[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text]<\/p>\n
The use by the State of algorithmic instruments as part of its sovereign functions is part of the digital transformation. A group of researchers orchestrated by the OPTIC network recently published a small white paper on this subject, which we present here in its essential points.<\/pre>\nJust in time for the Optic Talks 2018 meeting<\/a>, three OPTIC research groups published their work on the impact on society of the current technological revolution. I read the one devoted to Algocracy (downloadable here<\/a>).<\/p>\n
By this neologism is\u00a0meant a power basing its legitimacy on a digital optimization of the management of social information,\u00a0replacing\u00a0that achieved by democracy. A telling example of algocracy would be the\u00a0production of an individual social score from data collected by a digital platform, as is experienced in China today.<\/p>\n
Let us first summarize the subject of this “short white paper”, written under the direction of Pierre Gueydier, Director of Research at OPTIC: to describe concretely the digital instrumentation of the sovereign functions of the State (army, police, justice), by placing it in the historical context the process\u00a0of bureaucratization of modern states, and by questioning the ethical issues it raises.<\/p>\n
By placing their object within the framework of the process of bureaucratization, the authors\u00a0explain the novelty of the technological revolution by situating\u00a0it within the continuity of an ongoing evolution, the defects of which have the advantage of\u00a0seeming to be already well identified: loss of responsibility and “depoliticization”. Their approach is thus to identify how digitalization accentuates these defects, and to prescribe provisions to correct them. Thus autonomous weapons must, according to the conclusions of the authors, always remain under the effective control of operators with human judgment.<\/p>\n
It is remarkable that this text begins by asserting that contemporary thought\u00a0about the question of the sovereign state takes place against the backdrop of “intellectual failure” and the domination of a managerial discourse, whose purpose boils down to transposing private sector methods of management to the public sector because of their presumed better efficiency.\u00a0The authors claim that this\u00a0discourse and these methods\u00a0can’t\u00a0solve the problem of bureaucratization, indeed that they are part of this problem. According to the authors, “debureaucratization” implies the “repolitization” of collective issues. The figure towards which this repolitization seems to converge is that of the judge. The authors advocate giving more power to judges, so that they should remain, or rather become I suppose, masters of algorithmic tools and so that their singular function should not be absorbed within a continuum of administrative management that would\u00a0merge them with the police.<\/p>\n
The authors are reserved on the virtues of the platform state, whose most advanced conceptualizations and achievements however do not seem to have been taken into account by them.<\/p>\n
The work of OPTIC is, as we have said, placed under the sign of an “explicitly Christian” anthropology. The reason for this imperative is obvious: the defense of an open society rests on the intelligence of its often implicit\u00a0functioning conditions, which it is periodically necessary to\u00a0make explicit\u00a0in order to counter certain totalitarian inclinations of power. The criticism of the technological transformation led by OPTIC is ultimately based on the principle of the dignity of the person.<\/p>\n
If there is no reason to question the Christian origin of this principle, it is nevertheless necessary to question its present content, which does not seem immune to interpretations detached from any anthropological basis whatsoever, Christian or other. The terrible ambiguity of any humanitarian utopia can easily be illustrated by\u00a0returning to the discussion of the regulation of autonomous weapons. In the name of “compassion”, of “humanity in conflict”, of the “spirit of forgiveness” and “fraternity”, the authors claim that we cannot “admit totally innovative machines”. But should we not consider that the absence of inhibitions towards the invention and use of totally innovative weapons can perfectly borrow its justification from these same principles or values?<\/p>\n
At least that is what modern history seems to suggest.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.14″ background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial” global_module=”7929″][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_post_nav global_parent=”7929″ _builder_version=”3.14″ in_same_term=”on” background_color=”#3d59a1″ title_font=”|800|||||||” title_text_color=”#ffffff” title_font_size=”16px” custom_padding=”10px|10px|10px|10px” border_color_all=”#3d59a1″ border_width_all=”2px” border_radii=”on|4px|4px|4px|4px” \/][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The use by the State of algorithmic instruments as part of its sovereign functions is part of the digital transformation. A group of researchers orchestrated by the OPTIC network recently published a small white paper on this subject, which we present here in its essential points.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":6696,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"
L'utilisation par l'\u00c9tat d'instruments algorithmiques dans le cadre de ses fonctions r\u00e9galiennes fait partie de la transformation digitale qui emporte actuellement notre soci\u00e9t\u00e9. Un groupe de chercheurs orchestr\u00e9s par le r\u00e9seau OPTIC a r\u00e9cemment publi\u00e9 un petit livre blanc \u00e0 ce sujet, que nous pr\u00e9sentons ici dans ses points essentiels.<\/pre>En amont de la rencontre Optic Talks 2018 (dont nous parlons ici<\/a>), trois groupes de recherche OPTIC ont publi\u00e9 leurs travaux \u00e0 propos de l'impact sur la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de la r\u00e9volution technologique actuelle. J'ai lu celui consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 l'algocratie<\/em> (t\u00e9l\u00e9chargeable ici<\/a>).<\/p>
Par ce n\u00e9ologisme est d\u00e9sign\u00e9 un pouvoir fondant sa l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 sur une optimisation digitale de la gestion de l'information sociale, susceptible de concurrencer celle r\u00e9alis\u00e9e par la d\u00e9mocratie. Un exemple parlant d'algocratie serait la constitution d'un score social individuel \u00e0 partir des donn\u00e9es collect\u00e9es par une plateforme digitale, comme cela est exp\u00e9riment\u00e9 en Chine actuellement.<\/p>
R\u00e9sumons d'abord le propos de ce \"court livre blanc\", \u00e9crit sous la direction de Pierre Gueydier, Directeur de la recherche \u00e0 OPTIC : d\u00e9crire concr\u00e8tement o\u00f9 en est l'instrumentation digitale des fonctions r\u00e9galiennes de l'\u00c9tat (arm\u00e9e, police, justice), en la repla\u00e7ant dans le contexte historique du processus de bureaucratisation des \u00c9tats modernes, et en interrogeant les enjeux \u00e9thiques qu'elle suscite.<\/p>
En inscrivant leur objet dans le cadre du processus de bureaucratisation, les auteurs reconduisent la nouveaut\u00e9 de la r\u00e9volution technologique \u00e0 la continuit\u00e9 d'une \u00e9volution \u00e9tatique entam\u00e9e de tr\u00e8s longue date, dont les d\u00e9fauts ont l'avantage d'appara\u00eetre comme \u00e9tant d\u00e9j\u00e0 bien identifi\u00e9s : la d\u00e9responsabilisation et la d\u00e9politisation. Leur d\u00e9marche consiste ainsi \u00e0 cerner en quoi la digitalisation accentue ces d\u00e9fauts, et \u00e0 prescrire des dispositions permettant de les corriger. Ainsi les armes autonomes doivent, selon les conclusions des auteurs, toujours demeurer sous le contr\u00f4le effectif d'op\u00e9rateurs disposant d'un jugement humain.<\/p>
Il est remarquable que ce texte commence par affirmer que la r\u00e9flexion sur la question de l'\u00c9tat r\u00e9galien a lieu sur fond de \"panne intellectuelle\" et de domination d'un discours manag\u00e9rialiste, dont le propos se r\u00e9sume \u00e0 transposer les m\u00e9thodes de gestion du secteur priv\u00e9 au secteur public en raison de leur pr\u00e9sum\u00e9e meilleure efficacit\u00e9. Ce discours et ces m\u00e9thodes ne r\u00e9soudraient en rien le probl\u00e8me de la bureaucratisation et n'en constitueraient qu'une expression. Selon les auteurs, la \"d\u00e9bureaucratisation\" implique la \"repolitisation\" des enjeux collectifs. La figure vers laquelle cette repolitisation semble converger est celle du juge. Les auteurs pr\u00e9conisent de donner plus de pouvoir aux juges, afin qu'ils restent ma\u00eetres des outils algorithmiques et que leur fonction singuli\u00e8re ne soit pas r\u00e9sorb\u00e9e dans un continuum de gestion administrative qui tendrait \u00e0 les englober avec les forces de l'ordre.<\/p>