The computer goes fast, evolves in an instant under the pressure connective intelligence: if one attempts to regulate it by law, you must run at least as much as she, otherwise the law becomes a drag. difficult task, especially if you claim with the rules to get into every little detail before technology and investment have made stable and reliable developments. Also why the Code of digital administration , which changes almost every year now, we are at the presentation of a new text. Just seeing the number of seven different resolutions and opinions, cited in the preamble of this new text to get an idea of the difficulty of the procedure.
We should meditate on a simpler legislation surrenders to detail and points on the principles. However, what is striking is that no one cares to hear users of the technology, because what makes the success of an innovation is not the opinion of the authorities, but the practical utility, which builds liking. And ‘risky, therefore, an excessively top-down approach – italianamente down – to technology, which neglects the practical application.
This new text introduces two innovations at the time of the study, the identification system SPID and government payments node: for some time under construction, the two major Italian Digital Agency innovations still far from being usable and they will necessarily have a first phase of problematic youth. A standardization before the debut of these new products is likely to give a concrete shape to the technology in which this can not then recognize. As well as through the electronic process is chosen by means of legislation in 2009 in the email being felt today its limits, so a standardization of SPID and knot payments before the actual implementation may prove negative rear.
E ‘from then consider whether in particular cyber legislation should be detailed or in principle, if that should describe the technical steps to establish principles or be limited. And in terms of the principles that are less surprising in this project some key principles.
Article. 17 of this bill repeals Article. 20 paragraph 1 of the existing CAD now saying “ The computer document from any format, storage in computer readable transmission by electronic means in conformity with the technical rules laid down in Article 71 are valid and relevant to the legal effects, under the provisions of this code. “
this principle in our legal system since the Bassanini law and also before and whose repeal escapes the logic and scope.
Another principle which is not (art. 43 of the drawing) with this new formulation of CAD is to del’art. 52 paragraph 1 , which stated, in the context of transparency and economics, a public interest on computer data in public administration, the SO-CALLED “Open Data”. True that that of open data had remained largely just a principle without practical applications, but its repeal also takes away the possibility of developments in this regard, it rinunciandosi to the construction of a “connective intelligence” involving public data.
New CAD and PCT
The waiver drawing to a direct application, using the formula applicability of the “mutatis mutandis, and except as otherwise provided” ( article 2 of the drawing, which introduces art. 2 c.6 CAD ), of the CAD telematic process, in spite of everything a major public achievements in computer science in our country and one of the first in the specific subject in the world. Caution and a certain respect, to avoid controversy on how the copies that had occurred at the beginning of 2015 when the implementing rules of the CAD on the copies had threatened to put the electronic process in the knee, which are used in very different forms of copy.
So theoretically this project should have little meaning in the PCT, but in reality there are two aspects that deserve attention.
First is particularly significant allocation (cfr. Art. 19 of the bill amending art. 22 CAD) to the copies made pursuant to the technical rules of CAD , that would not disconoscibili. It is a limit to the powers of the courts and thus the rights of the parties, which creates a new form of public trust, even higher than that of authentic instruments, as against these acts, in case of falsehood, would not be challenged in any remedy.
The second and more serious profile is that Article. 62 paragraph 5 of the drawing crackdown on Article. 52 of the Privacy Act ( Legislative Decree no. 196 of 2003 ), establishing a general obligation of omission of the names of the parts in the publication of case law; currently the case law on electronic document is partly accessible from institutional sites and also to lawyers on their access points. A website powered in this way with the only measures in company law of some only of the Italian Courts recorded in a few years more than one million downloads, reflecting the fact that the case law is a wealth of interest, also cultural, of which the public via the web sharing is important.
In fact the art. 51 of the Privacy Decree establishes the right to know the case law for “ who will also have interest in using electronic communications networks, including the institutional sites of said authorities’ in the network Internet “: here a little right and poorly attuto today. The point is that in the absence of an anonymisation system, the realization of which are missing at least two or three years of work, even the little that today there would be destined to succumb to the introduced ban.
It certainly can not take comfort in that instead, in order to record, what is denied to the citizens, the universities and the professionals, the knowledge of the names of the parties, may instead be disclosed by printing. The forecast then badly coordinates with the right to make anonymous on demand provided by the CAD reform with the reform of paragraph 4 of art. 52 Decree privacy, because the anonymization or is mandatory or on request.
The anonymization on demand contempererebbe the needs of protection of the individual and the operation of the decisions of the databases, which are one of the decisions predictability instrument and are therefore also a deflationary value of processes.
On the other the presence of the parties’ names in its judgments has a high value for the publicity of the trial and the judicial activity, which is the era of the electronic document on a new meaning, as pointedly noted in analysis conducted by the OSCE on access to decisions of the courts via the internet as part of the publicity of jurisdiction under Article. 6 of the ECHR.
Forcing the anonymisation a system unable to get there would be a clear example of how a premature standard aims to expand the rights of citizens actually arrive to compress them.
As we said at the beginning the relationship between norm and technological evolution must be managed with great care and flexibility to avoid compromising innovation and, sometimes, at the same time, the rights of citizens themselves .
No comments:
Post a Comment