplit sa fonction de satisfaire le bien commun d’ouverture.

Mais l'on bute rapidement sur une difficulté, voire une aporie : comme l'exprime le rapport Lévy-Jouyet pour les données publiques l’accès à celles-ci doit être financé. De la même façon, l’accès aux "lieux de mémoires doit être financé". Et l'on voit à travers cette question financière la contradiction de l'open data : L’enrichissement par les opérateurs de l’accès sans aucune contrepartie est incompréhensible. Seule une licence de droit commun peut rétablir le caractère commutatif entre le dépositaire de la création immatérielle collectif qui est la personne publique qui perdure dans le temps (l’État) et celui qui tire profit de l’accès.  Puisque chacun sait que la gratuité n’est pas un système sain, tandis que chacun dit que les licences open data ne sont pas effectives.

C'est pourquoi il convient d'examiner les règles juridiques qui gouvernent aujourd'hui ce que l'on appelle "l'open data" comme l'expression d'un droit d'accès à ce qui est à tout le monde mais qui est pourtant intouchable (I), le régime juridique montrant les contradictions de l'open data, ce à quoi le droit plus classique auquel le rapport renvoie par ailleurs pourrait répondre (II)

This Working paper will be used to support an  French written article to be published in a book, set in the media/assets/couvertures/couverture-internet-espace-dinterregulation.0.pdf">Regulations Series, Dalloz Publishing

This working paper was the basis for intervention in the symposium organized by the internet-espace-/">Journal of Regulation, Internet, Space of Interregulation.

View the slides used as support at the conference (in French).

____

After emphasizing that the concept of "data" is uncertain, the first perspective is to draw the regulatory consequences of the fact that what is often referred to as the "object" of the data item (the person, the company for financial data, the economy for rating data, etc.), is only its source, "underlying", the data which is manufactured by a company : the real objet of the data is  its purpose being the use for which the data is intended. The data is independent its underlying, is consolidated in the affected masses, takes an economic value based on the desires that have users, becomes available outside of time and space in the digital. This implies a specific interregulation.

But the data is also the Janus of digital because new black gold, pure financial instrument, immaterial by nature, the data also keep a record of people, the underlying that would protect, that we would like inseparable, or the structure that one would want legitimately to attack thank to the new mechanism of compliance. This double-sided of the data item leads to shocks of regulatory mechanisms in Internet

In addition, any Internet links back to the user, in whom we would gladly see "The Grand Interregulato" ". But is it so appropriate, legitimate and effective? The "consent" which refers this interregulation provided by the user himself raises doubts. However, as the displaced term of "right to be forgotten" hides a very effective weapon that can strike those who monopolize the data in a digital economy that seems to be in an ante-market mechanism. This regression pulverizes the marketself-regulation itself to replace the legal acts of exchange by connective legal acts, that for now Law and Regulation are struggling to understand, lack of legal qualifications to do so.

Law is a reconstruction of the world through definitions and categories, expressed in words, to which are imputed rules. There is always a share of invention in Law, articulated to a share of fidelity to the concrete world that it retranscribes, a combination enabling Law to regulate the latter.

Law is put in difficulty by what the term "data", quite new, is not easy to define. The fact that it is strangely formulated in Latin to show that there is plurality, the data, before associating it with an English adjective when there are many, the "big data", does not advance us more on what a "data" is. Law is a practical art that works well only if it manipulates categories whose definition is mastered.

This is why, in a first stage, we must recognize the uncertainties of the very notions of "data" (I), in order to orientate the adequate rules in the second step towards what is a given, namely a "pure" value in our consumer information society (II).

Read the article written in French on the basis à this working paper

Référence complète : Catala, P., La propriété de l'information,  in Le droit à l'épreuve du numérique. Jus ex Machina, coll. "Droit, Éthique, Société",  PUF , Paris, 1998, p.245-262

Lire l'article.

Les étudiants de Sciences-po peuvent consulter l'article par le drive dans le dossier " MAFR- Régulation".