In particular, judicial review of administrative action requires changes, both legal and non-legal, in order to be aligned with the new context. Public bodies are meant to be now digital bodies, thus allegedly improving transparency and efficiency of public action. Artificial intelligence is here becoming a relevant instrument to help take decisions but also to completely substitute the decision taken by a human being. Judicial review needs to take account of this reality and be able to control public action under the new circumstances. Doubts arise as to whether the judiciary is fit for the digital age and reforms are necessary to face the new scenario. Furthermore, the judiciary itself is slowly introducing this type of digital tools. An important issue concerns human resources, as public bodies and the judiciary still follow very classical structures and recruitment systems that may not be as adequate as they should be for the digital age.
Security, along with justice and freedom, is an objective pursued by modern constitutions that are threatened in the digital age, which is increasingly technologically complex. The guarantee of citizens and organizations security is as a real challenge for the contemporary State, in the task of combating the risks and crime that lurk in the cyberspace. The Rule of Law has serious difficulties to act in the digital space through its traditional public powers. From this perspective, the presentation synthesizes the central elements of digital security in the digitalization process, in particular of public administrations, as well as the legal categories of Public Law affected by the guarantee of cybersecurity. Some individual and collective security risks in cyberspace are also covered, such as threats to digital identity and legal security on the Internet, as well as the protection of essential services and critical infrastructures.
The use of the internet, social networks and artificial intelligence tools of the digital age can abuse, even endanger, certain elements of our democratic rule of law. Different digital tools provided by technology, including artificial intelligence, have given citizens an unlimited and unfiltered communication mechanism. However, these tools have also become a powerful ally of authoritarian states and extremist ideological currents, which have found in this technological toolkit a subtle, almost invisible and therefore barely accountable way of influencing and manipulating the view of their citizens. If artificial intelligence determines what information is displayed and consumed, which issues are suppressed from the online information flood and which are amplified virally, this also carries risks of bias and unequal representation of opinions and voices. How to fight against these information disorders without losing the advantages of digitalisation and AI? This is the question.
Ditialisation and its widespread use by citizens has given rise to a new relationship space and, also, a new space where crimes are committed. If we take into consideration that violent manifestations against women, just because they are women, do not cease, the virtual space was certainly not going to be an exception. Violence against women, considered a violation of human rights by the Istanbul Convention, has increased with the use of technology. The digital space boots the emergence and maintenance of situations of control that manifest themselves in criminal actions that affect legal assets such as privacy, dignity and moral integrity, in a much more virulent way in this space, and especially in relation to increasingly younger victims. The definition of what is understood by technological crime and which of them are not gender-neutral, and the delimitation of the concept of violence against women, is the essential objective of this intervention.
The Venice Commission points out the fundamental right of suffrage, free, universal, equal, direct, and secret as the skeleton key of political participation processes in democracy: the European electoral heritage, a sort of common standard on electoral processes. Technology has transformed the right to suffrage. Today, States like the USA, Germany, France, Italy, Norway, Spain, Estonia, and others are regulating e-voting in legal terms. Each model designs different types of e-voting, and in that sense, the Pratchett report says that e-voting must be distinguished from internet voting. The legal regulations aren’t homogeneous, some cases are binding acts, but others prefer soft rules without compulsory effects. The German Constitutional Court judgment of 2009, the Norwegian case (failed attempt of constitutional reform about e-voting), the advanced Estonian regulation or the e-voting European council recommendations of 2004 and 2017 are examples of the multiple-speed global scenario.
The advance of digitalization is transforming the world of work and challenging the universe of fundamental rights built around it. The right to privacy of workers, the right to data protection, the right to freedom of association and the right of collective bargaining, as well as the right to social protection are being challenged by labour narratives and practices of digital economy companies. This makes it necessary to reassert the presence of such rights at the heart of human-based technological development. However, it is also necessary to resignify these rights, so they are strengthened in a new technological context.