Sept. 8, 2019
BY BASIC TECHNOLOGY, MANY SITES BLOCKTHE INTERNET USERS THE POSSIBILITY TO SAY "NO":THEY "CONSENT" TO TRANSFER THEIR PERSONAL DATA, WITHOUT OTHER TECHNOLGICAL CHOICES THAN THAT OF "ALL ACCEPT". THE LINK BETWEEN "CONSENT" AND "FREE WILL" IS THEREFORE BROKEN
Updated: July 4, 2019 (Initial publication: April 30, 2019)
Complete reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Have a good behavior in the digital space, working paper2019.
This working document serves as a basis for a contribution to the collective book dedicated to Professor Michel Vivant, article written en French.
The jurist sees the world through the way he learns to speak
The Law of the Environment has already come to blur this distinction, so finally so strange because this classical conception refers to a person taken firstly in his immobility (Law of individuals), and then in his only actions (Contrats and Tort Law, Property Law). Indeed, the very notion of "environment" implies that the person is not isolated, that he/she is "surrounded", that he/she is what he/she is and will become because of what surrounds him/her ; in return the world is permanently affected by his/her personal action. On second thought, when once "Law of Individuals" was not distinguished from Family Law, the human being was more fully restored by this division in the legal system that not only followed him/her from birth to death but also in him/her most valuable interactions: parents, siblings, couples, children. Thus Family Law was finer and more faithful to what is the life of a human being.
To have instituted Law of Individuals, it is thus to have promoted of the human being a vision certainly more concrete, because it is above all of their identity and their body about what Law speaks, astonishing that the we have not noticed before that women are not men like the othersTo have instituted the Law of the people, it is thus to have promoted of the human being a vision certainly more concrete, because it is above all of his identity and his body that one speaks to us, astonishing that the we have not noticed before that women are not men like the others
From this concrete vision, we have all the benefits but Law, much more than in the eighteenth century, perceives the human being as an isolated subject, whose corporeality ceases to be veiled by Law
This freedom will come into conflict with the need for order, expressed by society, social contract, state, law, which imposes limits on freedom of one to preserve freedom of the other, as recalled by the French Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme of 1789. Thus, it is not possible de jure to transform every desire in action,, even though the means would be within reach of the person in question, because certain behaviors are prohibited in that they would cause too much disorder and if they are nevertheless committed, they are punished for order to return. Thus, what could be called "law of behavior", obligations to do and not to be put in criminal, civil and administrative Law, national and international Law, substantial Law and procedural Law :they will protect the human being in movment pushed by the principle of freedom forward others and thing, movement inherent in their status as a Person.
The human being is therefore limited in what they wants to do. In the first place by the fact: their exhausting forces, their death that will come, the time counted, the money that is lacking, the knowledge that they does not even know not to hold, all that is to say by their very humanity; Secondly, by the Law which forbids so many actions ...: not to kill, not to steal, not to take the spouse of others, not to pass as true what is false, etc. For the human being on the move, full of life and projects, Law has always had a side "rabat-joy". It is for that reason often ridiculed and criticized because of all its restraining regulations, even hated or feared in that it would prevent to live according to our desire, which is always my "good pleasure", good since it is mine. Isolated and all-powerful, the human being alone not wanting to consider other than his desire alone.
Psychoanalysis, however, has shown that Law, in that it sets limits, assigns to the human being a place and a way of being held with respect to things and other persons. If one no longer stands themselves by the prohibition of the satisfaction of all desire (the first of which is the death of the other), social life is no longer possible
But this presentation aims to make it possible to admit that the criterion of Law would be in the effectiveness of a sanction by the public power: the fine, the prison, the confiscation of a good, which the rudeness does not trigger whereas Law would imply it: by this way we are thus persuaded of the intimacy between the public power (the State) and Law... But later, after this first lesson learned, the doubt comes from the consubstansuality between Law and State. Is it not rather appropriate to consider that Law is what must lead everyone to "behave well" with regard to things and people around them? The question of punishment is important, but it is second, it is not the very definition of Law. The French author Carbonnier pointed out that the gendarme's "kepi" is the "Law sign", that is to say what it is recognized without hesitation, but it is not its definition.
The first issue dealt with by Law is then not so much the freedom of the person as the presence of others. How to use one's freedom and the associated deployment of forces in the presence of others? How could I not use it when I would like to harm them, or if the nuisance created for them by the use of my free strength is indifferent to me
We do not use our force against others because we have interest or desire, we do not give him the support of our strength while he indifferent us, because Law holds us. If the superego was not enough. If Law and the "parental function of the States" did not make alliance. We do it because we hold ourselves
Or rather we were holding ourselves.
Because today a new world has appeared: the digital world that allows everyone not to "hold" himself, that is to say to constantly abuse others, never to take them into consideration, to attack massively. It's a new experience. It is not a pathological phenomenon, as is delinquency (which simply leads to punishment), nor a structural failure in a principle otherwise admitted (which leads to regulatory remedies) but rather a new use, which would be a new rule: in the digital space, one can do anything to everyone, one is not held by anything or anyone, one can "let go" (I). This lack of "good behavior" is incompatible with the idea of Law, in that Law is made for human beings and protect those who can not afford to protect themselves; that is why this general situation must be remedied (II).
Cornu, G., Linguistique juridique, 2005.
Frison-Roche, M.-A. & Sève, R., Le Droit au féminin (ed.), 2003.
Under this "mask" of the "subject of Law", we are all equal. S. Archives de Philosophie du Droit, Le sujet de droit, 1989.
Baud, J.P., L'affaire de la main volée. Histoire juridique du corps humain, 1993.
Read the article of Alain Supiot about the idée of Rule common of all, under the discussion between all, presented by this author through the artwork of Kafka : "Kafka, artiste de la loi", 2019; Kafka is very present in the work of Alain Supiot, for example in his First Lesson in the Collège de France, 2012, or in an Introduction of La Gouvernance par les nombres ; This latter book is now available in English : Governance by numbers. The making a legal model of allegiance, 2017 (translated by S. Brown).
That's why splitting Persons Law and Family Law masks another reality: the family is not made up of third parties. The links are there. They pre-exist. Starting from the only Persons Law pushes to think one can "build" his/her family by links drawn on white paper: the contracting of the families made up of individuals becomes thinkable, even natural.
April 16, 2018
It is about a particular case that one can rephrase the general questions. If the case is hot, it is even more important to return to the general questions, which are always colder (more boring, too).
Thus, Cambridge Analytica is a case of which everyone speaks a lot ... It is at the same time particular and very burning.
So we talk about it a lot, and with vehemence, and in a way often definitive, as well in attack as in defense.
For the prosecution, there are many advocacies, gathered for example in the Guardian's files.
For the defense, we find less. But one can read for example the article that has been published in early April 2018: Why (almost) everything reported about the Cambridge Analytica Facebook 'hacking' controversy is wrong.
The number of comments, and their more or less inflamed nature, in any case always definitive, does not mean anything in itself.
The regulators took the floor a little later, both in a more concrete way, the "group of 29" (bringing together all the European Regulators personal data) establishing the 11 April 2018 a working group on this subject and publishing April 10, 2018 new guidelines on the place that must be made to "consent".
But for the moment, if we loof at the media, it looks like a trial, because everyone claims to be entirely right and pretends that the other is entirely wrong. Trial to break the truth and virtue, say the accusers. Trial in witchcraft, says Facebook. And it's always up to us.
Because all this is probably due to the fact that we are no longer spectators: we are placed in the judge's position. The financial market was the first judge. It has already condemned. Without really trying to find out. This is because the public good of the financial markets is Trust, it is enough that one can even suspect the wife of Caesar, and so it is not really matter of truth of the facts and goof application of Rule of Law.
For the public opinion that we are, this is something else, because we could wait to know more. And we should, since we seek to remain a little attached to the "truth " of the facts and respect for the Rule of Law. However, this case is complex and is above all a matter of judicial analysis which will come and which we cannot lead ourselves, both in terms of the facts-which are complex-as well as the rules of law to be applied which are equally so.
What turns us into a court, an ordinary sociological phenomenon, is a new legal mechanism: the "whistleblower". By nature, it gives the bonus to the Attack
This logic of the legal mechanism of the whistleblower, a movement of fact to throw facts as one throws a buoy outside but one could also say stones on the firm that the insider denounces, logic today encouraged and protected by the Law, allows a person who knows something, most often because he participated, to let everyone know, without a filter. To denounce it. For the public good..
The successive texts on the whistleblower are nrms of a Compliance Law
The case is exemplary of this, since Facebook is "denounced" only in second place, behind Cambridge Analytica, but the notoriety and power of the first makes that it is hit first. French law in the so-called "Sapin 2 Act " of 2016 has ensured to protect the company denounced, but British and American Law are more violent, probably because they encourage more the private enforcement.
Temporality is therefore favorable to the attack. The time of the defense is always slower. It is usually the people in situations of weakness who suffer it: slowness of justice, justice outside courthouses, etc. With Compliance mechanisms, it is probably the very powerful who will live this. It is not a matter of rejoicing: the misfortune of some (here the difficulty of a company hasty "judged") does not console in any way the misfortune of others (the difficulty of ordinary beings accused or having only the right to protect themselves to reach concretely a judge and really get a judgment executed, even as they are in their right).
But if we go to general questions, since on the facts of this case we don't have the means to appreciate them, nor on the rules which apply to them, we cannot apply them in an adequate way until a court will have exercised its office?
However, the general perspectives highlighted by this singular case are two orders: Probationary order (I) and Accountability order (II).
Dec. 7, 2017
Référence complète : FRISON-ROCHE, M.-A., Il faut construire un dispositif européen de compliance, voilà l'avenir !, in Actualité/Entretien, Petites Affiches, propos recueillis par Olivia DUFOUR, n° 244, 7 déc. 2017, pp. 4-6.
Entretien donné à propos de la sortie de l'ouvrage Régulation, Supervision, Compliance.
Réponse aux questions suivantes :
Updated: Oct. 25, 2017 (Initial publication: May 27, 2016)
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
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.
S. for ex. Frison-Roche, M.-A., Les deux mondialisations (The two globalizations), written en French,
Updated: June 18, 2016 (Initial publication: Nov. 8, 2015)
This Working paper will be used to support an French written article to be published in a book, set in the Regulations Series, Dalloz Publishing
This working paper was the basis for intervention in the symposium organized by the 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
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 market self-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.
Feb. 12, 2016
Thesaurus : 08. Juridictions du fond
Lorsqu'un Internaute a recours aux services de FaceBook, il accepte les "conditions générales" dans lesquelles sont insérées des stipulations diverses, par lesquelles une clause attributive de compétence territoriale aux juridictions de Santa Clara (Californie).
Certes, cette clause est nulle en droit de la consommation, mais FaceBook, assigné par un internaute devant un Tribunal de Paris, affirme que le droit de la consommation n'est pas applicable car il ne s'agit pas d'un "contrat de consommation" puisqu'il s'agit du rapport de gratuité.
La Cour d'appel de Paris ne retient pas cette argumentation tirée de la "gratuité" et constate au contraire que FaceBook en retire des bénéfices très importants et qu'il s'agit d'un contrat d'adhésion régi par le droit des clauses abusives et du Règlement communautaire de protection des consommateurs.
La Cour d'appel relève que le Règlement communautaire confère au consommateur le droit de saisir le juge de son domicile, que le Code de la consommation protège le consommateur contre la privation de fait de son droit d'action, ce à quoi équivaut l'obligation de saisir pour un internaute français une juridiction californienne, "entrave sérieuse à son droit d'action en justice" et "déséquilibre significatif entre les droits et obligations des parties".
C'est pourquoi la Cour d'appel de Paris confirme l'Ordonnance par laquelle le Président du Tribunal de Grande instance de Paris a déclaré non-écrite la clause attributive de compétence et déclaré compétent le Tribunal de grande instance de Paris sais par l'internaute contre FaceBook.
Oct. 23, 2014
Accéder à la présentation du colloque.
Ce Working paper a servi également de base à un article paru dans la Revue Concurrences.
Parce qu'il est difficile de réguler un "marché biface", sauf le temps fugace du contrôle des concentrations, l'idée accessible est de réguler directement l'entreprise qui tire tout son pouvoir de sa position sur une telle structure de marché.
On peut, comme le propose le Conseil d'État, dans son Rapport annuel Le numérique et les droits fondamentaux, considérer que la prise en considération par le droit de cette situation nouvelle doit prendre la forme d'une reconnaissance de la notion de "plateforme", pour l'ériger en catégorie juridique et lui associer une obligation de loyauté, sous la surveillance du régulateur des données personnelles.
L'on peut aussi recourir à une notion plus générale, ici utilisée, d'"entreprise cruciale", à laquelle correspondent des entreprises comme Google, FaceBook, Amazon, etc., parce que ces entreprises remplissent les critères de la définition, à la fois négative et positive de l'entreprise cruciale. La puissance publique est alors légitime, sans que l'État ait à devenir actionnaire, à se mêler de la gouvernance des entreprises et à surveiller les contrats, voire à certifier ceux-ci, comme en finance, sans exiger de l'entreprise ainsi régulée un comportement moral, car ces entreprises privées doivent par ailleurs poursuivre leur fin naturelle constituée par le profit, le développement et la domination, moteur du développement économique. Le développement technologique des plateformes n'en serait pas entravé, tandis que l'aliénation des personnes que l'on peut craindre pourrait être contrée.
Oct. 4, 2014
Un couple divorce. L'enfant a sa résidence habituelle chez le père (ce que l'on continue le mécanisme de "garde").
La mère de l'enfant, alors âgée de 8 ans, ouvre à celle-ci un compte FaceBook.
Au bout de quelque temps, le père saisit le Juge aux Affaires Familiales (JAF) pour obtenir la fermeture de ce compte.
Le juge ne le déboute pas, en estimant que cela ne relève pas de son office.
Au contraire, il y procède, en estimant qu'il est de l'intérêt de cette enfant qu'elle ne dispose plus d'un compte FaceBook, en ce que celui-ci a contribué à la "désocialiser".
Cela justifie donc pour les juges de première instance, comme pour les juges d'appel dans leur arrêt du 2 septembre 2014, qu'un ordre soit donné à la mère de l'enfant de fermer immédiatement le compte.