THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
32
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
PUBLISHED DATE: - 10-11-2024
DOI: -
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajssei/Volume06Issue11-04
PAGE NO.: - 32-44
NEW PERSPECTIVES IN CONTEMPORARY
LAW
Adriana-Iuliana STANCU
Director of the Legal Sciences Department, Faculty of Law and Administrative Sciences,
Associate Professor PhD, “Dunărea de Jos” University of Galati, Romania
INTRODUCTION
Currently, artificial intelligence (AI) is used in
more and more fields, both in the private and
public sectors, affecting everyday life. It has even
been suggested that AI would represent the end of
human control over machines. On another, more
positive note, this technology is believed to help
humanity meet some of the most pressing
challenges it faces.
Related to legal reason, penetrating the depths of
artificial intelligence is a great challenge both for
the legal system itself and for the legislature.
Although there are a multitude of similar tasks in
the artificial intelligence system, with those of
people, that the system can solve, the difference is
essential, compared to human intelligence, as a
foundation. Thus, we can discuss the
consciousness of free will, which cannot be picked
up by an artificial intelligence algorithm, to try it.
Artificial intelligence also has problems with
respecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of
people, a fact that resides in the exercise of the
supervision process of people or when court
decisions are pronounced, a fact that is reflected in
the respect or non-respect of the right to private
life or the right to a fair trial, depending on the field
tackled by artificial intelligence.
So, it remains to answer the essential question for
human existence, related to the rights and
freedoms that will or will not be respected by
applying the rules of artificial intelligence, and to
what extent the mentioned rights will be violated.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
Abstract
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
33
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
Aspects of The Right to Privacy in the Digital
Age
There is a European model that places respect for
private life among other individual rights and
freedoms by constantly reporting to the limits of
the exercise of all the rights and freedoms of other
people.
This individual right to private life is based, from
this perspective, on the weighted equivalence
between individual interests and general interests.
This fact is, among others, the primary idea that we
find in the judgments of the Strasbourg Court
pronounced in the motivated cases based on the
provisions of art. 8 of the Convention.
The phrase “private life” does not have a defined
definition in the legal provisions, although we find
it in the fundamental law of the country as well as
in special laws. This situation is found in most legal
systems and international provisions are no
exception.
In fact, the right to respect for private life refers to
the freedom that people must live their lives
according to their own wishes, without anyone else
being able to interfere in this area protected by
law. This meaning of the phrase actually signifies
private life in the true sense of the words, including
family life, that lived in the family home, the
physical and mental integrity of the person, his
moral integrity, the right to honor, the right to
reputation, to be presented in a real light, to the
non-disclosure of intimate, even embarrassing
facts, unnecessary for public knowledge, to the
non-publication of private photographic images,
without prior authorization, the right to real
protection against acts of espionage or
indiscretions of any kind, both with regard to those
without justification as well as those inadmissible,
in principle, to the abusive use of private
communications, of any kind, to the protection of
information from communications of any kind
between two or more people, in particular.
At the national level, there are legal provisions
specifically intended to protect private life, such as
art. 71 Civil Code, att. 26 of the Constitution, art.
156 of the Criminal Procedure Code, etc. Which are
supplemented by the provisions in the
international field.
Article 71 of the Civil Code, generically named:
Respect for private life and the dignity of the
human person, includes the fact that regardless of
the quality of the person, he has the opportunity to
request respect for the right to his private life, not
being subject to any interference in his intimate
life, his own or his family's , nor in his domicile,
residence or correspondence, without requesting
his consent or without observing limits such as
those existing in article 75 of the Civil Code.
Paragraph 3 of Article 71 of the Civil Code also
requires the use in bad faith, in any way, of
correspondence, personal writings or other
personal documents, as well as information from
the person's private life, without their consent or
with non-compliance with the limits established in
Article 75 of the Civil Code.
The limits provided for in Article 75 are clear: it
does not constitute a violation of the rights that are
allowed by the law or by the international
conventions and pacts regarding human rights to
which Romania is a party. At the same time, the
exercise of constitutional rights and freedoms in
good faith and with the signing of international
pacts and conventions to which Romania is a party
does not constitute a violation of the rights
provided for in this section.
Another law that provides for the right to intimate,
family and private life is the fundamental law, the
Constitution of Romania, which, in Chapter II -
Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, in Article 26,
talks about the fact that “public authorities respect
and protect intimate, family and private life. The
natural person has the right to dispose of himself,
if he does not violate the rights and freedoms of
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
34
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
others, public order or good morals.”
Another legal text from the national level that
regulates issues regarding private life is article 156
of the Code of Criminal Procedure which, in
paragraph 2, provides for limits on home, div, IT
or vehicle searches, in the sense that this can be
implemented with respect for dignity, without
constituting disproportionate interference in
private life.
Internationally, the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the EU, Convention 108 of the Council of
Europe, the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms, Directive 95/46/EC of October 24,
1995, Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of
Council of November 27, 2008, European Data
Protection Authority, etc.
Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental
Rights recognize that respect for private life and
the protection of personal data are closely related
but separate fundamental rights. The Charter is
integrated into the Treaty of Lisbon and has
binding legal force on the institutions and bodies of
the European Union, as well as on the Member
States when they implement EU law.
Convention 108 of the Council of Europe for the
protection of individuals with regard to automated
processing of personal data of January 28, 1981 is
the first international instrument with binding
legal force adopted in the field of data protection.
Its purpose is “to guarantee [...] to each natural
person [...] the respect of his fundamental rights
and freedoms and, in particular, the right to private
life, with regard to the automated processing of
personal data concerning him”.
In recent years, however, due to technological
development, in the case of the emergence of
artificial intelligence, despite the previously
mentioned regulations, the respect for the right to
private life can still be affected by the intrusion
that certain biometric systems such as facial
recognition achieve. This will make the individual
always feel controlled and watched, which will
cause him to behave in a certain way, a certain
submission to his own person, which must
correspond to the surveillance created.
One of the main goals of man is to succeed in being
happy in the privacy of our life. Artificial
intelligence comes precisely to eliminate this state
of tranquility that the privacy of our home creates.
The solution would be some limits on the level of
surveillance and visibility created by AI. It is also
possible for the AI to be, in one form or another,
permanently connected to a person, learning
details about it at every moment.
The question we can ask would be: did the person
in question give his consent to be thus tracked at
every moment or even only at the moment of
interaction with the AI? Was she aware of the
magnitude of the situation? Did he give his consent
to have his pulse taken or to know details about his
illnesses, treatments or daily schedule or
emotional state, where he was, what conversations
he had and with whom? Or did he only agree to
have his health monitored or just his work
schedule? How can the data that an AI can know
about us be protected? How intimate, how deep
can it be right to allow an AI to “verify” us? If, for
example, the AI discloses the personal data to
someone else, or to another AI, which takes them
for purposes other than those known to the person
concerned?
Protection of Personal Data in terms of Privacy
Personal data have a special regime after the
adoption of European and international
regulations. Convention 108, Article 8 ECHR,
combines the classical aspect of the problem with
the modern international character. The right to
private life was and is an existential right of the
person, regardless of the nuances adopted,
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
35
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
throughout time.
This fundamental personal right has at least two
regulations at the European level: on the one hand
in the Council of Europe but also in the European
Union as an organization of Member States, of
which Romania is also a part. Thus, after May 2018,
when Regulation (EU) 679/2016 entered into
force on the protection of natural persons
regarding the processing of personal data and on
the free movement of such data, which repealed
Directive 95/4 6/CE from the same field, known as
the
General
Data
Protection
Regulation
(RGPD/GDPR), a Regulation that has become
mandatory for the signatory Member States.
In confronting artificial intelligence with personal
data, the privacy of individuals and their
protection must be particularly considered. These
data include information specific to individuals,
respectively those regarding personal, public,
professional life, information that delimits the
physical or physiological identity, the physical
address of the person or his digital address, which
can be found on websites, in medical data,
information that can be only in relation to digital
access codes.
That is why it is necessary to define the retrieval,
processing of personal data, notions that involve
and any operation that is done with them, by
another person. This data is at the fingertips of
artificial intelligence, which, in a relatively short
period of time, can discern the most private things
that a person possesses. These can refer to medical
data such as blood pressure, bolilichronics that he
has or the composition of his blood, physical or
digital addresses can be obtained, where he
traveled and with whom, what the private
discussions had consisted of, including the
accounts his banking.
All these aspects were considered when
establishing the GDPR, which includes in art. 22
automated decision making. This provision refers
to a right, which is not the same as the right to
object to the taking of these decisions, but also the
fact that this is generally allowed, if there is no
opposition from the person concerned. In the best
case, a ban is established for those who operate, in
the sense that automated decisions do not have the
right to affect the persons to whom they are given,
of course if it is not part of the exceptions expressly
provided in art. 22 paragraph 2.
Regarding the application of the indicated
prohibition, four conditions are sufficient: thus, a
decision must be taken, then it must be based only
on automatic processing, it must include profiling,
and last but not least, it must have a statutory or, at
worst, significant effect.
The initial condition involves establishing an
attitude towards a certain person but also
maintaining this option in the long term.
The second condition establishes that the persons
have no actual involvement in obtaining the
expected result through the decision-making
process, even when the final decision is given, or
officially conferred on a person. The condition,
however, is not fulfilled if the system is used only
as a decision support tool for the people who are
responsible for this decision, determine the merits
of each case and deliberate individually whether to
take the system's indications into account or not.
The following condition set out involves
automated and decision-making processing to
include profiling processing. This different
interpretation was suggested by a comma placed
between the word processing and the phrase
including profiling from the provisions of article 22
para. 1, from which it follows with certain doubts
that profiling can be considered an optional part of
the type of prohibited automated decisions, with
principal value.
The fourth condition imperatively suggests that
this decision be productive of legal effects
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
36
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
regarding the targeted person, or, in the same way,
involve him negatively.
Regarding the list of artificial intelligence systems
inapplicable according to the law, the recently
voted Regulation on artificial intelligence basically
limits the types of artificial intelligence under its
empire, compared to the GDPR provisions
analyzed previously, which include a stop from
general application for software that compiles
decisions only through automatic processing and
that brings important touches to the analyzed
person.
Regulation of Artificial Intelligence in Europe
and Romania
Defining artificial intelligence, we cannot fail to
recognize that it belongs entirely to computer
science, which has created systems that can
successfully replace human intelligence in
performing certain tasks.
The tasks it performs are multiple and aim at the
study of language, its interpretation, notions of
visual perception, identifying discussions, solving
a wide range of problems and of course, an
important role in making decisions. The only
approach that surpasses artificial intelligence at
this moment is the manifestation of legal will, that
is, the creation, modification or extinguishment of
legal relations to produce legal effects.
One of the difficult problems in the political-
economic field is to give an orientation to the
growth of artificial intelligence towards noble
goals from a social and moral point of view, which
is realized in maintaining the standard of living,
respect for fundamental human rights, for his
creative independence, for the protection of
private and family life, efficiency in human
support, democratic presence, equity and respect
for diversity, prudence, responsible knowledge
and sustainable development.
For the development of civil society's trust in
artificial intelligence, a deep knowledge of its
mechanisms as well as of the new challenges it
constantly promotes is required. In other words, it
is necessary to build an artificial intelligence
around and for the benefit of the person,
responsible but also comprehensive, to eliminate
or reduce the risks that appear in society when
using these new technologies.
The rise of digital accountability raises ethical
issues that grow exponentially with the
implementation of AI-enforced techniques. By
virtue of the above, for the impact of artificial
intelligence on current users and beneficiaries to
be positive, referring here to users from public
services, litigants, clients, patients or other types of
consumers, it is necessary to develop algorithm
legislation that to form the basis of a new branch of
interoperable law, to guarantee the legality of the
application of artificial intelligence.
In other words, in order to create a norm that
directs the activity of artificial intelligence and that
is predictable and predictable, ensuring society's
control over algorithms, a legal regulation is
required in the normative process, and everything
must be done through the lens of compliance with
international norms, fundamental rights, namely
precisely those that can be affected by the
application of artificial intelligence, i.e. the right to
private life, to the protection of one's personal
data, to non-discrimination or to human dignity,
the right to equality, the right to a fair trial, the
presumption of innocence, the right to privacy, etc.,
because fundamental human rights cannot be
waived under any condition. Finding the middle
ground makes artificial intelligence a major impact
factor and paves the way for a new branch of law.
In the last period, the European Union through its
institutions together with the Council of Europe
have attempted an assessment on the effects of
artificial intelligence in several areas of interest,
co-opting a considerable number of experts in the
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
37
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
field and laying the foundations for the operation
of an impressive number of commissions to create
reports, legislative proposals, studies and
recommendations.
Only in 2018, to respect the rights in the Charter,
the European Commission created a Group of
experts in the field, at the highest level, to develop
ethical norms for artificial intelligence, so that it
can be used without violating the rights of
individuals. Thus, the experts established a
definition of AI ethics, from the point of view of
implementing the application and use of Artificial
Intelligence. The question of an applied ethics that
relates to real life and not to utopian life has been
raised. The group of experts also outlined the
principles of this ethics, such as respecting the
person from the point of view of their autonomy,
not causing damage resulting from AI activity, a
wide degree of explainability, which does not
exclude equity in the activity.
Thus, on 19.02.2020, the European Commission
came up with a White Paper related to AI activity,
based on excellence, but also on trust, which starts
from the ethical guidelines established ab initio for
trust-based AI, identified at the level by High-Level
Appointed Expert Group. The commission took
over the major points presented by the expert
group related to man as a person and his control;
technical validity and safety; privacy and data
mastery;
clarity;
multilateralism,
non-
discrimination and fidelity; social and ecological
prosperity; liability.
In the same period, under the patronage of the
Council of Europe, more precisely in December
2018, the European Commission for the Efficiency
of Justice (CEPEJ) created the European Ethics
Charter for the use of artificial intelligence in the
judicial systems but also in their working
environment, in order to set a limit of unsurpassed
for all participants, i.e. people with quality in
design, decision-makers in legislation, magistrates,
social and economic participants - at the time of the
development and dissemination of advanced
technology in the area of justice, i.e. the area where
fundamental rights are discerned.
The charter is intended to be a guiding tool for the
entire public policy, as the authors themselves
discuss at the beginning of the paper, showing the
utility of a continuously monitored and evaluated
application. The principles shown - but which do
not have the force of law - should be considered as
a strong start to the use of artificial intelligence in
justice, the term “use” covering the entire chain
from production and design to the evaluation
module of the implementation of AI in everyday
activity.
The charter establishes five principles that must be
protected in the area of AI and justice, and which
use European values of law:
-
The principle of respecting fundamental
rights by ensuring the situation in which the design
and use of AI concepts and services are in
resonance with fundamental rights;
-
The principle of non-discrimination through
the use of specific tools in the fight against
discrimination, its increase or amplification
between persons or groups of persons;
-
The principle of quality and security, which
relates to obtaining decisions but also judicial data,
using recognized sources and types created
multidisciplinary, with an approved technology;
-
The principle of transparency, impartiality
and correctness by maintaining in good conditions
the possibility of access and the penetration of data
transformation methods, the authorization of
external quality checks;
-
The principle of “user control” by removing
prescriptive approaches and ensuring that users
are knowledgeable in the field and can verify their
choices.
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
38
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
On the way to the adoption of the world's first
normative act on artificial intelligence, we recall
the recent interim agreement between the
European Parliament and the Council of the
European Union, concluded after intense
negotiations on December 8, 2023.
The main objective of the draft regulation was to
ensure security and respect for fundamental rights
when implementing AI systems on the European
market. By adopting a risk-based approach, the
rules proposed in the AI Bill will become more
stringent as the risks associated with a particular
AI system increase. The proposal is a landmark
global initiative that has the potential to set
standards for the regulation of artificial
intelligence, similar to GDPR's impact on data
protection.
Key elements of the interim agreement:
-
it is proposed to create a revised
management system, with implementation powers
at the level of the European Union;
-
the agreement expands the list of
prohibitions, including the use of remote biometric
identification in public spaces, subject to detailed
regulations;
-
entities deploying high-risk AI systems will
be required to carry out a fundamental rights
impact assessment before launching the AI system.
The agreement provides for large fines for
violations of the AI Act, setting fines as a
percentage of global annual turnover or fixed
amounts, whichever is greater. These sanctions
include prohibited uses of AI, violations of the
obligations set out in the AI Law and providing
false information.
Prohibited Practices according to the New
Legislative Proposal
An example of a practice prohibited by the AI Act is
marketing, operating or using an artificial
intelligence system that uses subliminal
techniques, without the knowledge of humans, to
significantly distort a person's behavior in a way
that causes or is likely to cause physical or mental
harm to the person or another person.
For example, cognitive-behavioral manipulation,
storage of randomly obtained facial images, and
emotion recognition are not permitted in
workplace and educational settings. These
prohibitions are in place to prevent unacceptable
risks associated with certain practices.
-
Example no. 1:
Consider an artificial intelligence system used in a
corporate environment to analyze employee
performance. This system uses subliminal
techniques through emotion recognition tools.
During job interviews or daily work activities, the
system collects information about employees'
facial expressions, tone of voice and other non-
verbal signals without their knowledge of the
process.
Subliminal practices may include manipulating
this data to influence management decisions or
create a tense work environment. For example, the
system may incorrectly assess the emotional state
of employees and suggest actions or feedback that
negatively affect their mental well-being, leading
to stress, anxiety or other psychological harm.
-
Example no. 2:
Let's consider another scenario where a company
uses an artificial intelligence system in the
employee recruitment process. This system is
based on advanced algorithms for analyzing
behavior during job interviews, including
recognizing emotions and interpreting candidates'
facial expressions. During video interviews or
online interactions, the system collects and
analyzes candidates' non-verbal data to assess
their cultural compatibility and potential team
performance.
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
39
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
However, this practice raises serious ethical and
legal questions. The widespread use of emotion
recognition technology in the recruitment process
can lead to discrimination or incorrect evaluations,
and the incorrect interpretation of facial
expressions can affect the fairness and objectivity
of the recruitment process.
Under the current legislative proposals, this
inappropriate use of artificial intelligence in the
context of employment would violate these legal
provisions, threatening the fundamental rights of
candidates and the integrity of the recruitment
process.
-
Example no. 3:
Let's say that in the education sector there is an
artificial intelligence system used to assess
students. This system relies on advanced facial and
voice recognition techniques to analyze student
reactions during classes or exams, automatically
recording facial expressions, voice tone and other
non-verbal characteristics. Practices prohibited by
the proposed new legislation include using this
system in a way that affects student behavior or
performance, which may result in physical or
psychological harm.
Likewise, the use of artificial intelligence systems
for real-time biometric identification of natural
persons in publicly accessible spaces is prohibited
for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the
law, as they are particularly intrusive for the rights
and freedoms of individuals. anxious.
This practice can affect the privacy of large
sections of the population, creating a sense of
constant surveillance and indirectly discouraging
the free exercise of fundamental rights such as
freedom of assembly and other civil rights.
However, there are some exceptions to this,
namely, under very specific and strict conditions,
such systems can be used, especially where not
using such a tool is likely to cause more harm than
risk and however, it must ensure the protection of
individuals. rights and freedoms. Three situations
that allow such a scenario are:
-
searching for missing persons, victims of
kidnapping and persons who have become victims
of human trafficking or sexual exploitation;
-
preventing a significant and imminent
threat to life or a foreseeable terrorist attack; Or
-
identification of suspects in cases of serious
crimes (for example, murder, rape, armed robbery,
drug and illegal arms trafficking, organized crime
and environmental crimes, etc.).
While the rationale for these detailed regulations
is understandable, some might argue that the mere
existence and development of these systems may
still pose too much risk.
This legislative proposal was reflected in the
adoption by the European Parliament on 13 March
2024 of the first law on artificial intelligence.
Its aim is, as mentioned earlier, to protect
fundamental rights, democracy, the rule of law and
the sustainability of the high-risk AI environment,
while stimulating innovation and ensuring
Europe's leadership in this field.
The regulation sets AI obligations depending on
the potential risk and level of impact.
Given that we already mentioned earlier that AI
systems are unacceptably risky, we are going to
mention that AI systems present a lot of risks,
“which can be used, according to the provisions of
the Regulation, only after meeting very specific and
strict requirements.
This category includes systems and applications
that must adopt and implement multiple security
measures, perform compliance checks, and obtain
separate authorizations, evaluated on a case-by-
case basis, prior to implementation.
As a rule, an artificial intelligence system will be
considered a serious threat if it profiles people, i.e.
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
40
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
the automated processing of personal data to
assess various aspects of a person's life, such as
professional performance, economic status, health,
interests, preferences, reliability, personality,
location or travel.
The critical difference between high and
unacceptable risk lies in the ability of the system to
use and independently use this type of
information.
Regarding the limited risk allowance, the law
imposes certain transparency requirements to
ensure adequate knowledge at the time of
benefiting from AI systems. Developers must also
ensure that such AI-generated content, such as
text, images or animations, is clearly audio-video,
is clearly aware of this (the use of AI must be
clearly indicated).
With reference to the last category, which is the
most common, the lowest risk AI systems are
allowed without an important message. These
systems include applications such as AI
entertainment applications, video games and AI-
enabled spam filters. Currently, most AI systems
used in the EU fall into this category.
The AI Regulation entered into force 20 days after
its publication in the EU Official Journal, but most
regulations will apply more than 24 months after
entry into force. The 24-month period will be a
“grace period” during which AI developers and
users and other parties will have to comply with
the new European regulations or risk fines of up to
6% of turnover.
National Regulation of Artificial Intelligence
Regarding the regulation by law of artificial
intelligence, at the national level, its premise is the
establishment of regulations corresponding to the
developed programming language and the results
generated by the programming language.
The rule is not about the actual content that an AI
programming language can produce, but about the
limits within which it can create content. Clearly,
these restrictions are and must be constitutional
restrictions.
In other words, the political challenge is that the
programming language must be programmed to
respect, for example, the constitutional right to
appeal, the physical and mental integrity of the
person (art. 22 of the Constitution). Also, that
language should be positioned so as not to provide,
in any way, remedies for undermining the
constitutional order.
The issue of exceptions to the rule will obviously
arise, or in this case they must be strictly
determined and of strict interpretation and
application, to be used for reasons such as
protecting national security, public order or
national defense (so and for the purpose of
protecting the constitutional order) or for the
purpose of education and research, carried out in a
controlled environment.
With this strict regulatory framework, the
individual will be able to make the decision to
access and use artificial intelligence in a
considered and fully informed way.
Also, given that in the current legal system only one
person has rights and responsibilities, the
language of artificial intelligence must be
reprogrammed so that its content does not
produce legal effects independent of anyone's will.
Nationally, on March 19, the AI bill was registered
for debate in the Senate. Although the Romanian
legislator
wants
to
provide
additional
clarifications and introduce specific concepts
suitable for the Romanian technology market, the
draft law is at an early stage and we expect it to
undergo many changes before promulgation.
The adoption of the AI Regulation is a milestone
and a major achievement in establishing a far-
reaching legal framework to oversee the
development and use of artificial intelligence
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
41
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
systems in this phase of the digital age, second laws
and directives will need to be introduced in 2019.
Guidance materials, such as the European
Commission's Guidelines on Trusted AI, have
already started to be published.
For now, the EU has taken a very important first
step towards regulating this rapid wave of
technology.
Practices of Implementing New Technologies in
Public Administration and the Legal Field in
Romania
The need to integrate technology based on
artificial intelligence in the Romanian legal world
was noted with the establishment of the pandemic
isolation in March 2020.
The usual court functions of subpoenaing, hearing
witnesses or parties or convening local
deliberative public bodies have been moved to the
online work arena. With this forced digitization of
much of the legal world, it has been possible to find
the need to turn to certain applications and
software to simplify the work of lawyers and
government officials.
For example, in the practice of lawyers, a well-
defined AI program can access current laws from
the official publication source and can even find
solutions or at least highlight similar cases that
wo
uld work to create “a procedural document
necessary for legal promotion”, at an action in
favor of the client.
Digitization has taken the place of classic
processes, including in the service of judges, who
are offered a series of programs that allow them
access to jurisprudence. There are several such
programs dedicated to legal professionals, such as
ECRIS, EMAP or Legis.
For example, ECRIS is an application that
contributes to each court or prosecutor's office
benefiting from a database that includes relevant
information and complete court files and
judgments (as opposed to the public portal,
portal.just.ro, where the solutions are published in
summary). Judges, as well as defendants or their
representatives in directly related cases and in
certain circumstances, must send this.
It is worth noting that these very advanced
software programs can take over certain human
tasks (for example: entering data into databases,
reporting on them and generating answers or
relevant items for use in problem solving or
dis
cussions) and “can perform within normal
limits even more efficiently than human
intelligence”.
Therefore, many areas of practice in the legal field
can benefit from the introduction of artificial
intelligence in the manipulation of information and
its succession. We find as an example the practice
of other states whose IT systems are performing in
various fields of activity (procurement of
administration services, public health and
transport, effective communication windows
between management and the governed, etc.) has
facilitated more lives of people in those countries.
In essence, the main role of public authorities is to
satisfy public demand by improving people's living
standards, and digitalization plays an important
role in this process.
For example, in the case of violations, over time,
citizens have often contested that violation
sanctions would not be used by investigative
agencies, and the absence of indisputable evidence
made the task of the courts even more difficult.
An artificial intelligence system that will greatly
facilitate the work of police bodies and reduce the
number of command complaints and the detection
of violations on public roads requires the
implementation of software with a video traffic
monitoring system is effective. Such a system could
recognize both the vehicle's license plate number
and the driver's identity, which would serve as
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
42
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
evidence that can be challenged in court.
As far as the public sector is concerned, the
regulatory authorities have recognized the dire
need for a flexible management system that meets
the contemporary demands we live in. Thus, the
first digitization initiatives of public institutions in
Romania are already producing results.
For example, the National Tax Administration
under the Ministry of Finance has launched an
online chat service through which taxpayer
assistance charges as they benefit from the
services available on the institution's portal.
Another approach adopted is the SAF-T (Standard
Audit File for Tax) system, which is designed to
facilitate the electronic exchange of information
from the land public to the tax authority.
The major goal of this new technology is to ensure
transparency and increase trust in public
institutions by creating a governance mechanism
easily accessible to taxpayers.
At the top of the list of priorities for those in charge
of public finances is the creation of a system that
“there is effective international cooperation
between ANAF and the assembly halls, which will
facilitate the efforts of the country man to receive
documents from government agencies”. Such an
arrangement is commendable and shows the
inclination of the rulers towards the current needs
of the society. An example in this sense is the
possibility that Romanian citizens can now access
the tax file without having to physically present
themselves at the ANAF unit count letter.
Another project highly requested by citizens,
which was recently accepted, is the development of
an electronic invoice system (E-invoice). In the
first phase, the project will work exclusively on
interactions between economic operators and the
state, to be expanded later and incorporate
interactions between two economic entities
(which include economic activities such as:
provision of services, provision of products,
cataloging of products and provision of services).
CONCLUSIONS
Technological innovations have become a constant
of the present age. New technologies are ready to
conquer the world and change the reality we have
known until now. From cryptocurrencies, block-
chain technology, virtual reality, “quantum”
computers to artificial intelligence, they all have
implications in various aspects of life, especially in
the legal field, giving different rights and
responsibilities to legal subjects.
Although a field in its infancy, the digitization
phenomenon has gained considerable momentum
in recent years. How soon we will be able to talk
specifically about digital rights and a new branch
of law will emerge
–
cyber law.
From
a
constitutional
law
perspective,
technological progress and the evolution of
artificial
intelligence
represent
both
an
opportunity and a challenge for the legal system.
There is no doubt that technology can help
improve efficiency and increase access to legal
services.
In recent years, in Romania there has been a real
effervescence of legislative regulations in the field
of new technologies, which created new legal
challenges in the context of constitutional law. It is
a matter of time and acceptance that new rights
and fundamental freedoms of access to new
technologies will emerge.
However, the exponential role of the Constitutional
Court in this equation must be emphasized,
namely, as the guarantor of the supremacy of the
Constitution, it has the task of organizing and
mobilizing visible and integrated social relations
around the concept of technology in a coherent
legal framework. and compatible with the existing
reality, without affecting or distorting the
existence and content of other fundamental rights
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
43
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
and freedoms.
As mentioned, contemporary technological
developments determine the conditioning of new
objects, relations and processes by creating new
rights, while allowing their use to be restricted for
various reasons, such as public health, national
security or national security.
Therefore, in the context of the unprecedented
development
of
new
information
and
communication
technologies,
the
fourth
generation of rights is rapidly emerging, which
would include the right to the protection of
personal data and the right to the protection of
online privacy or the right to use artificial
intelligence, etc. The emergence of new
technologies imposed their regulation also in the
context of Romanian laws.
In this context, it must be emphasized that the use
of these technologies cannot be left outside the
regulatory frameworks of the law, therefore this
new type of right must be grounded in legal terms
and subject to predetermined parameters. Also, to
avoid creating a systemic risk regarding
fundamental rights and freedoms or national
security, the authority of laws to use, in exceptional
circumstances, art. 53 of the Constitution to
control access and use of these technologies.
The value of treating, from a contemporary
perspective, the subsequent proliferation of new
technologies, implicitly the creation of correlative
subjective rights over them, determines “a
constan
t change in terms of social relations. “These
social relations must be regulated, on the one hand,
by the legal order, and on the other hand, be
verified” from the point of view of their impact on
other pre-existing fundamental rights and
obligations.
As mentioned in the article, the legal field is
affected by this digitization phenomenon, as
artificial intelligence has the potential to transform
many aspects of the legal profession, helping to
streamline processes, improve access to justice
and provide new tools and capabilities. and legal
professionals.
However, AI is a tool, not a substitute, for the value
judgments inherent in human consciousness and
the rational cognition it supports in any legal
action.
Therefore, although artificial intelligence can help
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
legal profession, it cannot replace the fundamental
role of human beings in interpreting laws,
assessing rights and freedoms, and qualitative-
qualitative assessment.
Acknowledgement
The paper was achieved within the project
unfolded by “Dunărea de Jos” University of Galati
entitled: “Developments and Perspectives in
Contemporary Law”, financing Contract no
RF2469/31.05.2024.
REFERENCES
1.
Alexandra Caras, “The legal future: the impact
of new technologies on
advocacy”. Wolters
Kluwer blog wolterskluwer.ro
2.
Călina Jugastru, Respect for private life –
Conceptual
delimitations,
Clarifications
regarding the field of legal protection,
http://www.humanistica.ro/anuare/2004/An
uare%202004/Art.21.pdf
3.
D. Vișan, Ethics of
artificial intelligence.
Premises of the legal framework for artificial
intelligence
–
a European approach. The white
book of the European Commission, on
www.universuljuridic.ro
4.
Directive 95/46/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 24 October
1995 on the protection of natural persons with
regard to the processing of personal data and
the free movement of such data (OJ L 281,
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
44
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
23.11.1995, p. 31, Special Edition in Romanian,
13/vol. 17
5.
https://legalup.ro/regulamentum-privind-
inteligenta-artificiala/
6.
https://next.juridice.ro/977/intelligenta-
artificiala-si-impactul-ei-asupra-domeniului-
juridic-dimensiunea-juridica-a-noilor-
tehnologii/
7.
https://revista.universuljuridic.ro/era-
digitala-si-justitia-iii-etica-drept-si-
responsability-un-triptic-indispensabil-
reglementarea-ia/
8.
https://saa.ro/ro/noutati/regulamentum-ai-
consideratii-de-natura-legala-si-practica/
9.
https://www.juridice.ro/essentials/6951/mit
-si-realitate-in-dreptul-contemporan-evolutie-
si-perspective-denuntul-ratiunii-si-ideea-fara-
portator
10.
https://www.juridice.ro/essentials/7326/jus
titia-in-fata-inteligentei-artificiale-avantaje-si-
riscuri-ale-unei-revolutii-civilizationale
11.
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016
on the protection of natural persons with
regard to the processing of personal data and
on the free movement of such data and
repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General
Regulation regarding protection of data)
