Internet needs to be regulated, but by whom and from what criteria?
The high speed building of very different cases shows the urgency of reflections on the principles.
Consider the case in which just entered the British Regulatory Authority Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). Thiss Authority isn't specific to the Internet but the fact the behavior takes place on the Internet doesn't stop the Regulator, the ASA applying its control on "all media".
An Irish betting company organized bets about a future event: conviction or acquittal of Oscar Pistorus for the death of his fiancée. The latter doesn't deny being the author of the fatal blow but claims that he isn't responsible legally.
The website reproduces the accused of a very recognizable way in the form of an Oscar statuette. This is due to the homonymous first name and the statue of the reward. But this is also a triple ambiguity created by the company.
Secondly the statue can't walk as the athlete si one takes off his prosthetic that made him win races.
Thirdly and more than that, if convicted, he remains in prison, Oscar Pistorum would continue to be deprived of his freedom to come and go, and therefore still unable to "walk" freely, the betting firm indicating that it will reimburses money if the accused will "walk" (out of prison - as a sort of miracle ...).
_____
Watchingthat, more than 5,000 people protested. But before whom? In this excess of regulators, people turn to perhaps the most dynamic: in the UK it is probably the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) .
But what to blame?
One could have said that it is illegal to bet on the outcome of a trial.
One could argue that you can't bet about a terrible history, whose center is the death of a young woman.
But it's rather toward the disability side and "minority rights" that the case is taking shape. Indeed, associations see it as primarily a mockery of people who can't walk.
Without further developed if the ASA takes a position on this advertising that the company has since removed, it will take a strong position in the regulation of the Internet and could for example clarify and prioritize the interests that must be respect in the virtual world.
Economic regulation systems only work if regulators are independent, which implies in a minimal way that they are not corrupt. Few countries meet this basic requirement. Côte d'Ivoire has a telecommunications Agency, which is a State Corporation. By order of March 21, 2012, the Government creates the telecommunications regulatory authority. On May 4, 2012, the Board of Directors of the Agency of telecommunications convened to an extraordinary session and put an end to the mandate of its Director General, because of "serious shortcomings observed in the performance of his duties". He was immediately replaced by a telecommunication engineer, previously technical adviser to the Ministry. He was assigned the mission of preparing the transition of the system to an effectively independent, autonomous and impartial regulator.
A "cookie", so named because its shape recalls the shape of the cake, allows a site to remember the tastes of the user through visits and purchases which he made and decide to reuse this information. A European directive decided to limit these practices, the English legislature has provided the obligation for sites to warn the user that connects that a cookie identifies him and agrees of this acquisition of personal information, the justification for the Act is the protection of personal information that a third party data protection may thus have without the consent of the person concerned.
The Act came into application in the United Kingdom on May 25, 2012. Some companies they say it technically inapplicable, both as relevant information to justify the application of the consent form and what form the consent of the user should take. They are more concerned because the entire device is subjected to penal sanctions.
This shows that the document is primarily intended for investors and financial markets, the document being placed on the company website in the section for the "investors".
This illustrates the evolution from the traditional "contrats de plan" (plan contracts). But then, who are the parties to these types of contract?
Indeed, the very term "Regulatory contract" is new in public Law. It appears as a sort of modernization of "plan contract." The Conseil d'État (French State Council) finally admitted the contractual nature of these planning contracts. In these contracts, are parties were the State and the company in charge of a public service.
Because here the contract is an instrument of "economic regulation" the open public consultation draft rather expresses a global conception of ADP, the company which manages the Paris airports, for the future of the development of critical infrastructure that is the airport as the heart of global development of air transport.
The enterprise manager of the airport in the heart of the contract (rather than the State) in setting objectives for the coming four years is the letter and spirit of the French law of 20 April 2005 about Airports, which put the apparatus of this "Contrat de Régulation Economique" in place.
In this, the infrastructure manager is set by law as a "regulator of second degree", as can be a financial market enterprise. The company that manages and develops the Paris airports undoubtedly belongs to the category of " critical firms", as well it manages the future of the sector and helps to keep France a place in the world.
More, A.D.P. behaves like a Regulator, since it is carrying out the "public consultation", the consultation paper prepared by it, being placed on its site and developing its ambitions for the sector and for France. But A.D.P. also expressed as a financial and economic actor, emphasizing the competitive environment, demanding in passing more stability and clarity in the regulation in which it moves ...
That is why the consultation mechanism provided by the law must be more complex. Indeed, ADP can not be judge and jury. Therefore if the project raises observations, they must be formuled not to ADP but to the Ministries of Aviation and Economy, within a month. They shall communicate theiir content to ADP . Then the Commission consultative aéroportaire (French Airport Consultative Committee) will be consulted. At the end of this process, the "Contrat de Régulation Economique" will be signed.
Seing the end of the process, it remains in line with the plan contracts, since it remains the Economic Regulatory Contract is signed between the State and the essential infrastructure manager. But the consultation process shows firstly investors are the first recipients of the statements made by a privatized company presenting its draft primarily in terms of competitive context and international development and secondly the airlines that use daily services of the airports are also directly involved by theses questions of tarification.
Airlines protest against the increase in the money that will be asked. This will be imposed, since it is tarification and princing public policy. We are in unilateral rules. But it is indeed a "price" they feel to pay, they also heard a speech referring to competition in what the mechanism is presented as a "contract".
But then, does it take to admit that these "contracts for economic regulation" are not between two parties that are the state and the regulator of second degree that is the infrastructure manager but must be three, the State, the infrastructure manager and "stakeholders" that are mainly airlines?
This practical difficulty is much to the fact that the qualification of "contract" is difficult to justify in proceeding in which prevail unilateral mechanisms.
The United Kingdom is probably country of "self-regulation", many academics devote studies, regulators praise its merits, the legislation puts it in place. This is in the area of the press. The electronic media are regulated by OFCOM, but the written press is still self-regulated. British tradition remains so.
La presse britannique, dont on connait la variété du niveau, du Daily Mirror à The Economist et à propos de laquelle les scandales sont nombreux à propos des violations de vie privée et des méthodes pour acquérir les informations, est "autorégulée".
C'est pourquoi un rapport a été publié en 2012, le rapport Leveson, lui-même continuant à recommander l'autorégulation. Sur cette recommandation, a été élaborée le Press Recognition Panel (PRP), entré dans le système juridique par une "Charte royale" le 30 octobre 2013, articulé avec un organe de supervision, le Independent Monitor for the Press (IMPRESS), créé quelques mois plus tard. On ne sait si cela avait bien fonctionné, mais le 8 septembre 2014 le premier organisme est absorbé par le second.
On July 23, 2010 was published the awaited European-wide stress test, a mechanism designed by regulators to restore trust in markets through the mean of transparency. This paper examines the effect of trust on market from an economic perspective as well as from a sociological one. The paper demonstrated how trust, because it aims at achieving transparency which is Regulation’s number one tool, is not only necessary to economic growth but also participates to fulfilling regulatory objectives, such as market stability, risk prevention and consumer protection. Indeed, because Regulation is a mechanism aiming at preventing market failures, it needs as many tools, such as sociological ones (e.g. incentives) it may use to achieve such aim. The paper suggests that transparency is a tool for Regulation since it acts as a communicating vessel between regulatory objectives (microprudential) and supervisory ones (macroprudential), which both contribute to Regulation’s broader objective: the stability of a system.
FRENCH
Article: la régulation par la confiance: l'exemple des stress tests
Le 23 juillet 2010 a été publié le très attendu stress test à l'échelle européenne, un mécanisme conçu par les régulateurs pour restaurer la confiance dans les marchés par la transparence. Cet article examine les effets de la confiance sur les marchés dans une perspective économique et sociologique. L'article démontre en quoi la confiance, parce qu'elle a pour but d'installer la transparence, premier objectif de la Régulation, n'est pas seulement nécessaire à la croissance économique, mais participe également à l'accomplissement d'objectifs régulatoires, comme la stabilité du marché, la prévention du risque et la protection du consommateur. En effet, parce que la Régulation est un mécanisme visant à empêcher les défaillances de marché, elle a besoin d'autant d'instruments, y compris sociologiques (p.ex. les incitations), dont elle peut avoir usage pour atteindre cet objectif. L'article suggère que la transparence est un outil pour la Regulation puisqu'elle joue le rôle de transmetteur entre des objectifs régulatoires (micro-prudentiels) et des objectifs de supervision (macro-prudentiels), qui tous deux contriibuent à l'objectif plus large de la Régulation: la stabilité d'un système.
GERMAN
Artikel: Durch Vertrauern regulieren: das Beispiel den Stress Tests
Am 23. Juli 2010 wurden die erwarteten Ergebnisse den europaweiten Stress Tests bekanntgegeben. Diese Tests wurden von den Regulierungsbehörden dazu erfasst, um das Vertrauern auf Märkten durch Transparenz wiederherzustellen. Dieser Artikel erforscht die Auswirkung von Vertrauern auf Märkten auf einer ökonomischen und soziologischen Perspektive. Er zeigt, inwieweit Vertrauern, das den ersten Ziel der Regulierung, die Transparenz, einsetzen soll, nicht nur notwendig für die Wachstum ist, sondern auch für die Durchsetzung von Regulierungsziele, wie Marktstabilität, Riskverhütung, und Verbraucherschutz. Zwar ist Regulierung ein Mechanismus, das darauf zielt, Marktversagen zu vermeiden, sie braucht so viele Instrumente, einschliesslich soziologische Instrumente (z.B. Anreize), die sie brauchen könnte. Der Artikel deutet an, dass Transparenz ein Instrument der Regulierunh ist, da sie die Übertragung von Regulierungsziele (mikroprudentiel) und Überwachungsziele (makroprudentiel) erlaubt, was zum breiten Ziel der Regulierung beiträgt, und zwar die Systemstabiliserung.
SPANISH
La regulación a base de confianza: el ejemplo del estudio del estrés
El 23 de julio del 2010 fue publicado el muy esperado estudio del estrés, que se llevó a cabo a través de toda Europa, lo cual es un mecanismo diseñado por reguladores para restaurar la confianza en los mercados utilizando el valor medio de la transparencia. Este informe examina el efecto de la confianza sobre el marcado desde una perspectiva económica al igual que desde una perspectiva sociológica. El informe demuestra que la confianza, precisamente porque su objetivo es la transparencia que es el instrumento primordial de la Regulación, no sólo es necesaria para el crecimiento económico, sino que también contribuye a la realización de los objetivos regulatorios, como la estabilidad del mercado, la prevención del riesgo y la protección al consumidor. Por lo tanto, ya que la Regulación es un mecanismo cuyo objetivo es prevenir los fallos del mercado, necesita de la mayor cantidad de instrumentos posibles, como instrumentos sociológicos (por ejemplo, los incentivos), para cumplir con su meta. El informe sugiere que la transparencia es un instrumento para la Regulación ya que actúa como una nave comunicativa entre los objetivos regulatorios (microprudencial) y los objetivos de supervisión (macroprudencial), que juntos contribuyen al objetivo más amplio de la Regulación: la estabilidad del sistema.
ITALIAN
Articolo: Regolazione attraverso la fiducia: l’esempio degli stress test
Il 23 luglio 2010 é stato pubblicato il tanto atteso stress test a livello europeo, un meccanismo ideato dai regolatori al fine di rassicurare i mercati attraversola trasparenza. Tale studio esamina gli effetti della fiducia sul mercato da un punto di vista economico e sociologico. Lo studio dimostra come la fiducia, puntando a raggiungere una maggiore trasparenza, meccanismo primario della regolazione finanziaria, non é solamente necessaria per la crescita economica ma contribuisce inoltre a raggiungere gli obiettivi dei regolatori come la stabilità del mercato, la prevenzione del rischio e la protezione dei consumatori. Inoltre, poiché la regolazione é un meccanismo che vuole evitare i mancati funzionamenti del mercato, sono necessari per raggiungere tale scopo diversi strumenti, tra cui quelli sociologici (ad esempio gli incentivi). Questo studio suggerisce che la trasparenza é uno strumento di regolazione dal momento in cui costituisce il vaso comunicante tra gli obiettivi della regolazione (micropudenziale) e quelli della supervisione (macroprudenziale). Entrambi questi obiettivi contribuiscono al più ampio obiettivo della regolazione: la stabilità di un sistema.
In Estonia, State owns the company Levira Ltd., which operates telecommunications. Meanwhile, the Minister for Economic Affairs which assigns and manages the radio frequencies, numberings and ensures the functioning of the universal service. But a principle of regulation prohibits the cumulation by the state of the quality of regulator and the quality of operator. This is why the European Commission opened an infringement procedure to the right of the European Union against the Estonia 1 July 2012 and asked by a reasoned opinion, to separate clearly its two activities, to ensure the required impartiality attached to the exercise of the powers of regulation.
Each year, the Autorité des marchés financiers (French financial markets regulator), the European Central Bank and the Agence française anti-corruption (French anti-corruption agency) publish risk maps. At first glance, risk maps established by the regulator aim to both help regulator and the regulated company to face risks by anticipating them. These documents would only be an assistance brought to firms in their Compliance mission and not an injunction from the regulator to take into account the risks that it emphasizes.
However, Law forces firms to do their own risk maps under penalty of sanctions. Since the regulator has previously published its own risk map, can companies, obliged to write theirs, deviate from it? If the firm follows the map published by the regulator, can it protect itself against this if it is accused of not having fulfilled its compliance obligations? On the contrary, if the operator does not follow regulator's risk map, can this be blamed on it? Formally, regulator's risk maps do not come with an injunction to take it into account but, as everyone knows, any recommendation from a regulator or supervisor must be taken into account.
The legal solution could here be the implementation of a system of "comply or explain" which would mean that if the firm decides to no follow the risk map established by the regulator, it must be able to justify its choice.
In Luxembourg, a regulator is especially in charge of "cybersecurity". The Cyber Security Board, created by the Act of February 27, 2011, on networks and electronic communications services has been implemented in July 2011. It is chaired by the Ministry of communication and media. On June 4, 2012, this regulator met on 4 June 2012. Based on the law that requires access providers to prevent and manage risks to ensure cyber security, the regulator decided to create a single window to centralize information on the cyber security incidents, information transmitted by the citizens, the regulator then transferring this information to companies for them to take adequate measures to fight the risk against security.
