and jus-bit

Even this time back to the PEC to be talked about. It seemed clear that they were sufficiently numerous arguments put forward by "experts" (lawyers and engineers) regarding the absurdity of such a tool, but the process continues with a view of eGovernment "PEC-oriented." It is, however, to handheld concrete evidence that the government is implementing the e-government plan in a "dematerialization", ie eliminating paper in favor of digital. It is noticeable that the PA will lead a policy of eGovernment innovation once, but in this area - and not only in this - you need to clarify.

I refer to my previous comments have already been published on the PEC and the "inconsistency" of the instrument. Here I should make some further concern that arises from the content of the Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 6 May 2009, published in the Official Gazette No. 119 of May 25, 2009.

Taking a step back, the paragraphs 5 and 6 of art. 16 bis of Decree 185 of 29/11/2008 (better known as "anti-crisis decree"), subsequently converted into Law 2 / 2009, state:

5. To promote the achievement of maximum diffusion of telematics technologies in communications, prescribed by the digital administration, referred to in Legislative Decree March 7, 2005, No 82, to citizens who request them and 'given a box of certified mail. The use of electronic mail is certified in accordance with Articles 6 and 48 of the code mentioned in the Legislative Decree No 82, 2005, with equivalent effect, if necessary, notification by mail. Communications passing through the above e-mail address are certified free of charge.

6. For the same purposes of paragraph 5, each government uses only the certified mail, pursuant to those Articles 6 and 48 of the Code referred to in Legislative Decree 82, 2005, with equivalent effect, if necessary, notification by mail, communications and notifications addressed to employees having the same or other public administration.

That said, the government implements the above law, and specifically to the paragraphs given above, with the decree recently published in the Official Gazette, in fact, art. 1 as an object of DPCM 6/5/09 indicates two things: 1) "The this decree defines procedures for issuing and use the e-mail address assigned to the certified public to senses ... "2)" and how the service is activated by public procedures, including using tools of project financing. "

The 'object is governed by sections 2 and 3. Paragraph 1 of Art. 2 provides:

"The citizen who so requests the Presidency of the Council of Ministers - Department for Innovation and the technologies directly or means the custodial of service, assigns an address for the PEC. "

This shows: a) first recipient of the request that the citizen who wants the PEC is the Presidency of the Council of Ministers - Department for Innovation and Technology, b) secondly, that the PEC may be issued by the Presidency of the same Council of Ministers (Department for Innovation) or by '"custodial service". On a purely practical Annex addresses the operating modes.

Sub-paragraph 2, art. 2, provides:

"The activation of the PEC and the communications passing through the above-mentioned PEC box at no cost to the citizen."

In fact, the gratuitousness of the release of the PEC and the exchange of communications is only apparent. The cost of the service "public" weigh heavily on the community, given that the same decree (Article 5) provides public procedures "for identifying dell'affidatario". Therefore, you should clear up once and said that the PEC has a cost to the state that takes care of it to provide a service to citizens. This, however, has been important part of the Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces at the Joint Conference of 29/4/2009, which was instead highlighted the risk of a "blatant contradiction" with the bill a 1441-B (B-1082 in the Senate), which was finally approved on May 26. Beyond this, it will then analyze the likely usefulness of this service, that is if the cost of the service of trust for the PEC (at an accredited operator CNIPA) is justified by a specific use by of citizens. In essence, in a very simplified way, you must determine whether the outlay of the State is or is not justified by the number of citizens who will use the PEC.

Article raises many concerns. 4, paragraph 4, of the Prime Minister in question, which reads:

The government accepted the demands of the citizens sent means PEC in accordance with art. 65, paragraph 1, letter c) of decree legislative No 82 of 2005. The sending means PEC is subscription Electronic Article. 21, paragraph 1, of decree legislative No 82 of 2005; the government require subscription with a digital signature pursuant to art. 65, paragraph 2, of said decree.

I think we both made ​​some 'confusion. The Art. 21, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 82/2005 (better known as CAD) reads as follows:

The electronic document, that bear an electronic signature, on the evidence is freely assessed in court, taking into account its objective characteristics of quality, safety, integrity and immutability.

With this rule, the electronic signature, electronic signature aliases, has been likened to '"sent by the PEC." This is not the most appropriate to describe the system of electronic signatures, but one thing is certain: the PEC can not be sent via electronic signature as that applied in the use of a qualified electronic signature or advanced. That said, the first concern, not to be too caustic, is that I do not consider it acceptable for the use of an administrative act, what is the Prime Ministerial Decree in question, can bring forth the legal effects of particular relevance as the equivalence of sending An e-mail subscription to the PEC. Secondly, if maybe you wanted to refer to - but here my doubts increase - the PEC received (which should be signed with electronic signature) there is no technical or legal requirement to endorse the prescription of the Prime Minister mentioned.

Moreover, another aspect is concerned with the "management" of the address data for the PEC (and more) that will be entrusted all'affidatario of the service, since Article. 7 of the Prime Minister in question reads:

The custodial service to the citizens of PEC under Article 6, paragraph 1, makes available to public administrations, by computer, the addresses of PEC under this decree, in accordance of criteria of quality and safety and interoperability defined from CNIPA and in compliance with the regulations concerning the protection of data personal referred to in Legislative Decree 30 June 2003, No 196.

It is expressly provided for compliance with the privacy policy, therefore, the Trustee shall ensure the confidentiality of personal information properly. Moreover, we share your comments by Guido Scorza and I refer to his contribution to the questions on "computer register of homes."

In conclusion, in my humble opinion is one tool of communication which is email (and in this case the PEC) and the charge of certain duties to a subject. The latter aspect can not be addressed on the digital piano except through the use of a digital signature or electronic signature of a system that ensures the identification, the identification of a person to whom to attribute the authorship of certain acts.

In terms of communications, however, there is a significant disconnect in the system of computerized communications in the PA. In fact, with the aforementioned anti-crisis decree governing the two cases are quite similar (Art. 16 and Art. 16 a), ie the mode of communication with the PA via electronic means: on the one hand, the PEC for businesses and professionals, on the other the PEC for the citizens. In essence, citizens and business people will use the same PEC.

The present scenario, however, is characterized by absolute confusion.

At present, the rules identify two different categories of subjects: a) firms and professionals on the one hand, b) the other citizens. In an organic system rules, except in special need or justification, should be valid for all, while not at all. Entrepreneurs and professionals are well aware that since last November have been provided with a box or PEC " "And it seemed that this awareness is possible to evaluate positively the opening of the state toward a system similar to the PEC that could be assimilated to international standards and interoperability of electronic communications. However, citizens already knew from last November to use an innovative tool for dialogue with the PA: the PEC.

There is no absolute fail to see the different treatment for different categories into one and the same person who is the PA. Entrepreneurs and professionals in theory have the option of choosing between two systems of communication, even, would alternate between them, the PEC and the other address. The citizens are relegated to only using the PEC. In fact, companies and professionals are business class, so much so that the cost burden on them of the PEC or '"same email address ...", while the citizens benefit from the issuance and use for free. In principle, the PA should be able - because the law requires - to receive electronic communications including through the use of a system - unidentified, better known as "same email address ...."

It seems that professionals and companies are playing the role of Didi and Gogo. In fact, professionals and businesses - while not actually knowing what constitutes such other address - anxiously await each new decision to know how, which is the Godot who wait, but each time it repeats the expression implicitly concluding "And they're still waiting for Godot."

But it was easier to opt for an S / MIME certificate?

Comments are closed