LECTURE 1 (27/02/2023)

martedì 7 marzo 2023 19:04

[email protected] CCL23
We try to bring some divergent thought. A way of finding solutions that goes beyond the data we
already have.
Capitalism is not just about production but also about consumption. There is an active role that each
one of us can play in this system. The digital disruption melts two system the technical one and the
economical one. The digital disruption little by little is englobing more and more spheres of human
life and human being one example is the juridical sphere. The use of Artificial intelligence in juridical
systems is of course a great help but cannot replace the judgers itself (the human figures that
compose the juridical court).
The digital disruption today is enrooting everywhere, every sphere of our life is conducted by AI (like
platforms, social media). It seems an invisible power because it gets to our lives silently and doesn’t
make us feel caged. Our freedom it is a very difficult topic to explain, it is what machines are not
capable to frame. They are trying to, they are studying us, they try to pursue the economic interest
to our everyday life. We are today living in two spheres: one is real and one virtual. We can’t say
that the virtual one is less important. We are connected for everything with the pandemic it
becomes more massive. How can we approach as philosophers this virtual life? Today AI and HI
(human intelligence) are mixed. Machine can’t tell the difference between these two intelligences.
What is intelligence? “Inter-legere” (from Latin) means literally to interconnect something that was
in first place unrelated. It means to connect and let interact stuff that in the very first moment were
unrelated together. When we read, we grasp symbols and we transform it to meaning, we give them
a sense. We do this very freely of course we have a capability (initial) to do so. We are exposed to
language as unique creatures. This intelligence is creative because it can produce something that
wasn’t here. Humans have the capability to unveil (discover).
Artificial Intelligence is traying to predict models. How can we predict things as humans? By
experience. Experience is made of events. We live in the same place very different experiences.
Machines have not experience. Experience comes from latin “experire”, means live in presence.
Participate with the body, to be exposed to the unknown. Perceive events in different ways through
our perspective (each one has a different one). If you are a scientist, you must take aside your own
perspective and your own aim because you are pursuing a purpose on an upper level. There is not
neutrality in science. Science doesn’t want to know thing just because but has a specific goal. This is
the difference between experience and experiment (both words are from experire). They are
different because the experiment makes the result repeatable. If we free the way from all the
distraction with a bias the result will be identical to the previous experiment (the confirm it is
scientific law, not the own progress). Experience doesn’t have previous program. For example the
difference between tourist and traveller. The tourist knows where to go, he is not open to
experience, he follows a path that is already tracked. Our experience is very tracked. Why men make
revolutions? Why in nature all the creatures have evolution system but not cultural and historical
system? We have intelligence and morality. Morality comes very late and changes a lot.
There is a big difference between legality and justice. Law is not always fair. We can never reach
justice because we change. We now have different sensibility. Today family is treated differently
from 50 years ago or geographically it can change dramatically.
AI is tracking our experience because we are trying to create a creature that it is very similar to us,
but this similarity is not full because we have death in front of us (machine do not). Their experience
is different from the human one because experience will not be true (for example they don’t face
death). Death is what brings light to our life because we value time and our live. If we were living
forever, we will not care about justice because justice can be resume by time. Animals don’t have to
look for a sense to their existence. Difference between human beings and other human beings?
Other beings they live following their instinct (for a good life) like find a place to live, competitors.
They are not looking for another sense. While human beings have “double contemporalim”. We
experience events but then we find in our self a meaning of that event. We transmit this meaning to

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 1
experience events but then we find in our self a meaning of that event. We transmit this meaning to
others by words. Words are the most refined technology that humans’ beings developed. In fact,
since we cannot relay our instinct we can only relay on other experience that are transmitted by
word.
What is a word. A word is a concept (a representation of an idea) or a set of characters. We can see
it also as a storage of experience means that we cannot transmit the knowledge directly we cannot
rely on our instinct we need narration (a narrative). How the narrative nowadays works? We have
influencers that influence (comes from latin and means to affect). Influencers are affecting our
narrative because till now our friends, teachers, family transmit a narrative about the word that
made our perspective real they did it for free just because we are part of human society. Influencers
don’t know us, but they keep this narrative with us and the repetitiveness of their actions make us
feel comfort (our expression is only limited to the like, it does not say anything). Why do they
narrate they life? To place their products. Their lives are presented shining and glowing and are
addressed to show success so trough buying this product we buy a little bit of this success. In the
community (“cum-munus”, munus means gift (talent)) each one of us brings in their talent so in this
way we get a role (beaker, cleaner, teacher…), everyone has a role. In digital community there is not
union (we are only profiles) and we are not united by experience. We are separated by screens. The
narrative is not building identities but has a different porpoise.
AI works on pairing between 0 and 1. Can do very different and complicated skills. This is a paradigm
of functioning because it only gives two possibilities. The between doesn’t exist. Everything needs to
be translated to an information, transparent to the one that can read it. The information that we
deliver must be readable by the machine and analyse (as a mess). Our singularity is not important
anymore because everything as to be comprensible to the machines even if this makes it more
opache to human mind. If something from real became digital, it is not more readable from human
anymore. We detach the act of writing from the act of reading. We must be aware of what we do it
will have an impact.
There are two movements: machine learning and human training. On one hand to make HI and AI
go together we try to push the machines toward the human intelligence. We try to steal creativity,
but it is not perfect yet. On the other hand, the machine is not worried about shut down, it does not
have pathetic sphere. We cannot push the machine to have experience like human beings, so we try
to push human towards machines. We try to reduce all the possible variability and mutability and
the biggest possibility that we have in our life into options.
Options makes us feel free to choose but we are not free to create. On the other hand, AI is a map
of the human functioning. What is the purpose of having machine that are exactly like humans. We
use algorithms in the critical sphere to make some action faster and more efficient, but we cannot
use them always. For example, the dealing of the freedom of a person under a try (go to jail for 20
years). A machine could not emphasize, we cannot leave the decision to machines. The decision
concerning the existential sphere of human being cannot be left to machines. The purpose of having
a map that is the same as the territory? There is not more need for the map if it is perfectly identical
to the territory. We use technology to simplify our life (sometimes simplification is banalization). We
need human action that feels this event with meaning. If we make machine that are perfectly
identical to humans with feelings, they will make errors. We can’t create a copy of ourselves (our
mind is still hard). For example, we train humans since they are very young. There are some
restaurants where waitress are robots, so children are encouraged to interact with them. This
relationship is becoming more and more problematic. Humans have limited space for patience.
Machine never use patience. This threat is fulling children because when they deal with other
human beings the situation becomes more difficult. Human training is the dark side of machine
learning. The word to “learn” is not appropriate just as much as “intelligent” is not appropriate for
machine.
We have to learn (want) because of an interest/a question that arise in us (mean in our life).
Machine doesn’t want anything it is only about programming. The question is what is useful for a
machine that is perfectly similar to a human? A respond is immortality (transfer consciousness).
Building a machine that replicates a human.
Assignment:

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 2
Assignment:
Why we create AI? What is the purpose of building a machine that it is perfectly identical to a human
being? Useful, dark side, no pain, no death. Machine has not existence void. Why we leave more and
more space of our existential decision to machines? We can make hypothesis, there is not a right
answer.

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 3
LECTURE 2 (03/03/2023)
martedì 7 marzo 2023 19:05

Phenomenology is a current that after positivism and illuminism was focusing on the knowledge as a
mirroring activity, phenomenology starts to question if the relationship between what is the object
of the knowledge and the person that is in intended to know, is stable or can be questioned.
Phenomenology derives from the word “phynomaite” that means what appears, this is something
different from what is evident. Appearance and evidence are different because the appearance of
something might be a disguise, so we need to inquire the object but not by looking at the
appearance but the essence.
What is the essence? It’s something that neither changes nor mutates in the perception of someone.
So phenomenology basically wants to highlight differently because there are different authors that
are taking into account some aspect and not others and they start to question if knowledge can be
considered as a stable tool or it is related to the human perception, so that the phenomenon
manifest itself and that people understand it.
When we see a phenomenon, we observe it through schemes. These schemes are our tools of
perception. We persons feel event through space and through time which is something that is
typically human, because this concept is unknown to machine or animals, they have a different way
of grasping it. The way human being understands reality is very specific.
Phenomenology was about how a phenomenon manifest itself, how it appears to the subject to his
consciousness. In general phenomenology wants to highlight the process of knowledge,
distinguishing the perception of the external object that made change evolve and on this we must
suspend the judgement and we should focus on the intention that it’s called noema which is the
core of understanding through the personal experience. For example, if I walk on the street and an
apple falls on my head, this apple has a speed, makes me hurt and there’s something that happens
that can be studied or investigated, but this apple tomorrow can get rotten. So is my understanding,
considering that yesterday the apple had a volume and today it’s different, still valid, or not?
Phenomenology is especially important as a bottom science for other fields of knowledge like
psychology. Who also focused on the possibilities to understand through intuition. Intuition is a way
to get something known through a formal instinctual comprehension.
There’s also a very important focus on language because everything that we experience need to be
translated into words. A second tool that can we use is hermeneutics.
Hermeneutics is another philosophical current, it has a massive importance on language. In the same
age others current were creating attention on the language but as a side aspect of general
knowledge. In 90s happens what it’s called linguistic break through. So, there’s a turning point
where language is an object of inquirement itself because words are storage of experience and the
way we filter some topics, the way we decide to use some tools, the way we frame a problem, are all
from theory. So, every question that we ask are full of theory, because when you ask something, you
assume that something else it’s clear and you want to go deeper in it.
Language is considered to be the house of being. Language is the originally equipment that it’s
available to human being to know the world. But how do we know language? When someone is born
it’s not capable of speak, it’s something that happen after world. In the beginning there will be
somebody that help us and say what a word an object means, our experience of totality starts to get
at little-by-little pieces. These little pieces are how we frame the word that are our tools.
We don’t inherit the language all together. Like when we explore the house there will be corner that
will not be considered and there’re places that we will know better than others. So, we get used to
the language by using it, it’s a process that builds itself and crosses experience and some schemes
that are inherit. Same when we move, we will get used to it step by step, something that we
assimilate. The way we record our experiences is how we build our own experience of singularity, of
originality. Basically, the dialogue is a constitutive element of existence.

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 4
What hermeneutic means? Hermeneutics comes from Hermes that was the messenger of gods, he
was also the protector of merchants and thieves. In these combined possibilities of this god, we see
what exactly we do in interpretation. Because when we need to interpret some text that are difficult
or far from our experience like hermeneutics regards biblical studies or juridical hermeneutics,
basically you have codes and you must make it sense for justice, is not just law, you need an
interpreter that make this knowledge available for everybody.
Starting from the 90s with Martin the hermeneutic (the art of interpretation) became a
philosophical current itself. It has taken a general meaning, more general than just referred to
specific test and the interpretation of them, because if it’s true that we inherit the language and
some scheme that guide us through our experience then it’s true that every time of activity during
our lifetime it’s an interpretation, then if it’s an interpretation it cannot be the only one. If we see
thing in our point of view without an interpreter, then we have our own interpretation like
everybody else. So, there’s no one who can claim to have the eyes of true, because interpretation is
a perspective. A perspective is a view on a reality that it’s just partial but with all the different point
of people it becomes a vision, a theory.
The phenomenon of interpretation is now devoted to seeking meaning and messages like Hermes
did through thief robbing some house, the sense in the statement, because there’s some kind of
violence of grasping the knowledge on this process. Why merchant? When there’s a sense to
understand a meaning there must be some negotiation. When we interpret/translate the word of a
language there might be some language absent in other languages, so we need to negotiate with
other languages in order to understand that point of view that we don’t have as experience.
Something to grasp like violence, something to negotiate like merchant, so when we read the world
through our eyes we really cannot rid of our perspective. Even if you want to become blind to be
objective you still will not be objective.
In this sense language is originally, not in the sense that we’re born with language but we have this
possibility to understand this word that other creature doesn’t have. Even human being when they
still can’t talk, they’re infant (comes from in that means not and fari that means talk, a human that
cannot still talk).
If we’re not simple mirror of neutral data but there’s a process that engages our personal
participation, informing our language than language represents our perspective. The role of an
interpreter is fundamental because his personal contribute is not a fault or a limit but is that a
heritage that we as interpreter are trying to valorise.
Why we use these 2 tools for inquire the virtual sphere that we’re now living in. Because we can see
the virtual thing as its appearance and then we can go deeper and inquire what language is using to
describe itself. Its appearance and manifestation will be inquired and investigated through a
hermeneutical point of view.
For example, let’s focus on the word NET, what’s its general concept: it’s a device that we use in
everyday life, it connects but also tracks and we also use NET to save somebody when it’s falling, it’s
a device of salvation and of track. Can we relate this way we see the NET in the internet? NET is for
sure connecting us and allowing us to communicate, to talk. Communication is just an exchange of
information, but it leaves out all the flash and bombs participation of the dialogue, which is
extremely important to build an identity since we’re biological beings and we build our identity
through the words of other. Our thoughts, our words are depending on how we build the word to
our word.
During pandemic NET was a device that saved us from falling because we need to rely on it but when
does it became a device for trapping? When we’re considered as an organism that provides for the
companies.
There’re different possibilities that should consider that we can do it by using hermeneutic and
phenomenology.
With simplification we turn off our ability and we leave it to something, this is very dangerous. If we
don’t use a tool, we make rust. It is a sort of trap.
Simplification is good, banalization is the limit. Simplify means make clearer. The process becomes

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 5
Simplification is good, banalization is the limit. Simplify means make clearer. The process becomes
obscure it can create also other problems, and we leave our abilities. We are the owner but not the
master anymore (we don’t know how it work we leave it for example to AI). If we don’t use tools, we
start to be worse at them like apps in smartphones.
Game is an activity that interest humans because games is a respond to boredom and the role of the
player is important. If every role was the same and there was not specificity of the person that plays,
we will all be for example strong. Faints are important and they can make the game (bluff). Man can
bring something unseen; machines cannot do this.
“I can” has two meanings: morally and technically. Nowadays morally is an ethic in sufferance. There
is no more the difference between moral, ethical and practical. If all that we can technically do is
also good that we realize them from another point of view.
Versatility and adaptability are skills that are growing in research but will never fulfil the deep
requirement of the identity development because we can find the new only in another human
beings (implement ourselves). AI is adapting on us it will not create conflict with us.

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 6
LECTURE 3 (06/03/2023)
martedì 7 marzo 2023 19:06

What does “define” mean? “De” all-around, “fine” comes from “finis” that means border. Place
borders AI an HI (what is in and what out). The possibility of intersection area and limit. The problem
is that when the area of cooperation becomes a delegation of responsibility. We know that the area
in the middle is becoming bigger and bigger through a process that brings AI towards HI to became
similar as possible. At the same time, we use human training to make the human freedom readable
comprehensible to machines. This is a problem specially to judges (“jurisprudence” contain the word
prudence that is consciousness and the word care for dignity of man). A machine can’t judge in this
moment. It is an activity that tries to connect abstract case to concrete case. It is not can be done by
pairing/calculating, it involves live, freedom, economy, reputation of the human being. For example:
a young man was in prison for live for robbery and two murder. This guy started to write letters to
the judger, this guy was same age of the son of the judge. The son of the judge could study and have
education his live was very different from the guy in the prison. They talked for about 25 years. It is
impossible to do if an algorithm is judging us. Every judge in charge knows the existential outcome
that may occur, he has the empathetic sphere (family, death, difficulties after jail). And also, this
delicate stuff of interpretation becomes the necessity to relay on the judge prudence. In traditional
juridical system reality and justice are different. This is where come equity.
What is equity? The justice of the individual case, an unwritten principle like an ethical and social
justice (depending on the circumstances). When there are not preestablished regulations (no law for
a specific case) the judger must use his personal education and experience to fulfil the legislative
gaps. This principle is ancient and is called “IURA NOVIT CURIA” “Curia” judges, “iura” law, “novit”
knows. Judge has creative skill, he creates law in specific cases, there is no perfect identity to
different cases. “Lego” read/order it is where intelligent come from that means connect elements
that are not related. Even if there is a gap the judge appealing to his provers can get the ratio
(meaning) of the action and can refer to a pre-existence law). Like before cyberbullying (2017) law
we preceded trough equity. Equity is a criterial to temper the strictness of a specific rule and adapt
its practical application to ethical requirements with the case, like the punishment considering the
situation of the subject like a difficult economic situation.
Language gains specific importance from past century. It is the original equipment thanks to which
we build our world personality/identity. It is a tool that is constantly under construction. We all have
different “language”, we construct it by preferences and skills. For example: gardening I can know it
because I like it but cooking, I don’t care. Language is a versatile tool and always change. It is the
original equipment of the basis of which because it is also something that we have inherited and
inside the mother tongue that we gradually assumed there is culture inside and so we gain patters
when we come to the world. It is also the “original equipment by which” so this inherent pattern
meets the new/unexpected/unseen and this contact can create friction, the old pattern is not
sufficient, and we need more tools. One of the meaning of “logos” (Greek) is one of the 4 word that
we can describe language. It has many meanings like calculating/ speech/ discourse/thought/system
of idea. When we say language “logos” we mean them all and a specific one depending on the
conTEXT. From the last time, hermeneutics is the art of interpretation. There is not a word with a
specific/fixed meaning for all. It depends on the context surrounding the word. To interpret a word,
we need the context. So, logos is something (language) that permeance all form of language
especially the scientific one. For example, if we want to teach math to young child, we use all our
resources of the language and we use example and pass experience. Also, if we communicate with a
young child, we are exposed to questions that come from existential interest (process of learning)
that is different from how machines work. They don’t ask questions and they don’t have interest.
Interest means “INTER” in the middle, “EST” to be. Humans learn because of interest. They are in the
middle of the same existential of another human being. Important passage even the scientific
disciplines/knowledges have their own hypothesis/meanings that must be communicate by language
if you want to transmit them. The language is progressively building up. It rests on pre-existence
language/logic. We can’t take it foregrounded. When for example we say water is H20. We can be
helped by biology and chemistry.
We assume what is “is”. Behind the history of a word there is history of men kind. Another

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 7
We assume what is “is”. Behind the history of a word there is history of men kind. Another
difference about human and other creatures is the world that they live in. Other creatures live in the
“welt” (from German and means world, nature/naked environment, come to world and they adapt).
We as humans have not the capacity to live in the world as it is we need to bring in an environment
that is technically structured and organized called “um-welt”. Technique is something that
characterize human since the beginning, now it has reached its peak. This is why humans develops
their own rules and plants and animal follow their instinct. Their level of functioning is overlapping
the function of reality, they don’t change/modify. They don’t have syndicate even if they were
workers from the beginning because they just follow rules of natures and men have desire to pursue
idea of justice. They need to find meaning of action. We are not content only on living. Living on
nature is exposing us to violence and strength of the most powerful one. We as humans want justice
and meaning.
Water “is” H20 a phrase of Martin Heidegger a German philosopher. What means “is”? Examples
are: something that express identity; a mathematical concept that we already know; description of
an object or human; an attribute; a state. These are what Heidegger criticised. He said that “is” is
something that predicates the verb to be, so it identifies a feature and attribute that is
stable/fixed/certain. This simplification of the reality is what we need to make experiments.
Heidegger starts from here. What is the being? What is “SEIN” (means to be in German)? When we
say that something we generally refer to something is stable and not exposed to change. We take
picture of the object in that specific attribute, and we recognize it as a certain data. We already
know but he claims that we don’t already know and that we just forget about it about its proper
sense. We give it foregrounded. The study of being is miscomprehended because he recognises in
the SEIN what we call “Ta onta” means the things that surround us. In this a little bit limited
comprehension where the things that surround us are objects and I I am the subject this is the
structure of all the western culture the progressive detachment of the subject observing from the
object observed. This is the teaching of Kant that distinguish this design in two polos. The question
of Heidegger is the comprehension of the sign that we inherited from the past is it influencing or
affecting the way the humans are structured their knowledge and relationship with the world?
What is the relationship between the human being and the being itself? This is not a question that
Heidegger couldn’t arise (he lived a century ago). Is this algorithm data society (society that we will
in today where data is something that is already given about us is something that regards us in a
stable way in a certain moment of our live but keeps changing because we change our way to live
(our objects) this necessity of stabilizing is not something recent or maybe from metaphysic) the
most striking manifestation, the outcome of a very ancient progress of gradual objectification?
Subject => human, object => everything else. Objectification turn everything in a tool/object that
surround us. He didn’t have the possibility to discuss technique like nowadays. If this society is
compatible with the process of objectification? So, he criticised this relationship he said that the
relationship is more complicated. There is something that in the subject is specific and distinguishes
from object. It is about knowledge, how men are getting in contact and the relationship with the
surround things. The experience of human is impossible to describe without the world. When we are
born, we are already inside of reality, made by object/other people/space. It is not possible to
isolate world and man. The existence of human is describable because it is inside the world. So, the
words enter immediately (“im” means no, “media” means something between the things and us).
Differently the online live as a media. When we are into the world as a human being, we don’t have
something that mediate our knowledge of the world when we are online, we have a media that
gives the frame of the situation. Media is something in the middle between me and the experience
of the world. So, man comes to the world not only to live in it like other creatures do but also to
transform it. Things gain their meaning and sense gradually and they do it through media/preference
and experience of others that altered us.
Alter (other human beings) <= Me => things/objects. “Alter” important word means to modify. A
visit to a museum or concert changes something in us. The other is altering us only being with us.
Everything happens in our experience in an emotional frame we are not neutral to the world we feel
for example joy/anger. There is something that all human beings have, we all live in emotional
frame. This frame becomes a filter that orientates our choices. We have choices because of
freedom. Freedom is not predetermined possibility of action. We are responsible for that
(imputability). The nature is always innocence it has no choice it follows the natural patterns.

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 8
(imputability). The nature is always innocence it has no choice it follows the natural patterns.
Through these choices we shape our existential project. We don’t live, we make project. Every
project is different, and we fuse our behaviour with view to fulfil an objective.
Difference between project and program. We can find it hermeneutically. Project and program seem
similar, but they are not the same. Project “PRO” and “IACTO”. Program “PRO” and “GRAPHO”. The
two pros are different. IACTO means to throw in front of me the target where I want to arrive. The
way I find to go there may change because my intelligent has the capability to change adapt is a
versatile tool. PRO already in the past, GRAPHO we already know that something written and in the
past, there is nothing behind that. We have instinctual program. Animals can’t make project but
have programs. This is a big difference. In our case justice is a project we are chasing we are trying to
go after and obtain we have to work on it. Program does not allow to the fluidity to happen.
Program is there and does not change. Our projects are not always directed to efficiency and
optimization. Animals creatures and machine their main interest is to optimize and be efficient. We
can also decide to functional purposes. Prof from house can take car and be faster and also walk less
convenient but has a meaning and importance to her that the car does not have (more expensive,
time effort, altruistic choices use resource for someone else). Project has evolution, program does
not have but can be done through reprogram. Project can be pursued in different ways. Man is a set
of possibility that other creatures are not. Other creatures live their own live, but they don’t search
for the meaning. We have freedom from one part, but we are also conditioned because we are not
completely free, and this is how Heidegger names us with: “GEWORFEN ANTWURF” the meaning is
thrown projects. We are free but not completely first because we can configure our existence, but
they are not infinite because we are going to die. To live in a specific time and geographic area it has
a massive influence in our projects. Everything must be placed in a context even us. GEWORFEN
something that is thrown our initial state family, age, body, geography. It all has weight in our
possibilities. We also have projects. Given the limitations we can formulate projects. GEWORFEN
feeling to be thrown in the world. We are thrown we are not mastering from the beginning who we
are, we are something that happens to be then we shape it through our projects, and we became
who we are not only thanks to us but also thanks to projects friends/family/teacher. We use word to
accomplish our goals as storage of instruments that is always available. Our approach to the world
can be double. The first by calculating reason (lego means many things, reading/calculating) some
meaning of it that goes to calculating approach is now very developed. Now we are reducing the
meditated reason that is the one that approaches to the world not with bunch of tools available by
us but something that we just observe we don’t want to dominate it. Example: if I go to a garden
with a poet or biologist, I get very different interpretations. They are both valid they both tell us
something by the garden, but they come from different approach. Next time we talk about
technique.

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 9
LECTURE 4 (10/03/2023)
martedì 7 marzo 2023 19:07

We are trying to investigate the two phenomena: AI and HI that have been made through perspective. One is the hermeneutical approach
the other one the phenomenological. From hermeneutics we know that words are storage of experiences. We try to investigate the human
history through the different layers of mean that every word obtains. Phenomenology science is interested in phenomenon (comes from
Greek phinemat). Phinemat means I appear/show myself. In phinemat is contained the word phos/photos the meaning is light (for example
photography, means the writing of light). Light is important because phenomenon are those elements that appears to human perception.
But how they appear? They appear in our mean of perception (to our organs) through space and chronological asset and our senses. Since
phenomenon are given to us through time. We can see phenomenon in different stages like the difference between appearance and
semblance. Let’s think about covid (seen as a phenomenon) there was a moment in initial stage that you had clause of covid through cough,
the phenomenon of this illness was not in allenes was in initial stage. Differently the semblance looks like covid instead was just a similar ill.
There are some similarities but the phenomenon that we are considering is different. Phenomenon comes into light, and we perceive it
through time. We can catch initial stage and see the phenomenon (appearance) and it can also develop, we gain straight, and we get the
complete phenomenon. But it can also be not what we thought in the beginning, called semblance that is misleading to the initial
phenomenon. While the appearance led to the phenomenon we were acquiring in the beginning. Why this specification? Because when we
consider AI, we know only the last stage of it. The process began when man was on earth for the first time. The phenomenon is from
BANANA (we try to take from the tree) to AI. This phenomenon is called technique. The first thing we have to do is to dismantle stereotypes
about technique. It is considered by common opinion to be a servant to humankind, a neutral container, incubator of our ideas and projects.
Can be good or bad depending on the use we make of it. Technique is something neutral, in the past men could master it. Now it has
massive power (from banana), man became just a technical operator of it. We have to support this idea and start from the origin of our
culture (history). In western society we are unrooted into Greek and Christian culture. Man in Greek was considered a defecting being, a
creature not in harmony with nature, it has no instinct. Instinct is a rigid respond to a stimulus. Animals differently from man as soon as they
are born, they are fully equipped to survive, men need to build their survival equipment, it is a process ongoing. We do it thanks to
education and institution (politics and laws). We need laws to regulate and contain our impulses. Animals don’t need education and
institutions. Instinct leads animals to a purpose that is surviving, while impulses in man does not have the strength to have the power of the
instinct, they just pop up, but we have a pathic side. This lack of instinctual guidance is the reason of plasticity of our intelligence, in fact we
are different from animals, we are indefinite creatures. We live in possibilities, and this is what we call freedom. Man is a needy and
incomplete creature. Plato used to say in “Plotagora” (4th century AC) about a myth: Zeus gave the task to Epimetheus (god, that means late
thinker) charge to give qualities to living beings and human beings were the last one in line and he gave out already all the qualities like
instinct to other animals, so Zeus asked to Prometheus (god brother of Epimetheus, that means the one that see in advance) to give to man
his quality that is foresight (to foresee and to provide). In the 16th century someone said that man is not hungry for the present hungry but
also for the future. So, this needy creature thinks about survive in the future, trough foreside man manages to survive when he makes his
first technical gesture using a stick. We can say that the essence of the men is technique. The problem of technique arises only in the Greek
culture not in Christian. In Christian culture technique is a commandment (in genesis book Adam and Eve in heaven are commanded by God
to dominate over every other being) this is the explanation why science and technique has founded their cradle in the Christian west).
Christianity is not just a fate but also a culture. In 16 century, Bacon in his book the “Novum organum” said that through science and
technique we will relief the suffering caused by the original sign like fatigue, afford of the work, pain. Science and technique by reducing the
consequences of the original sign (fatigue and pain) they will lead to the salvation and redemption of men. Science and technique are
coherent and cohesive to the purpose of Christian religion. Religion and science are not in opposition they are in continuity, they share the
same conceptual system. Christianity divided time in 3 sections: in the past there were signs, in the presence redemption, in the future
salvation. Same thing with science, in past ignorance, in presence research, in future progress. Even Marks, that was an atheist, had the
same structure, past justice, presence revolution, future new justice. Freud same scheme past traumatic event (the wound), presence
analysis, future healing. As we can see there is the coherence and flexible vision in western society, when past is negativity, the presence the
action against negativity and future the solution. When we apply this paradigm of technicality, we experience our life trough emotional
frame. In front of the future, that is concerning us, we can be in hope and trust. We trust in nature because its laws are independently
working regardless human intervention, while in technique the trigger is always human, and we know that since we are humans, we are
fallible and make fallible things. Differently from other animals guided by the instinct we have the capacity to foreside so when we look to
the future, we can be in two emotional frames: hope and trust. Trust is when we relay in nature that works independently from human
trigger, so we have trust something independent all in the same way in history. Differently from the technique where we are the creators
and we try to replicate the power of nature, so we bring us to a kind of stupor, stupefaction. Differently nature simply works in a harmonic
oriented functioning and makes us feel wonder and astonishment. Wonder is something that even when we are babies, we see like flowers
and we are in wonder, astonish, it is related to trust. Differently the show of power like mega machines, weapons, AI, bombs are trying to
gain our trust trough this performance of power we are not in wander, we remain suspicious about technique (ethical concern). In this kind
of stupor there is something that it is toxic and make us addicted. If hope doesn’t fail to turn into trust, if technique is not strong enough to
make us stupefied but not to let the trust, we can’t trust technique. Instead of turning into trust hope became fate in technique. It has his
own dogmas, and all set of believes that we have to accept. In Greek Culture the concept of limit was important (of measure), they didn’t
have an anthropocentric view (men centre of the universe), in Greek the subject was life in general. Death was accepted and not shunned
like in our culture. Death is the symbol of the limit and it was part of life. We can see this proclivity to human measure in architecture, art,
beauty (it was called cosmos => harmony, proportion) and in happiness (eudamania, eu means good, daimon it is complex => genius). Know
yourself know your genius and realize it. If you want to be happy know what you are good at, but in the limit, if you go beyond this limit like
we try with technique nowadays, you will be arrogant (to define the gods). The limit is our research, you get it because we live in emotional
frame, it is subjective, limit different to everyone. Today our ability to do is greater than our ability to predict the consequences of our
actions. The nature in Greek culture was not created by God, it was the unchangeable immutable background. Men must contemplate
nature to understand the nature laws and replicate in human laws. Technique and the necessity (Ananke => the nature is stronger). The

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 10
nature to understand the nature laws and replicate in human laws. Technique and the necessity (Ananke => the nature is stronger). The
possibility of action of man is limited because nature is going back to be on top (during Greek time). Now technique as gained a different
importance. Let’s go to 17 centuries. In this century there was a shift in paradigm (Galileo Galilei, Cartesio) they found the scientific method.
Differently from Greek culture (where they relay their laws on nature) we started to think differently we founded another procedure. We
first formulated hypothesis, second, we subject nature to experiments and third if the experiment is successful we assume the hypothesis
that we have formulated as laws of nature. Are this laws eternal? No, they will be replaced by new one. We formulate hypothesis, we
subject the nature to experiments, if the experiment is successful, we assume that hypothesis has laws of nature. We can see that from 17
century men relate to nature not as pupil like the Greek used to do but like one that wants to learn from his teacher. As a judge that force
the defender to answer questions. By this procedure man becomes possessor and dominator mundi. Let’s dismantle another misconception
the pureness of science and the technique as neutral application of science (good or bad). This is another misconception because we can say
that technique is essence of science. Science does not look at the word to just contemplate it. The scientific games goes on nature already
wanting to manipulate it. The scientific gland on nature already has a technical purpose. In 19 century Hegel in his “Work logic” said that the
wealth of nation is not given by goods but it is given by the instrument that produce goods. Goods can finish, the merch can go to an end. If
we own the instruments that can produce these goods, we are rich. When a phenomenon increases by quantity this increasing reaches a
point when brings a change that is also qualitative. An example: if I have my hair and start to plug 1 hair it is not so bad, 2, 3. If I plug all my
hair off, it is not just a matter of quantity by quality I became bold. If there is earthquake degree 1 it is happening, we can’t perceive it, if we
go to higher degree we can. A quantity change can make quality change in some point. Marks applies this Hegelian idea to the market, and
he said that we are accustomed to consider money as a mean to produce goods and to satisfy needs. If money increases its quantity and
becomes an universal condition to produce any good and to satisfy any needs, the money is not a mean anymore (a tool) but becomes the
mean purpose according to which goods are produced and needs are satisfied. What if we apply this to technique, it is a tool or purpose
nowadays? Of course, without technique our projects only remain dreams. Today technique as completely occupied all the other spheres of
human living. Politics, Plato used to say, is the “basilike techne” (basilike means of the king, techne means technic). Why? Because other
techniques know how to do thinks and politics know if and why. Politics does not produce anything but produces decision. Now politics are
not anymore the place of decision, it is the economy. Economy relays decision of technique (where it is more convenient to invest).
Technique becomes the lobos of decision. As jurist a certain point of development of technique can kill democracy. As citizen we are more
and more often require to express our ideas and take decision (nuclear power, vaccine). These techniques require a professional skill and
acknowledgement that medium citizen does not have. So, we decide thanks to the best storytellers who persuade us not by reason (he does
not present all scientific arguments we can’t understand them, the arguments become populist, democracy is suffering from this technique).
Kant used to said that man has to be treated not as a tool but as a purpose. Nowadays men are purpose but everything else became pure
mean. We don’t have ethics for other creatures that are not humans and laws are to discipline wars conflict among human beings and not
among human and nature. Science and technique honestly have no ethic except the idea that you have to know, or that you can know,
regardless of the purpose of the research. I can do everything that I can do. The first can is “I am technical able” I am capable to realize
something to make it presence. The second means that I am ethical capable to do so. And the scientific ethic basically does not set a limit it
is called tautological (tautology => tauto means the same, logi we know from last time) it means “I can do everything I can do”. There is no
limit. Also, our economic system is encouraging the removal of the limit. Next time we will talk about capitalism. AI as a technique is the
most refined form of rationality that man has ever achieved, and its centre value is that we have to get the maximum of the resource with
the minimum use of means. We basically produce a technicality that has no ethic and no limit. We become executive operators of this
system. We are enslaved by productivity and efficiency. We also become operators that are accustomed to not having an ethic. Adolf Hitler
was fan of Ford because to produce cars or extermination camps for technique it is not problem. The problem should be ours. We become
more and more accustomed to working in this technique system because we have task (small percentage tasks) and by these protocols men
lose the consequences of actions. The task of man is only press of button not killing people.

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 11
LECTURE 5 (13/03/2023)
venerdì 10 marzo 2023 15:31

We will talk about capitalism in a general form. First recall some topics. Phenomenon is something
that shows itself to who is able to understand it, not only to experience it but also to translate these
experiences to words, we are the only creatures to do so (animals can’t). Words can go in the
direction of “technologos” (words of technique), this is how we develop science or in another
direction which is dysfunctional because it has a purpose that is free that could be poetry, music, art
and so on. The different meanings that these words that we use to describe this phenomenon
depends on time we live, context, culture. We can’t have text without context. It also depends on
the paradigm of truth that emerge in certain age, community, civilization. We approach this change
of meanings through hermeneutics, that helps use to discover these different layers. We grasp these
phenomena thanks to the definition and scheme that we partly inerate and also gain from time. This
activity of knowledge that man is living is based on two main moments: the first one is the catch and
fix (pin what we have catched). This is true for all rules of our live even scientific and juridical that
changes while we change. This changing makes very clear that our knowledge is not infallible.
Progress (means “pro”, means on “gress” means going on), where we go is a chapter that we will
study in the future. Our knowledge is fallible, but our failure is the reason we start over again, our
errors are the starting point of a new itinerate. The word “error” comes from ERRARE Latin verb that
means to wonder (not going in a straight direction) but also to get lost. What is an error for a
mechanical intelligence? 404. An error for human being is something that pushes to another
movement. In the mechanical one is just the stop. We can say that to catch these data from reality
that we mean process of knowledge, more than peaking and catching it is more similar to unveiling.
We have many layers and by this process of knowledge we keep anvil these different layers. This
knowledge is coreless, we can’t know something for sure and all. This is true for objects and even
more true for human beings, we can’t be fully understood, possessed. According to Phenomenology
the way we see a phenomenon is partial because we can only see a part of it. If what we see is just a
part of the general view than we can’t claim our vision as the best, because is just a part. So, it has
many consequences, when we say that the truth is / the justice is / the beauty is we are mystifying
this. Because truth, justice and beauty can’t tell themselves someone have to told them. We all have
the same possibility to say our vision. Let’s see the dark side of capitalism. There was this
anthropologist Mircea Eliade who said that the modernment (boh) through the market is to
desacralize the world and is deciding to leave a proficiency system. We don’t have complete vision
of phenomenon, phenomenon happens through time, as a singular we can’t have all vision, we can’t
be in every one eye. We are part of it we have only specific tools available from the past and a
certain knowledge that can develop in time but is still limited. Every phenomenon has an invisible
spirit/part that live under track and through our tools we can acquire. Today maybe he would not
say that because market (the capitalistic one) is sacralising the world in this 21 century even from a
very different perspective. In fact, we are not having another religion (“religio” means to tight
together and take care of something precious) it is not a religio as it is intendent here but more like
an idolatry. Also, the capitalism of today is very different from the capitalism of the past two
centuries and many important and huge events occurred: first finance, the second the wealth
revolution. We can barely use the same words to describe the capitalism of the past century and the
nowadays. We can have this excursion (storic) to see what are those invisible spirits that we cannot
really notice in everyday life, but they have huge influence on our wellbeing, health in general. Late
enlightenment philosopher De San Simon (movement that reason the science has an esoteric (to
save) mission, all the darkness where the man was dipping could be removed by the use of reason).
His idea was stronger, and he funded a religion this utopic religion where interprets, capitalist and
scientist were the gods. He was the triumph of fate in the human reason. This religion became really
popular. Nowadays more than an eutopia this can be considered a dark prophecy, but it has some
difference. What is the difference: we are now assisting at this lethal alliance between technique
and market. This made the market even harder, faster, better, stronger because science technique
and market use the numeric language. Measurability of prices, market, that makes everything
comparable. Having a price, it kills all the discussion about it. Not talking about a value, a price is
settable and not negotiable nowadays. This numeric language because does not need interpretation

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 12
settable and not negotiable nowadays. This numeric language because does not need interpretation
has a very sharp translation in other values. Perfect translation number in another measurement is
not the same in symbolic language that uses mostly words like the juridical sphere (it is a slower
system, requires time, interpretation, thinking). The juridical system is always late and not efficient,
we are trying to apply more and more technology to our sphere, it is not an automatic task because
has limit and danger. The first difference is that now we have techno capitalistic market (not the
market of two century ago) and the priests of this new idolatry are not engineers and producers but
the Master (Lords) of Finance and managers. Also, there is another shift of paradigm because in the
temple of the past religion there was the god that was the producer. Nowadays God is not anymore,
the producer but the consumer. We are now facing an ideology of business that is dominating all the
sphere of the common living together such as politics, healthcare, school. The ideology of business is
also taking routs in university and business school, spreading in all over the world and culture and it
is very successful. It shows itself not as an ideology but as a neutral technique, that is valid and
available, applicable everywhere and for everything. Example: if we buy a car in Dallas, Naples or
Nairobi it will work the same way, technique is also neutral but in a bad sense, it is not depending on
culture of people it uses standardized tools. In this sense a big company and a small one because
they are both enterprises, they should work in the same way according to this ideology of business.
The vision of the world, person, human relation is different. Capitalism is based on dogmas like any
fate. The main one is meritocracy and incentive. So, through meritocracy we legitimate in a quality
because talents are not considered as gifts but has merit. The pours are poor because they are not
worth (they are guilty). This vision of the world, human relationships is a kind of shrunk version of us
(diminished vision). How does capitalism work? The first rule of the capitalism of the 21 century is to
impose a straight separation between the real of business and the real of private life. The first big
distinction is between enterprises itself profit and non-profit companies. There is also a parallel
situation that we can find inside the enterprise: logic and language of the enterprise must be
completely separated by the family and outside rules. These two logics must be separated. We kind
of accept this managerial culture of organization that is transmitted to us by education, and it is very
capable of recycle these symbolic codes of our culture to purpose that is not free. We now are
nowadays accepting without a blink of an ethical eye that our relation will be ruled by social network
and will go through media because capitalism as an idolatry is also capable of mythopoesis
(“poiesis” to create, “mito” mythology). This capitalism is able to transform our symbolic system
(how we work and motivation) and use it to its own purpose. We are now starting to notice that
there are some cracks in the wall because this system provokes a growing emotional fragility
especially among managers (big companies) that are using a big quantity of psychiatric drugs and are
experiencing burn out, that are not surprised by company but perfectly planned (too much charge
on a person, manager works alone, lonely creature that works with other lonely creatures). Different
burn out first, second, third, so the company has a couch to keep you in track, but this manager
emotive system finish to be stressed. This pervasiveness of this manager ideology is now becoming
like the Holy Bible. At the roots and bottom of this system, of this new illness that not only regards
work, but also healthy, family organisation, there is a paradox. The golden rule of the managerial
ideology is never mix up logic and language of different sphere (work and family). Work has given
gratitude, friendship and forgiveness must be kept out from the companies because inappropriate,
inefficient, dangerous. Focus on words like hermeneutics there is a manipulation of the language we
are facing, and we don’t notice it clearly. If we look beyond of rhetoric team building, creating and so
on, the manager is a solid figure that has very poor relation to other figure of the same companies
all the relationship are fragmented and functional. On one hand the managerial culture encourages
separation (disjunction). Example: in USA big managers don’t mix manager and worker stay in
different places (eating is a very powerful action can build up relationships). Separation on one hand
and in the other when we select and motive managers the same companies use familiar friendly and
religious call of communication. Words like esteem, merit, passion, respect, loyalty, community ring
a bell inside us they trigger dynamics that used to belong to a different context and now they are
used by the market. The first force of enterprises was based on communities and families, in this
first capitalism a lot was asked to managers, workers but not too much. It was not asked everything
family community church there were other places that people could meet and spend time together.
The promise was worth the sacrifice (it was very clear when asked). Life for God and nation. In this
case there is a kind of bluff (cheating) because capitalism is using the same motivation and symbolic
calls of religion but in another way. Capitalism understood that without using these deep
words/codes that belongs to human beings since the beginning men don’t do their best. Capitalism

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 13
words/codes that belongs to human beings since the beginning men don’t do their best. Capitalism
wants it all: time, priority, involvement, sacrifice and all of this is not included in the contract. But if
enterprises valued all the gift from the employees, they would create communities (“cum munus”,
“cum” means together, “munus” means gift: reciprocal gift). This situation works when the manager
is young has expectations and economic recognition but after some time workers and manager
understand that this life investments are not valued and becomes emotional credit (they understand
they will never be paid, and this is when the burn out appears). When this young worker collapse,
we take another one, the game goes on with new people because capitalism consumes youth (wants
them). The big works of life are fertile (brings fertility) only if not exploded. If we welcome their
complexity and their ambivalence and we don’t allow the economic reason/sphere to manipulate
them for too long. Every ideology is trying to manipulate big words of the human (like freedom,
equality) reducing complexing and ambivalence of these words to have a straighten control of
people. The manager ideology does not use the same words with gratuity in this sense they are not
responsible for the cost and the wounds that this ambivalence produces. Contemporary capitalism
tries to standardize our passion and ideal, when we have this intrinsic motivation that comes from
inside then action become unpredictable, free. Managers need to manage for their work they try to
(need) squeeze creativity into protocol (they are everywhere like school, healthcare). Protocols limit
creativity that is required when we approach job interview. If capitalism convalesce all the intrinsic
motivation towards simple goals, then it reduces our creativity and our freedom. Intrinsic motivation
compared to business goals are more powerful and detach from the cost benefit calculation.
Creativity needs intrinsic motivation not only money.
The loneliness of our time grows along with our desire of community. We try to satisfy this desire
through forms and instruments that end up to increases this loneliness. Market and Society wants
and needs individuals with weak boundaries because relationships that are meaningful and strong
and interior life that is well cultivated make an imperfect consumer and very difficult to manage. The
dispositive that this type of capitalism uses is this one: addressing to destroy free gods that are not
from the market and are substitute by mercies that tries to solve the lack of the first goods and
somehow, they realize this objective but in another point of view it increases this lack. So, the main
working form of capitalism is destroying the goods that are not commercial and to substitute this
lack of these goods with mercies that from one part are surrogating these free goods so somehow,
they work, and in other side they increase this lack. They don’t reduce it they make it bigger. If we
only thing about how community are nowadays emerging, they are now emerging as online
community, but it is a kind of community that is a paradox. We keep spending hours alone in a room
in front of a screen and we try this loneliness that this system creates, we try to replace this feeling
with the surrogacy of community we have this online community. There are two different
communities a community that is co-alive and another one only online: when we are in flash and
bones, we are actors of our live and we also do not have the script for what we do every day. We
kind of improvised we try to live at the best with the tools we have, we risk being not enough and
expose to failure, our life is showed to our community, makes us more fragile in the eyes of others,
and create sense of colliding that is not just made of victory, triumph, happiness like we do online.
Online we are not actors but directors of our life, we show the projection of our identity, the online
community do not see as and do not see itself through us like a vulnerable person that can fail and
restart. We see only triumphant profiles that project their identity in front of us, not the sad part
that is the most important. “Share” word is misunderstood it involves our empathic sphere it makes
us feel vulnerable and is expecting from the other an understanding, share today is about clicking.
The market in this system tries to cure illness that is producing. It is like if there is this kind of
creative destruction. It destroys goods while creating mercies. In traditional community the pours
where maybe poor in economy but not poor in everything they used to have community wealth like
the holidays (moment where gratuity is emerging to distribute the goods to everybody). Nowadays
the poor people are poor of everything because gratuity has been eaten up by capitalism. An
example: in the past we used to live in the country yards so there “was” food scarcity, it was
difficulty to become obese, when we moved to the cities we started to have (no scarcity) we started
to gain weight we did not move ourselves we were most of the time seated. Capitalism provides the
cure of it: diet, hygiene but you have to pay for it of course. Traditional communities were based on
strong boundaries, postmodern communities like online one’s relays on weak boundaries. Byun Chul
Han (from Berlin but Korean) speaks about “digital worlds” because communities not kept together
online by endurance of the relationships that we have but only by desire. We can leave an online

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 14
online by endurance of the relationships that we have but only by desire. We can leave an online
community easy. In the past the relationship we used to have very little elective (selective).
Nowadays we use elective ways to bind with others we choose our communities it does not happen
to us. Another import rule is the authenticity. In the past since the crisis the markets were built on
the family structures, it had same structure of family and community, but the artificial part was not
so big as now. Some kind of artificiality way to present it is normal. Nowadays the first spirit of the
market is exaggerated. Capitalist understood that authenticity is something to be researched in the
market. It is something required. We pursue authenticity like we find merch that are more genuine
(the real think is that we want to meet the person who raised the vegetables). This authenticity is
valued from the market, and it correspond to a higher price so all the engagement that the
interpreter puts in the business gratuity the extra effort has a price it loses his gratuity. Authenticity
is not a character of things but a character of people. Basically, we are asking to the market that
gratuity that was chased out in the first place by the market. We also want authenticity when the
products are settled on the market. In the past form of capitalism, the publicity was that. We could
put the AdBlock. At the same time, we followed a lot of profiles that thanks to their narration of
their life (not dedicated to us, in the past our ancestors settled narration only for us), today
influencers don’t do it for free but to set products on the market. They don’t address the message
only to us but to a big crowd where we are a part of this digital world. The first thing that capitalism
does today is to implement the idea that the individual is important and must be free. In this way
we mean the idea of community. Community is a sense of responsibility and if we are individuals the
most important thing is our freedom, on the other side we are not responsible for others but only to
ourselves. There is no more “religio” (means keep together) of communities that are protecting
something. We are slowly being deprived by the meaning and by the sense of being together and we
are replacing this lack with things. Things were very important for the first spirit of capitalism
because the accumulation of things/stuff/goods were a blessing. Nowadays at the centre of the
temple we don’t find the producer but the consumer. Producing was a collecting action that involves
a collective intelligence. Shifting and going to a god that is a consumer (consume is an individual act)
is a very big change of paradigm. Producing is related to a community, consuming we can do it
alone. Our relationships with things changed and we are now also facing a transformation even
bigger lets thing how we play the game. The game is represented by machines (an example where
we put coins like slot machine), the symbol of a game is that we play alone against an hidden spirit
that is intoxicating us and it is promising us something (make us rich) and in the very end is not doing
so it is not respecting it but only creating addiction stupefaction and unhappiness.

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 15
LECTURE 6 (17/03/2023)
lunedì 13 marzo 2023 14:07

Technique as the whole phenomenon where AI is collocated, the last stage but it is the
general environment where AI is raising. The technical system and economical system are
melted together so they now constitute the same phenomenon. We seek the hidden
dynamics, that inspire the phenomenon not only the visible the more appearance side but
also the less obvious that are not properly perceivable because they are in the dark side. We
discussed capitalism not just as a form of economy or religion or ideology but as an
idolatry(k). No ideology because it has some shapes/layers that we call religion side. It is
not the religion itself because religion has the capacity to keep/gather together people
around a centre of meaning that they protect and capitalism is not this we can see it more
properly as an idolatry. Idolatry is also what we have found, and it is recalled by the middle
eastern city of 3000 years ago or Roman and Greek police (that arose shortly after), where
the private and public spaces where full of statues, temples, altars that were devoted to
many gods (like Paganism). In this historical context sacrifices not only animals but also
human sacrifices occurred and punctuate the life not only private but decisional war, on
politics and on life and death. The advent of Christianity was exactly an attempt to get rid of
these customs. Customs as we said in one part it was idols in the other sacrifices. Why?
Because idols were occupying all the space of private and public life, so the noise that they
created prevent people from focusing on the word of lore, of spirituality (God), sacrifices
because Christianity tried to replace human sacrifices for God with sacrifices that God offer
for humans. Christianity tries to dismantle this system of sacrifices by gratuity despite the
human nature is some kind impelled to praise and warship idols. We can see that after 2000
years capitalism first tried to cancel this idea of gratuity, and then understanding this is not
possible try to make out of gratuity a profit. Let’s do an example: food is a very important
moment of sociality, through food we build fraternity, conviviality. It is an intimacy way to
share and also to allow other people of the community to live it is something secret.
Nowadays how do we treat food? We spectacularize the making of food, like tv show for
cooking, we use food as a game as a source of profit itself. Through capitalism occurred this
semantic manipulation of the words, so sacrifice even if we tried to dismantle it through
Christianity in the globalized capitalistic system it is coming back even if differently. Let’s
thing about all the words belonging to this sphere: mission, calling, fidelity, trust. We can see
that the market firstly tried to use words taken from the military and sport life, to motivate
people to sacrifice their life. They saw that to conquer to win the man’s human hearts and to
exploit the best they have to give; they needed a stronger and more grounded symbolic
code, so they picked it from religion and spiritual sphere. Food nowadays we specularize it
through influencers that are cooking, they made food only for show, show business around
food (fast food), somehow deprived food from the symbolic and deepen meaning that has for
family and communities and reduced it to another merch, it is also how we waste food.
Beside military and sporty terminology capitalism needed to motivate in stronger way his
adept, so we go to the religious vocabulary the spiritual sphere: of course, work has always
meant some king of sweet, effort and dedication it was always like this. Now the sacrifice
that is required involves all our lives, private, family, social time (in general). In the recent
past this idea that sacrifice was acceptable but should not be total enabled to create these
labels union that set a limit between the sacrifice and exploitation. It was accepted that
somebody was taking advantage of the work of the multiplicity. At the same time, we try to
fight hard but also to reduce this injustice. Nowadays the semantic manipulation that
capitalism is trying to put in has lead us to believe that sacrifice is a voluntary gift. We are
still exploited by this rich Gods, but we must also be happy and grateful. Why do we
sacrifice? What is the promise behind that? We hope for the favour of the gods to make a
career. What happens to who refuse to adapt and agree of this system of sacrifice? They
are dismissing from the favour of these gods and are considered losers. Loser is a word that
we can see in the Anglo-Saxon world because it is a word that contains a form of guilty very
deep. In German language the word “schuld“ means at the same time guilt and dept, this
idea also is something that communicate to us that the more you sacrifice the more you are
requested to keep do it relentlessly. Idols don’t own sacrifice to anybody they can only
receive but they cannot give. When unaffordable condition occurred so the enterprise has to
move the establishment to another place (tax heaven), they don’t develop guilt. Even if the
employers dedicated all their life to the enterprise they are dismissed. What is the payback?

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 16
employers dedicated all their life to the enterprise they are dismissed. What is the payback?
Money, otherwise, nothing at all. Because they hide through the contract this voluntary gift
that is really a sacrifice of the hole life of the human being.
Let’s turn to a German author from Berlin Walter Benjamin he wrote in 1991 a book (essay)
named “Capitalism as a religion”. He develops 4 theses:
The first one that capitalism is a religion but a pure cult religion and it’s the most extreme
form of cult that we know. Pure cult religion because it does not have any theology
according to Benjamin, does not have any dogmas, the managerial culture is now
developing their own theology and dogmas (he wrote it 1 century ago). What if it does not
have theology and dogmas? Just practices, practises are what make a cult a culture, when
you practice dogmas then you become a part of a culture. Cultural strength and impact of
capitalism is its ability to impose itself, as a global and all enveloping experience. It is a
practice that it is bringing on every day. Day to day practice that implant on every level of
live. Against capitalism there are not many theories that can oppose a resistance. The daily
practice is stronger, and it is become more difficult to eradicate something that is practiced
every day.
The second aspect that Benjamin highlighted is the fact that the duration of the cult is
permanent. He says that there is not truth, no mercy. The activity of capitalism buy and
consuming is something that keep going on every day (we have shops 24/7 and also online
shopping). The holydays that constitute the moment of stop of work for Jewish people is
shabbat, Christian is Sunday time where you have to stop working from doing what you have
to do every day, you can dedicate that moment to your life. Today capitalism on holydays
the consume is even increased.
The third aspect is that capitalism is the first cult that does not provide atonement but further
guilt. Why Benjamin says so? Let’s thing about Christian religion, there is an initial guilt that
afterwards was amended by the sacrifice of God, in the capitalism the first idol is the
consumer at the centre of the temple there is the consumer. So if he is the idol, what is the
sacrifice that the system attribute to him? The discount. It must be real. In black Friday even
if people question on the realness of these discounts no, it must be true and effective
because this is the form of gift and reprieve this is the sacrifice that the market does for its
god. The difference with other religion and cult is relevant. In traditional religion it was the
adept to gift to God, while in this specific ideology it is the enterprise that gift to the
consumer because the direction of the cult is the opposite. Because the adept should
sacrifice for the god, in this case the market provides real discount (sacrifice their profit) to
make his consumer more loyal to the brand. So, companies tried to retain their consumers
by building loyalty through the sacrifice of discount, but this discount is a gift given without
gratuity because still you have to pay the merch. There is a function purpose of this discount
not for our happiness, salvation, but future purpose to gain more money from this behaviour.
A gift without gratuity pays out the idea that we are not in religion but in an idolatry.
The fourth aspect is that God must remain hidden. Who is the god of the client? Money, the
market itself? Promise of the market? The idea of the perfect consumer who is always in
need to consume. The capitalism. So, God must remain hidden it operates mysteriously and
differently from other religions, in this cult you can’t turn to God for help. Think about the
Bitcoin (virtual currency), the idea that finance just like God is the only that can create out of
nothing. Also, Poetry from nothing, comes from “Poiesis” that means to create. But in poetry
they are selling us crap, honestly, they don’t have economical value in this cultural context.
In Capitalism credit and debits differently from other religions where in the end of life what
you have done you have done, death is amending this, they remain credit and debits in the
economical aspect until the price is paid from who comes next.
So, lets focus a little bit about money. Since the down of civilization money had the
compelled tendency to trespass the territory of the secret. The keepers of the secret spheres
tried to restrain this trend. But sometimes during history we found that money and holy
becomes allies. Market of indulgence. But this distinction between money and secret is vital
for the system because the threshold is always treated, is a form of social control devoted to
create and to restrain the system of classes. On this distinction of secret and profane there
is the distinction about pure and impure.
Pure it’s pure because it’s untouched, not touched by what is impure, it’s secret because
unteachable. In the past pours were difficult to help because they could not be touched.
Christianity made a revolution about it because Jesus Christ was touching the ill people that

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 17
Christianity made a revolution about it because Jesus Christ was touching the ill people that
had plague, the prostitutes. He contaminated with his sacrality these figures. In the monetary
economy there is an important exception, money if touched by impure person is not infected.
It is not spiritual infected. The first merchants to prove that a coin was real they used to put
money in their mouths. There is a very common to say “pecunia non olet” that remarks this
immunity of the money by something that is impure. In fact in the system like for Jewish and
Indians, bankers were relegated to them because this impurities make like a -. And - - make
a +. Trading was also possible for Christian, Jewish, Muslims, everybody could make
market. This special permit of immunity that money has, was also useful when we die. In the
past we used to put money on the eyes of the corps to pay off a dept in the new life that was
made in the previous life. In the light Middle Age also money was used to fulfil a promise,
they used to pay poor to go on crusades and pilgrimages. You could buy time in purgatory to
go faster to paradise. There is a paradox. The paradox is that the exception of money from
the rules of purity and impurity and contamination did not eliminated nor reduced the social
class system based on cast. It also confirm it and made it stronger. Who are the poor people
nowadays? The poor. Those who don’t touch money. Impurity is generated by no contact.
Also, another aspect the richest could utilize services of poor without having to touch them,
no relate only pay them. Money becomes the medium of everything (medium means a tool
that intermediate through intersubjective relationships) it enables us to live together without
the necessity to touch each other. The spiritual nature of money has increased nowadays it
operates, asks, saves, condemns, and the virtual and digital currency it is a form of
dematerialized god. Until recently with money you could buy only basic goods, that were
needed for survival maybe a little comfort, health, and small part of respect. Now capitalism
is inducing us to believe that you can buy everything, health, youth, beauty, justice and also
happiness. We are now living in a new form of market of indulgencies and through money
we can buy new kidney from another human being, we can buy also somebody that can help
us to deliver a baby, or that can help us to die.
We as humans are not determined to a purpose that is near surviving. Existence comes
from Greek “ex” means out, “sistere” means to stay. So we stay out of the circle that
envelope all the other creatures we have this problem of language, we are not determined
by nature we are not free but undetermined and we build our determination through time and
projects.

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 18
LECTURE 7 (20/03/2023)
venerdì 17 marzo 2023 11:16

Economics and technology are impacted deeply by the AI. Today we discuss another aspect
of the capitalism and in the next lesson we will discuss also the aspect of globalization. So
far, we have seen some distinct traits, we talked about gratuity. One of the most ancient
mythology about how the civilization has started comes from an example: Prometheus and
Epimetheus and also Adam e Eve. What is the history of these two mythologies:
Prometheus was the titan that stole fire from Zeus to give it to the men, because he saw
they were in pain. Prometheus the one who thinks in advance wanted to make his presence,
he gave them his technique. When Zeus knew about this robbery, he wanted to punish
Prometheus and he chained him to a rock and make him devoir his liver by an eagle (every
day the liver grows back and get again eaten). What about men? Zeus decided to punish
them firstly shaping a very beautiful woman Pandora (all gives). “Pan” means all, “Dora”
means gift. She had all the values, beautiful and leaded to Epimetheus (Prometheus brother
the one who thinks later, the stupid one), despite Prometheus invited his brother to not
accept any gift by Zeus he falls in love with Pandora and married her. During the wedding he
received a casket from Zeus and they had to promise this casket close forever only to keep
it. But soon or later Pandora decided to know what was inside, she opened it and all the
evils of the world that where inside got out of the box and they felt to humanity like jealousy,
disease etc...The only vaue that remained at the bottom of this phase was the hope that had
to sue and pay for the suffering of men.

Another mythology that is biblical is Adam and Eve, they were promised to live in the perfect
place, no work, no suffer. Soon through Eve they disobeyed and they broke the promise.
Why bringing in this difference mythology? They come from different language and culture,
but we can see that the message is the same, human beings are incapable to build their
civilization on free gifts. We can see that there is a close relationship between a gift
(present) and disobedience. And, between gratuity and authority, and between freedom and
hierarchy. From the failure of the first relationship based on reciprocity. The first hierarchical
relationship was based on domination. On one side we have hierarchy on the other side we
have gift. And hierarchy becomes the answer, the alternative , the first enemy of the free gift.
It becomes the answer to the unsuccess of gift (foundation of gratuity). If we think that there
is a gift then it is something that I do for free, if for free you are not obligated to give
something back but there is something that tie together us, but there is reciprocity, when we
give a gift we don’t want anything back, but there is something tighter. A gift is something
that you do for free but you tight together while a present always for free. There is a radical
rivalry between hierarchy and gift. Through hierarchy we want to eat the best part of harvest,
this are not given to us by a gift, but they are demanded as a right. While gift has to run free,
and it is interfered by who is in charge to manage the borders and predictability of the
output. Through these mythology we have seen that to restore alliance between god and
man, Christian religion brings the passion. Bernardo DI Chiaravalle monk from past
millennium, described the passion of Christ as “adonum sine pretio. gratia sine merito. Carita
sine modo”. A gift without price, mercy without merit, love without condition. Gift => Price,
Mercy => Merit, Love => Measure. To say gift, he had to eliminate the price, to say mercy
merit had to be eliminated, to say love measure was denied. So we have on one side gift,
mercy and love, and other price, merit and measure. This distinction was at the bottom of
the western ethic/ethos, spirituality for many centuries until the capitalistic ideology has
induced us to believe that these words are all on the same side, all allied. A gift has a price,
you have to Deserve mercy through merit, and you have to have a measure in love. This is
the idea that the managerial philosophy and cult is bringing in. It is clear how gratuity is
connected to freedom, because what is remaining of freedom if there is a master that is
paying a price to make us do whatever he wants. Is our value unconditional? Absolute? Or
have price? We have to deserve it? Man is worth of dignity, no matter of what. But in the real
live the economic logic is changing these ideas little by little. At the bottom of gratuity, there
must be no calculation but the idea of usefulness from another point of view not economic.
We need to leave some space that must be cap out from commercial logic. In this free space
we find our reason, where we develop creativity. This free space that is not framed and
squeezed, to work a purpose that was predetermined, it is not convenient from an utilitaristic
point of view but can be rewarding for other personal things like ambition, aspiration. While

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 19
point of view but can be rewarding for other personal things like ambition, aspiration. While
the economic incentive has the power to produce an emptying of the intrinsic dimension.
Every action has a price, little by little gratuity is expelled. This is very important, the
opposition between incentive and gratuity doesn’t relay on the opposition for free / for a fee.
Because there are lot of gratuities that is contain in the relation regulated by contracts. There
are many free services that we use today, that even if they are free, they have nothing to do
with gratuity. Examples like: Google, free trials of application (free but mean to sell), social
media. Social media most of all are free but have economic hearth not really a gift. Who is
on the other side? Who is regulated by contract but still has lot of gratuities in it. Let’s think
about all the job that have to deal with care, care of human beings, pay to care elder people.
Taking care is not only feeding washing going to bed but it requests participation (even not
written in contract) same to children. Treatment is something very different from care, care is
based on gratuity even if not included in the contract. Needed to make job human and useful
to other human. During second world war there was orphanage where all the children that
lost family was raised by these nurses but there was also an experiment on these children
they were raised without talk, perfectly feded and physical need but no empathetic
participation included they all died in the end. Maybe there’s a reason for that. Because
conflict between gratuity and incentive is more radical, and it is working on our perception
because it keeps saying that is not possible that one does good things if not paying for it,
good things must have a price. Faith in incentive is spreading and is growing because it
looks like a free choice of the worker, but it is a sacrifice by these guys. Because there is
great distinction between price and value. Price is numerical quantitative world, value is
something not objective, not measurable, and related to perception. I can have a bracelet
with no price but belong to dear grandmother, has a value that is no possible to make price
of it out of logic. Capitalism is doing exactly this, eating up and consuming more and more
space that previously were ruled by gratuity. As we were saying this fating incentive that it is
an encouraging towards to enterprise finality, not in our intrinsic motivation. It is spreading
also and occupying the spaces that were exclusively for gratuity. Let’s think about the
sharing economy that is flourishing in this moment, in it we can share our houses, car rides,
meals and it is a type of capitalism that’s called warm capitalism. Looks more human
compared to traditional market (more insidious). This warm brings in a social sphere, that
when we want to go to vacation and go to hotel we don’t have this warm experience, this
capitalism is following the needs that we are starting to show. We have to take in account
phenomenological every phenomenon we have to see the dark side that is called
“Heterogenesis of intents” it means that we can do something for a reason, invent something
for purpose and then we lose the mastery of it and it goes towards targets that we are not
suspected. The essence of sharing economy is to create new markets where previously
were ruled by gratuity, when we used to go to vacation we could decide to go to an hotel or
to be hosted by friends / relatives. Same thing dinner we can go restaurant or invite friends
over, take mean of transportation or take a ride from someone else. This sharing economy is
creating this third way (air-bnb, home-restaurant). In this way everything seems to remain
the same. Because markets still proved services that are mutual beneficial but also add the
social side you can meet new people and this market called “collaborative market“ seems
very advantageous because it adds another option, leaving the rest untouched. Brings more
possibilities and more freedom in it. Examples: Airbnb you break the intermediation still there
is economic purpose, but it gives you another sense of the commercial experience more
human, more connected to the social part, more authentic. It is not true that is leaving
everything else untouched because it is messing with the ancient and economic balance
(old) and this is creating stress to many categories, that used to live in pure economic
market not in this hybrid. An example: capitalism is creative and destructive at the same
time. What happens? The merchants (hotel owners, taxi, restaurant, merchants in general)
when their interested are in jeopardy they claim their right and fight for them. What about of
the rights of the known merchants? Who is fighting for gratuity. Little by little this
transformation that capitalism is going through it is also transforming our perception that is
not all in our gratuity, but it starts to reason on cost and benefits. Example: I can give to
friends 80% discount for house. We are both satisfied, because money back and he gets a
discount. In the previous time it was only gratuity. Little by little poor will be deprived of all
possibility that gratuity brings in. This hybrid market that include social and economic sphere
will be regulated and absorbed by the system, but in the mean time we lose gratuity and
many friends. Let’s reason why gratuity is so faired by the system, because it is a taboo the
biggest taboo for capitalism, it is dangerous because it is free and not influenced by
incentive (money) and can pursue any target, go everywhere it wants, a kind of disease on
the body of the enterprise that must be contain. Body must be immune by gratuity because it

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 20
the body of the enterprise that must be contain. Body must be immune by gratuity because it
can transform it or kill it. If we think about community since the first form of civilization they
had to manage violence, and destructive drives to avoid self-destruction (first rule of
civilization). One of the tools that is used by communities is the creations of taboos, to
regulate and control communities. It rules the secret part and also the conflicts and avoids
the “mimeting“ violence. In the animal reign when we have conflicts they end up in fights and
sometimes in death. If I am violent toward another animal (I animal) we don’t talk but keep
fight, so violence will be repeated and explosive. The human community started to
understand mimetic violence will bring soon self-destruction, so they started to put a third
part that is the warranty that the conflicts don’t become lethal. We created the figure of the
judge. Who is the judge after all? (Rene Girard) Judge is another human being not
interested in our conflict but still can solve it thanks to the dialogical activity (mimeting in the
sense that it is contagious). It is something that prevents the conflict to become destructive.
Taboo was the first phenomenon, and it was paid (community paid an high price) because
taboo allowed discrimination and persecution. The ambivalence between community and
taboo is very intense. Taboo is something that must be avoided, and it defines something
untouchable but taboo is also spread a fascinating irresistible call. Facts that kings,
pharaohs and popes where untouchable. We want to touch them because we take some
power (by touching) also in TV. Deep ancient reason for that, but at the same time they were
untouchable because when you touch you can also kill. Nowadays we try to gain power of
these celebrities through the consumption of the merch and goods that they promote. What
is considered a taboo can’t be touched but also can’t be eliminated. If we eliminate taboo is
like we eliminate also law, if we eliminate law we eliminate the limit, no more boundaries. If
we eliminate definition, we eliminate it all. Community is not more a community. Definition of
community: specific rules that others don’t have. Capitalism is very clear if seen under the
perspective of this denial of gratuity and lets think about it in this way, we put on two side: on
one gratuity on the other hierarchy. Because traditional community was based on these two
columns. Hierarchy regulated power, gratuity and gift reciprocity among clans, tribes, family,
through a donation we join clans, through marriage, how sociality started to build up. What
happens when market became bigger? we could not relay on uncertainty of the gift. Gift has
a value that is unmeasurable, we have to squeeze this value unmeasurable into contracts
and prices, because in order to exchange we need predetermined amount of value. In one
side our market communities are killing (on the bottom of the form of civilization) we see that
the hierarchy is reinforced, endorsed by the capitalistic system and gratuity is refused and
killed. We can see that when we think about our jobs, gratuity starts when we are out of the
gate of the enterprise, we can see nothing can be done good without a price so when we
work we have to use badges, we need to have certain time for lunch we can overwork but it
must be paid, no gratuity in enterprise. Enterprise has to return sacrifice but how? By
money. Incentive starts. Gratuity is expelled by the enterprises jobs that we have like any
other totemic society we also need collective rituals where the untouchable objects become
finally touchable and can be scarified, consumed in order to recharge who is believing in this
taboo and it is recharged by this ritual to get the power from this taboo object how in the
enterprise? We use very little frames (scales of gratuity) and we organize these voluntary
events, some profit to voluntaristic reasons, we organize social dinners to help the poor. The
next day the liturgy ends and the economical mind is place back in set. We can really not
see gratuity and gift in it but just depowered form of gift, a small freebies. Taboo of gratuity
these events form of depower are like voodoo dolls reproduce the form of gods (gratuity) but
since we have in our hands, we can control it. It is a very hard balance between gratuity, the
internal expectation the investment that we do in our job and on the other side the purpose
of the enterprise. When we are engaged in our work the system in general, we are
requested to perform not just by contract, but we’re expected something more (creative,
follow the ideology of the enterprise and to be part of it) become an engine inside a big
engine, to work for it to become it. This request can’t be expressed through condition in the
contract, it’s something that is requested silently, and it is encouraged by money retribution,
so gratuity belongs deeply in human beings, but it is little by little distress by the market of
work. Self-realization requires not only the work realization but if the enterprises take all your
time and energy and resources you become manager but there is imbalance in your life, not
because of you but because we are human being and we have only 24 hours, better to give
the best part. The sacrifice is very high.

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 21
LECTURE 8 (24/03/2023)
lunedì 20 marzo 2023 10:07

Phenomena are interesting for us that we follow phenomenology, not for how they appear
but for the fact that they appear to us, and that’s why we need to talk before talking about
cyber and computer law.

We said that focusing on the observer have two big consequences, the first one is that is
true that phenomenal can not tell itself but need somebody to be told, so we understand that
we have relativize all this knowledge, because if this is a phenomenon and this is the
observer, (draw description) there is still an unseen, the observer is able to see only a part of
the phenomenon, there is a unseen part that is still unseen, this is why phenomenon appear
to us in a certain form in space and time. Depending from the moment we take a look of the
observate, we may have different feedback. The other important aspect is that we now take
in account the position of the observer that in the scientific paradigma was at least ignored,
was not mistreated and its presence was need to be purified by its subjectivity, condition,
desire. We are trying to consider other dimensions of acknowledgement, we do it historically
following the path that every word and every concept that we keep using hide (la parola
persona dal latino deriva da per sona, che erano maschere con una forma sulla bocca
amplificata e quindi per persona si intendeva un personaggio, successivamente persona ha
voluto dire altre cose non piu la maschera a teatro, ma l’identità di qualcuno, quindi dietro
alla storie delle parole c’è la storia dell’uomo). Nowadays using these tools and words make
the meaning change, this changement of meaning highlights the changement of the thinking
of the human being. When we will study cybersecurity we have to follow rules and if we don’t
understand and take the words as they are we will not do our job properly. We need to
understand what is a persona, human being, knowledge, privacy we need a deep meaning
of these simple words.

Today we will discuss extensively on two columns of reflection: 1) care, 2) holyday.

These are fundamental words not only for economical life but also in everyday life, and
secret sphere, there is no care without holidays and there is not holidays without care. What
is the meaning? Holidays means a day that is sacred. The attempt of capitalism is to turn the
holiday into parties, so to transform a good that is mainly relational into a merch that you can
buy on the market. The care has a deep boundary with the spirituality, with the inner
reflection that we will call interception, and with care. Let’s think about the experience of the
temple, when we enter in a temple we have access to another time, and we can not
experience the time in the temple if we do not break the relentless laws of rational time so
there is this connection between tempium and tempus. They have the same rules. Why we
are talking about it? This relationship is crucial to understand the dimension of care,
because in this temporality we have different approaches, that is not the one that we use in
the ordinary public life. Let’s consider a working mum or dad, since the time they are working
they use some codes (efficiency one), when they go back home they stop that code and
start another time (losing time with their children); even if they attend a sick person (or old
person) we have to tune, we have to syntonise on another existential signal that is not the
one that we use during our work time. In this dimension of care, you communicate by silent
words, through actions, because if you present every day cooked lunch, dinner, clean
bathroom, this is a form of communication that is not translatable in words. The care is one
of the big name of the big example of the gift, it’s not just a gift, there is no care without a
gift. Is not just a gift, because care means professionality and needs high skills, mastery,
and this is a crucial point. One of the biggest misconceptions and mistake of our society is to
misunderstand the word “gratis”. Gratis is not for free or for a fee, the idea is that when gift
grows then for free means that there is a diminution of the owned payment. The more and
action has to be inspired by gratuity the less you will be payed, this brings on a lot of
injustice on the economical sphere, especially in the market of work, this ambivalence of the
gift is also discoverable hermeneutically, gift in German means poison, in English means
present, so there is ambivalent, not all the gifts are the same, those who were celebrated in
the public sphere/life these were issued by reciprocity (gift, sacrifice to Gods) all associated
to form of virtue, of prays, of recognition, honor. The gifts that we tribute to the power, to the
big, are “regalo” (that comes from rex, regalia). Today, who are the most powerful that get
gifts all the time? The influencers. These gifts are done without gratuity, so in change of

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 22
gifts all the time? The influencers. These gifts are done without gratuity, so in change of
these gifts of this sacrifice, of this offers, men receive blessing, prayers and recognition, but
the situation change dramatically when gift is inside the domestic walls. Here the gift of time,
of resources, of energy, of care, of life, were not inferior of those expressed in the public
spaces, and the presents of this domestic gift were not recognized as so, but they were
considered duties and obligations. We have to say that the actors of the public virtue of the
gift were mainly male, and the actors of the gift obligation, private in the domestic sphere
were female. But in the traditional culture the honor/glory were for men, and you can see it if
you visit Italian cities, you do not see any female statue. This is the first act of subjection and
subordination of the woman, the fact that we denied their gift: maternity, attending children,
education, care, care of the house, of the elder people. Those are not gift, those are
obligation by the fact that they were only mum, sister and so on. That freedom to male that
where experiencing in the public sphere disappear in the domestic obligation, and same
thing we can say for sacrifice, for gods and pharaohs when sacrifice gets credits, when
sacrifice in the public sphere it produce incomes and salaries. In the domestic sphere, these
gifts were just an exit from a dept. In the 90’s women finally get into the work market, and we
have to understand the meaning of the recognition that is hidden behind this employment
relationship and behind the salary. Because the salary that women got was different not only
lower, but also because they had a favor of reciprocity, of dignity, social stream that were
unknown by women considered only in the domestic sphere. So, the mutual advantage and
the reciprocity that ruled the public life and the market were not applied in the relationship
men and women in the world. There are possible solutions to that, first of all not only one
gender must be obligated to all the care, not only the other one must be obligated to work,
they can adjust this balance between care and vocation. The question is why very important
jobs by our society are so bad payed, nurse, teacher they are payed less that managers,
why? Because historically, cleaning bathrooms, to take care of children and taking care of
domestic management were something that was for slaves and servants. After that it was
devoted to nurses, waitresses and cooks, and at the end to mothers, sisters and daughters,
never to free man, and never to noble and wealthy women. The distinction between men
and women its valid for 90%, there is always an elite of women. wealthy, reach, that they
were more similar to their husband, so to other male, than to other female servant. Then with
the market we started to see the market of care, which is a great invention, but it can not
constitute the only solution, if all the care it’s on the market, so only who has power, money
power, can get the services of this care, and in this way the inequality will be bigger, and so
there will be always a part of humanity that works to take care of other humans who payed
them to give time, who is poor of money is also poor of time. Not all the care can be offered
on the market, we are also made of care. Heidegger highlights care as an existential treat
that we all own, a natural instinct and we have to practicy not with gratuity and not for
economic reasons. We can see that in this gift there must be two parts: recognition and
gratitude otherwise is just an obligation. We can see that there is a charesty of care in the
public spaces, in the companies, that are all built around this male code, and the servants
today are not buying anymore in the Nairobi markets, they are on the market that we use
every day, so rich men and rich women buy the care from the poor. And this is a paradox of
this contemporary age, because we fought a lot to eliminate slavery from the politically
sphere, we wrote constitution, but at the end we are silent towards this slavery of care. And
we have to understand that economy is deeply tight with the man code, because the public
sphere business is built around the homo economicus. The economical sphere has never
conside that the human interaction were essentials basically only for women. (come tutte le
scienze, anche l’economica è costruita da uomini, di conseguenza anche gli interessi che
l’economica persegue sono quelli degli uomini andandosi a distaccare da materie riservate
alle donne, economica domestica gli uomini non si interessavano, da una parte ha creato la
mancanza di una considerazione economica giuridica dei lavori di cura, e dall’altra una
dipendenza da parte degli uomini nei confronti di figure di accudimenti).

This is another part of the discussion, when women were managed to be in the highest
placement of the work they, even if they are women they are inserted in a system that is all
built around this male paradigm, and so they keep protractive the system, its never being
discussed this problem. We can also see that the big impact that the economical sphere has
on all the plane of social life it’s also slowly changing the values and the virtues of our family
life, because we need to be more and more efficient we have to follow velocity, competition,
performance and then we can see that the work the jobs, the rhythm, their time, enter in the
templum, so they destroy the time and the rhythm that are typical of the care. This is
important because the economical value grows and when we reduce the time, more

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 23
important because the economical value grows and when we reduce the time, more
efficient, more economical convenience, and differently the value of the care grows as the
opposite, more we spend more we have a better care. (le ore nel tempio, si espandono,
perdono la loro connotazione costrittiva per diventare dei momenti di liberta, di condivisione,
di espressione di se). In the temple of care hours they spend life are better, more enjoyable,
there is reciprocity, and a form of time longer and slower that is the first reflection on care,
that is deeply connected with the second aspect that we will discuss: Holiday.

Every holiday needs a lot of care, a lot of work and the holiday to endure needs the care.
The capitalistic idolatry wants to abolish the holiday and wants to replace it with the offering
of a lot of parties, fun, and entertainment that have very little in common with the proper
holidays. This is another expression of the creative distraction that the capitalistic market
(expression of Sciupeter economist), this creating distraction is not just because the big
companies kill the concurrence of the smallest one, the capitalistic idolatry gains power
distracting and destroying the free communities and substitute them with other for a
payment. This is the same with holiday. We keep destroying this free holiday to create
amusement for a fee, and amusement can be produced, we can have a fun on a show that
see on Netflix, but amusement is something that destruction you can have fun alone, amuse
alone, but the holidays can only be celebrated together (coproduced and coconsumed).
Outside from the merely economic code. And the radical tendency of our time is to reduce
this space of celebration, because holidays are unmanageable (concern for managers), they
are excessive, they are inefficient, they are useless and dissipative, because their reason is
not hooked to an economic sphere, and it is not meritocratic because everybody have fun,
the big, the children, the poor, the richest. And holidays do not have nothing to do with
incentive. Instead of the holidays many other goods of consumption are trying to replace this
sequence sphere, the holiday, but they are not succeeding, because holiday is a primary
need of religion and of the human existence, also the economic one and there is no religion
without holidays and the holidays give the temporality to the secret sphere, and holiday is
also a friend of job, it’s a friend of work. Who works loves the holidays and who do not have
a job can not appreciate the holiday, it’s a redeem of the work to elevate the holidays to
holy-day. If we think about the idea of shabbat, the first one that needed to celebrate was
God itself but it had to wait to finish the creation and then he created Adam to celebrate. Not
even god can not have an holiday alone, this comes from the semantic sphere of follow
maggiese (erba che cresce senza sfruttare ulteriormente il campo, maggiese perche si fa a
maggio l’operazione) this is when you leave your field resting, and the idea that is behind the
shabbat is that you can use the field for six days but not the seventh, you can make animal
work for you for 6 days but not for the seventh and why this is so important? Because when
the Jewish were slaves under the Egyptian they cannot say today I’m not working, free man
can say today i rest, salve cannot. So there is a part of the stuff you know that you have to
leave for others. At the bottom of shabbat there is this important idea not everything is just
and only for you, you have to leave something for poor, for animals, you cannot consume it
all. The last stage of capitalism is self exploitation so you have to performance no body asks
you to do it you do it alone, the limit of public and private life is little because you ask
yourself to be always productive (you always replay) needle space between free time and
occupation.
At the bottom of the lesson we can say that man owns the old days of the week so if there is
a master there must be a slave somewhere else our earth itself, Shabbat (a temple made of
time, Babylonian destroyed their temple, they build a temple of time and not a physical one)
is introducing an idea of not property, and it’s trying to mitigate that predatory approach that
we have with the planet, so for example the monks of San Francesco they always leave a
corner of their field for the poor. Because after all technicality it’s a way to gain more power
on space, so we invest a lot of time in conquering the space, our space, and the problem is
that if you have more does not mean that you will be more, the power that you gain in
conquering the space than has a brutal interaction when the times ends. This battle between
capitalism and holidays is very deep and some enterprises are trying to reproduce these
symbolic hours, strength, emotivity that the holidays brings in, boundaries, a sense of us as
community, but the company parties, the convention, they are parties with no gratuity,
because they are done with a purpose that is economic (build a better team that works
better and have more profit). So we can see that this enterprise all the community needs this
symbolic eritages, but at the same time they are not capable of reproduce it, and so gratuity
seems to be a detail, but it’s a the bottom also of justice, because if we do not have in routed
in our ideas that even who do not have married, even who is not gifted still has the right to
be cured, a place to live, if we refuse this idea than all our civilization will fall apart.

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 24
be cured, a place to live, if we refuse this idea than all our civilization will fall apart.

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 25
LECTURE 9 (14/04/2023)
venerdì 24 marzo 2023 15:44

The humanity is gradually being chained to be deprived of this essential level of existence and
coexistence based on the dysfunctional, dissipative, and immeasurable gratuity that is well
distinguished from the functional oriented logic. What is behind the absence of costs for the use of
IT services platform and social Networks? Behind and beyond the myth of efficiency and
performativity the imposition of technical procedures in every field of associated living must solicits
a critical thought that we need to understand. First which are the possible applications of
information technologies to the juridical spheres and secondly as we've seen which are the areas
that must remain an exclusive prerogative of the human care. So, the possibility of delegating
increasingly extensive areas of tasks and duties to machines must be carefully examined to avoid the
risk of seeing the human component, we came to the point of making it irrelevant and superfluous.
What are the values, what are the principles of expandible direction of meaning for the sake of
efficiency? What are the non-negotiable limits instead? This is our purpose. What can be the risks of
society that sees in the centre of justice that is traditionally based on the dialogue on the
comparison on different hypothesis on the settlement of conflict on the elaboration of shared rules.
A waste of time What if this is considered just a waste of efficiency having the chance to replace this
challenging task with just an exposure of data. Therefore, the search of justice is nowadays intended
as a seek of full transparency of the human being. And similar concerns according to those who view
the intensification of the use of the digital technologies in the leaders fields (scepticism) are justified
by two main reasons: the first is that technology is applied as we've seen are not just neutral tools
made available to the jurists but due to their profusion and pervasiveness they impose times,
languages, codes, that are far from those that characterize the dialogical orders in which the plexus
of the juridical is conceit and found. And if the jurist in one hand is forced today to broaden his
training also to more specifically technical disciplines in order to be able to use them, on the other
hand technicians must make the effort too, to approach the question of sense and meaning that was
generally extraneous to their work to enable legal practices to preserve when it comes to translate
in a technical form those values and principles that initially inspired them; A second reason of
scepticism of suspicious is dictated by the unpredictability of the effects caused by the increasingly
massed use of technology especially in those fields that were previously exclusive prerogative of
humans. The trust that man places in managing the technical protection thanks to the increased
skills acquired in making the appropriate decisions must be reconsidered attentively given the myth
of the “Poietic” power of technology. It means that technology imposed itself by altering the
condition of creation of the meaning and of the value of the actions. The specific role of technology
must therefore be recognized for what it is, which is not that of being a system at the service of the
goal set time after time by law economics politics; It is an autonomous system that pursue self-
implementation and self-growth. So before entering into the heart of our problem which is cyber
and computer laws, we must before bringing our phenomenological interest onto the powerful
encounter between the capitalist economical system and the information technologies which we
refer as the regime of information. Let's consider some features of this phenomenon like we did for
technical and economics. This is defined as the form of domination in which information and its
circulation and diffusion determine in a decisive way through algorithms and artificial intelligence
every social, economic, and political process. What is the difference with the traditional regimes?
Unlike the disciplinary regime the object of exploitation are information and data and no longer the
bodies the work and the energy. Nowadays we cannot fear the power no longer belongs in the
hands of those who own the means of production but in the hand of those who have access to big
data and therefore are able to use them for the purpose of consolidating a new form of surveillance,
control, and prediction of human behaviour. The information regime goes hand in hand with
information capitalism which evolves into surveillance capitalism and makes every human being no
longer a unique and unrepeatable creature and not a source of original and unpredictable identity,
but a cluster of data among any other. When we talk about regime, we are referring to an
oppressive and exaggerating form of power. But the information regime has some peculiarities
which respect to the disciplinary regimes traditionally understood. In fact, being based on
connection of the user and on their communication, interaction is not forbidden but is encouraged

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 26
connection of the user and on their communication, interaction is not forbidden but is encouraged
and instead of a physical isolation surveillance occurs to the data that user exchanges. So, the object
of domination in the information regime is not bare body but the mind. The body on the other hand
is a hostage to the beauty industry and primary an object of aesthetics and fitness. However
continuously engaged to perform and to produce itself, man does not have the perception of being
an object of domination but on the contrary, he sees himself to be authentic dominating and free.
Another important aspect that differentiates the IT techno regime from the past one is the different
policy of visibility that is pursued. In the sovereign regime, the past regime, the power is exhibited as
the inability the power on the body of the subjects who are basically seams of ceremonial symbolism
and choreographers of the violence and punishment. Power was displayed in the public square and
accessed through a theatrical visibility. It was a power that let itself be looked at, that is recognizable
and of which the faces of the king of the rulers were well known, while the subjects disappeared into
the invisibility. On the other hand, in the disciplinary regime the ostentation and the composite of
this place of power is replaced with the unlimited of surveillance. So are not those who dominate
but the dominated who are made visible. Disciplinary power makes itself invisible while forcing
subjects into a permanent visibility. The aspect of constant visibility and constant exposure imposed
the regime of transparency. Transparency despite being smuggled as a value and a purpose and
objective by the contemporary society presents highly problematic profiles concerning the respect
for the basic rights of the human being, and his right to privacy. So, in the disciplinary regime the
relation of visibility is completely reversed and visibility of the precedor is produced in a completely
different way not through isolation but through connection. In the past disciplinary regimes, the
restrictive measures of the bodies were adopted such as imprisonment and isolation these imposed
solitude ensured visibility on the subjects and the place assigned to them could not be abandoned.
On the contrary the digital technology turns communication into surveillance. The more data we
generate the more intensively we communicate the more efficient surveillance becomes. But the
sense of freedom that it generates guarantees the permanence and the development of this regime
of surveillance. In fact, domination is completely accomplished when freedom and surveillance
coincide. The information regime thrives precisely because no coesition is felt. Individuals are not
forced into visibility rather they expose themselves willingly starting from their inner need. What Is
the inner need that pushes all of us to expose ourselves on the internet? For example, the need to
be validated by someone else, fomo, in internet we are actors we show to others only what we want
to show (self-narration), sense of community. Before in a little village you were unfiltered now you
can also lie. We want not to be forgotten, interact in a meaningful way with others. In the world we
only need to be present, in the network requires that we appear on the net. If we don’t have access
we don’t exist, this creates triggers in our minds, it changes dramatically our perception, of space
and time.
Users nowadays produce themselves and stage their identities so the information regime the human
being strives to obtain visibility which was previously and paradoxically imposed by the disciplinary
regime. Every user of platforms voluntarily exposes himself to the spotlight while the inmates of the
disciplinary panoptic tried to escape them. Difference digital and traditional panopticon? What is
panopticon? Panopticon comes from the Greek word “pan” which means everything “optical”
means to see so this is the idea every prisoner is in one cell, lives there and cannot communicate
with the other inmates and the structure of the prison is circular and it is built all around a
surveillant that can see all the prisoners and the prisoners can see the surveillant, but they cannot
see the others. So, it was a form of torture really bad, and you have an example in Italy in the Island
of Ventotene. What is the difference with digital panopticon? It has a surveillant that is invisible and
there are no walls; the prison is transparent so we can see, and we are encouraged to interact with
others and the surveillance is intended to grasp exactly these interactions because what is important
it is to have a bunch of data to work on and a person all along do not produce enough data he needs
to interact. These politics of visibility called transparency is the systemic coercion of the informatic
regime. Everything must exist as an information. The information society is the society of
transparency. Transparency requires information to circulate freely and in the very end it is not the
human being that are authentically free but information. Let's think about the Apple store and let's
think about the opposite that is the Caba that we find in La Mecca. Apple store in New York is a cube
that is fully glassy fully transparent. It communicates a sense of freedom of circulation of
participation, free access and on the other hand we have the Caba a cube that is covered in black
fabric to not let the clans to trans pass it. So, these are two forms of domain: the arcane, the

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 27
fabric to not let the clans to trans pass it. So, these are two forms of domain: the arcane, the
invisible, what is protected from the sight and transparency. What is the meeting point? Are these
two forms of domain so different? Transparency is never transparent itself as in the operation room
in which their employees operate is not different from the secret space accessible only to priests.
Another aspect is the mimetic ability to blend in everyday life sneaking in our homes in our
workplace in the schools in our personal and economical relationship in the private and institutional
ones. So, the extreme pervasiveness of the social media of our device of the voice assistance GPS
apps, it is due to their ability to represent themselves as convenient tools. The convenience lies first
of all most of the times in the gratuities of their service, a gratuitness that is not for free, is in
disguise. Let's think about ChatGPT. At the beginning these technologies present themselves as free
services but basically, we are working for free to create a better code but also the ability to relieve
us and assist us in the daily tasks. So freed from the need to apply repressive technics of the
traditional disciplinary regime the new forms of domination do not work obligations and
prohibitions but with incentives and motivation. Think about how the forms of advertisement have
evolved. On the traditional media the ads were perceived as annoying and the teleshopping was
skipped, but the teleshopping that takes place on the internet promoted by the influencers is
expressively requested. So, the new digital salesmen stage their daily lives and project authentic
spontaneous narrations of themselves and present these products as tools for self-realization and
also when we see their routine, we're not annoyed, we're not bored because it produces a kind of
liturgy and addiction. So, we reached the point where consumption on one hand and identity on the
other hand conceived identity itself becomes a merch and a product and a commodity.

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 28
LECTURE 10 (17/04/2023)
venerdì 14 aprile 2023 12:27

30 e 31 maggio ci sta preappello 10:30 philosophy of law department.

After having develop some reflection around technical and economical phenomenon which
currently present itself as a single and integrated system, we must now ring our
phenomenological attention to alliance of the techno economy with the computer network
and the technology that use AI. This is an import step to a more conscious approach to legal
tech that aids to underline when and where the intervention of the AI is a real aid, a progress
for the jurist and where the machinery intelligence is more a potential hazard or an
acceptable compromise for the pursuit of justice. The first aspect that we must consider is
the distortion that the information technology are bringing into the way in which traditionally
man reads the reality that surrounding and experiencing through knowing and understanding
and translate this knowledge into mean projects. To grasp the extent of the transformation
taking place from being ‘’being alive” and “being on-life’ we need to do well on some aspects
that make being in the net a new away of being in the world. This is from Heidegger
philosophy “in der welt sein” means “being in the world”, “in der web sein” means “being in
the Web”.
Concept of information regime that compared to the previously totalitarism the functioning of
power is guaranteed not by the awareness of the permanent surveillance but by a perceived
freedom or rather the impersebility of surveillance. Unlike the traditionally media that
entertainment and advertisement we may to separate moment, on the web all the private
aspect and personal narrative and communication and connection are united with mercantile
motivation, and therefore in this great area is no longer possible to recognize to founding
moment of being oneself and being in this society, this is a concept that Heidegger
highlighted. “Selbst-sein” (being yourself) “mit-sein” (being together). Why in the life lived in
the world the ego (the self) is exposed to the risk with contact with the other, on the net we
can make a variety of profiles that with sheets behind them so basically, we are not
ourselves on the net, but we hide behind a shield. It is from the encounter with the other
beings and different elements that are part of the reality that the ego build itself, its identity,
and its knowledge. In this dimension the contact with the world it’s immediate (im-mediate)
nothing gets in the way. Network as an information medium provides access to an indefinite
quantity of possibility allowing every user to create a multiplicity of profiles but Bruno
Romano (our maestro) said that if we sum together all the profiles, they don’t return the
entirety of our identity. If we sum up all the profiles that belongs to a single person then we
can tell something about him but not his entire identity, we cannot say everything about him.
Intuition about what? If we have chronology of what you did you can understand more or
less who is the person that is typing but you cannot say why he’s making that research
(looking for burn stuff can be terrorist or only burn something).
So medium allows profiles to come in connection and connect without ever coming into
contact, with the most diverse and most distant realities. What is the problem here? If there’s
no progression if there’s not a slow approach, let’s say an acclimatization. The clash
between difference becomes conflict. There’s like an identity shock, a community short
circuit. For example, if we have a friend that gives as a nasty reply (threat us bad), but we
know that he is going on in his life, we could moderate our reaction of disappointment
according to an empathetic process that is based on comprehension. If this hard statement
comes from a stranger, we don’t have the context from which to process a valid point of
view, so we react immediately. Having experience that are mediated by the networks
deprived us from the spatial, chronological context in which we are shape by the events.
Networks before the complexity and the unity of experience of reality into a fragmented
swarm of mediated vision to which we connect without touching them. Connection and
contact represent 2 different ways of experience existence. In connection we have an
apparent proximity to what surround us accompanied to an illusion of availability.
Proximity is not closeness, which requires a physical and emotional commitment that is
possible only in being together. In sharing a physical place and a time of duration that is not
linked to the precarious instantaneousness of appearing and disappearing in the network,
online there’s no duration of time.

Let’s start from the pandemic. During the pandemic we started to consider the contact as
something that contagious us that can harm us. We started to be sceptical to be to close.

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 29
something that contagious us that can harm us. We started to be sceptical to be to close.
We can maintain the connection but without the contact, this is the paradigm. If you only
remain approximal to the other, does it mean that we’re close to him? It’s just a way to
organize and see relationship according to the intensiveness of the commitment, if it is high,
we have a contact, and contact is riskful not only for the pandemic but because we are on
stage without script, showing in from of other, we’re exposed to the world (vulnerable).
Through the network we have the possibility to shield ourselves so when the commitment is
too high you can just close it, close network, lock delete. We have some kind of medium of
something that intermediate your relationship with reality and others. Proximity has problems
just as closeness, they have different problems, and they respond to different things. At the
bottom we have the need of the human being to connect with others, to be recognized as we
said last time, the need of recognition. A man alone cannot really express itself his identity,
man is an animal without logos (social animal, Aristotele), what’s is the purpose of talking if
nobody is listening.

Proximity does not really bring reality closer but this distance it. Marcare la differenza tra
avvicinare e disallontanare. Avvicinare è per fare un contatto e disallontanare è rimuovere la
distanza.

Proximity does not bring reality closer because we’re not making this movement toward
something, our aim is to remove the distance. This removing the distance is something that
on the network online is a paradigm, if we remove the distance, we can have a shock
because we don’t follow a process that develops radically, we are thrown in front of speech
of reality in front of image. Our emotional system is not used to those emotions because
we’re constantly thrown. Sometimes phenomena present paradoxical aspect, one of the
most striking paradoxes of being in the net is the so call increase possibility of participation
that social network offers us compared to the traditional media. TV used to offer
transmission. “Transmission” means something that goes from one point to the other (no
reciprocity). It’s a stream of images and words that are transmitted on a passive screen in a
monologic form and without a possibility of reply (no interaction).
This is the society that Gingerol a French philosopher called “society of spectators”. But
what happened when the society of entertainment needs a network. The broadcast becomes
interactive, and the viewers eventually becomes the show themself. We don’t have any more
a passive screen, but we have a touch screen, leads us to believe in the possibility of going
beyond the simple watching and moving on to a connection that is based on typing. “action”
from “agree” Latin it means to move to handle, to push, to lead. In German action is called
“handlung”. And typing differently its “fingerling”. Actions is something that is strictly
connected to the hand, and there’s no action with typing, because it needs only the use of
fingers. When we operate online, we lose the full use of the hand and we delete the ability to
create to move, to lived and we’re limited to the activity of typing. In the informational regime
being free does not mean active but clicking, liking, posting. We can never encounter a
resistance as the fingers are not capable of actual action, they’re only an organ of
consumistic choice. Difference between dialog in internet and normal one, normal one has
time, space and do other things it is a stronger dialog, discussion.

Heidegger analysed the existence of human beings trying to spot the common things that
embrace all the life of human being. He introduced this concept of “zu handenheit”. “zu”
means “for”, “hand” means “hand”, “heit” it’s like for example publicity, plasticity, the words
with “ity” ending. This word indicated the attitude of the man who consider every entity in the
world has an instrument that is disposal. Basically, means the attitude of a man that consider
every entity in the world every object an instrument that is available to him at its disposal. In
the wood the man goes and sees the instrument to build house, make fire not just sees
wood. So according to this mentality all objects and creatures appears straight away as a
possible element to be manipulated and used to reach his goals. Where does this idea
come? From sure there is the Cristian root in it because according to their ethic the world is
being given to the man hand and of course science which is caring on this project of
domination of reality and the digitalization is nowadays fully implementing it. This idea of
total availability of everything in the world comes from Cristian and science approach (both).
World is created and gifted over the man that dominated over the creatures of the world.
There is no disconnection between the scientific approach and the Christian approach
because they both allow a project of domination over reality that is given to the man.
The hand is the organum of intelligence we become familiar with objects not because we
read their definition but because we are in contact with them since we’re born so we

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 30
read their definition but because we are in contact with them since we’re born so we
manipulate them it’s exploring the possibilities that an object can have. For instance, you
can have on the initial stage just a stick, with it you can shove off some animal that wants to
attack you, plug some apples, dig some holes and so on. Any object that its processed
through the human intelligence can become something else. Differently animals have rigid
relationship objects, they cannot really build instrument, because they’re provided with the
inner instrument that do not require something taken from the outside. Through the study
mathematical, physical and modification of this instrument that is now we have AI, it’s a
process and animals cannot do them.

It’s through the manipulation and the practical, mathematical exploration of the human entity
that something we hear becomes suitable for achieving a purpose just assuming the
features of an instrument. Through the network reality seized to be handed, to become a
finger sized reality. Following Heidegger lexicon, we can now say “to fingerheit” (a reality
that is accessible through fingers). The human freedom to operate and to create shrieked to
the mere possibility to choose between given options and from one hand appears as a
lightning of burden (responsibilities) in the other hand it deprives the human intelligence of
its most proper potential forcing to act in fingertips and not with both hands. In summary.
Digital totalitarianism initially presents some differentiative factor compares to the oppressive
regime known as so far:
1) Invisibility of power
2) Visibility of the supervised mass
3) Voluntary exposure to surveillance
4) Non free gratuity, services for free like ChatGPT last lesson
5) Non participatory interaction or contactless connection
6) Proximity not closeness (we have proximity without closeness and typing as action)
7) Typing instead of action

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 31
LECTURE 11 (21/04/2023)
lunedì 17 aprile 2023 09:20

Difference between the classical totalitarism and the new digital one. We have already seen some of
the difference. Today we focus on political aspect. Starting from ideology. In traditional regime
ideology is the knowledge that envelops and organizes the narrative of reality trying to reach. A total
explanation of the past, a validation of the presence and the future based on reliable predictions.
The traditional regime uses narratives that are capable of structuring and orientable mess so that all
individuals fell like being part of big picture so they share a unitary identity and a project based on
common beliefs and purposes. In this sense ideology has a perfect knowledge eliminates any
insertinity any new answers, any different interpretation of facts delivering an idea of reality that is
not in formation, but a truth already given. First question. One part we have democracy on the other
regime one part we have freedom on the other truth. Which is more important for regime? Freedom
or truth? And for democracy what is more implemented truth or freedom? Democracy seems more
to protect the freedom to express one opinion. We can say that democracy is more interested in
freedom while totalitarism in affirming the truth. Somehow the truth that is affirmed goes against
freedom. More the truth is affirmed more strongly on the other side the freedom to express
different opinions is reduced (very logical). We talked about capitalism as an idolatry founded on
pure worship and on the accept of dogma. We can say that infocracy is totatilarism without ideology
where no reality is imagined behind what is given that is data. We can understand that always
thanks to the itemology “data” comes from Latin “datum” means something already given, that
belongs to the past. Capitalism => Worship (no dogmas). Infocracy => Totalitarism (no ideology). We
can say that the compactness of the mess the power that is expressed by the physical copresence of
bodies that are united by an ideology it is disperses in a multitude of digital swarms. Even the figure
of the single leader a charismatic commander with authority is disintegrating into different fouls of
power represented by the cast of influencers. The mess absorbs and nullifies the singularity of the
self, making everybody a nobody it is no important what the individual prefers, says, wants. The
important is that he is a number of the mess. Differently an habitant of the digital globe is never a
nobody but rather someone with a profile so through a profile the ego tries to satisfies the need of
validation and recognition which human beings need. His necessity of contact with the other is kind
of sublimated into a relationship of maar connection. Especially with the pandemic we kind of are
confusing/mixing up these two concepts of contact and contagion. Connection seems to be valid
alternative as we can see connection is not already a contact, we need a medium to connect. Even if
is enabled to understand it, it is precisely by exploiting the emotional capital of human being that
the informational regime uses are leveraged to influence our behaviour behind the threshold of
consciousness. Hermeneutical degression: human beings are not predictable their freedom their
capability to make action that are not instinctively driven makes the possibility for the machine to
treat them (algorithmically) hard. We can say that freedom is unpredictable what is unpredictable is
untreatable for the machines. Untreatable != Intractable. Little difference with words. Through
words we understand our way of thinking. Untreatable means in this sense readable by the
machines. Machines try to understand us but cannot comprehend us, they do not produce
sufferance in the machine they expel what is untreatable. When human beings can’t find connection
with others, they find the situation intractable means that no sympathy. Machine does not have
sympathy or no sympathy for human beings. Machines have not patience. What is patience?
Patience comes from Greek the word is “Pasco” where passion comes from passion means love and
suffering. We treat the machine endurance with patience. For this reason, we expose children to the
use of machines, apps, laptops because they don’t have patience but they have endurance. Machine
works because it works. Works because of tautology something that is always truth, redundant.
There is no other form of meaning just action itself without any interference.
The machines work especially in informational regime below the threshold of consciousness think
about new marketing. The regime of information takes control of those pre reflexive pulsional
instinctive layers of behaviour that precedes the conscious action, this is how machine trains us to
be treatable. We can say that it is data driven psycho politics creates to our daily routine without us
noticing his intrusion. In the infocratic regime, human beings are not explicitly controlled and
violently punished but rather supervised while being entertained. The loyalty to the regime is not

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 32
violently punished but rather supervised while being entertained. The loyalty to the regime is not
ensure by the implementation of submissive practices or by relentless propaganda but by the
psychological dependence that it produces. Thanks to the web, human beings are not just passive
spectators of broadcast, but we become active transmitter of data and information that creates
cumulative intoxication and a form of addiction and mania. The phenomenon of sharenting (parents
taking photos of children to make views and to make income) how to produce hype and income? We
have to eliminate modesty it is excluded because it does not produce hype and also discretion
because it is contrary of hype. Nowadays these two words are like taboo. And these words were
protecting the private sphere of the human beings. But private what does it mean? Means
“privatus” from Latin means that is taking from the public and set aside. In this infocratic regime the
line between what is private and public it is always thicker, and we are exposed continuously to the
view and the glance of strangers even children. Where is their right of privacy? Why are they
exposed when they are trying to connect with their parents, maybe they have difficulties? Cruel
situation but produces income and it is very popular. We are basically back on the exploitation of
minors. In the beginning of the century and also nowadays children are used for work and basically it
is happening the same thing. A regime that is based on the primacy of information over narratives
has important political consequences. Alongside the threat that is caused by the entertained format
of the mass media (infotainment). Democracy is particular affected by the dissemination of violent
reproduction of information. The stream of information is the news. The value of the new is to be
always new. If something that describes our reality must always be new means that it has very
narrow merging of discussion and as such does not have the ability to structure itself over time that
is a narrative. The rapid alternation of news imposes itself by the emerging of contingency. Those
realities in a permanent vortex of unending present time. It is impossible to delve property on
information because of their structured instability which does not allow experience and knowledge
to unfold in a wider and more structured time horizon. In the accelerated communication to which
the regime of information trains us. Time contras in a temporal succession made up of present
instant which prevent this horse from organizing itself within a temporal coherence that is duration
in a narrative we can say. What happens to politics in these narrow periods of time placed in
succession it is almost impossible for politics to adopt reasoned decisions which need a far side look
to be constructed. Dromocratic (dromocracy, “dromo” run, velocity and “cracy” the power) so it is a
new form of democracy the power of velocity. So dromocratic communication forces us
undermining our ability to make reasonable choices which pressed by necessity and urgency are
replaced by unreasonable rationality. Reason and rationality are two different things. Reason is
something that engages more dimensions not just efficiency it aims to a target but allows to develop
and protect other dimensions. While the pure rationality goes straight to the topic. The rational
activity directs us toward rapid result and efficient solutions but does not linger into slow times that
reasoning requires. Even the political preferences which we believe to express starting from rational
point of view are formed on the net thanks to the penetrative actions of trolls. We can define it
someone who creeps into the electoral campaign by spreading fake news and conspirative theories.
Beside trolls we also have social bots are fake accounts that automated that impersonate human
beings they can post share and spread false but pleasurable news. In this digital word real and real
like news work in blurry line and determine what today is usually called post truth means that truth
has not a definition anymore it is something that goes behind the traditional idea of truth. Because it
includes not only what is truth but also what is similar to truth what is recognized considered as
truth this is why post truth. Citizens are being replaced by robots that produces without effort a
huge quantity of voices opinions orientations which in turn shape the public opinion by discording
the political debates and simulating a nonexistence force of general support through the fake
acquisition of followers for example. Thanks to the profiling of the elected targeted advertisement
are intentionally show to them. Confirming the point of view of the viewer and in this sense,
empowering his perspective these are called dark ads. Are created of course for manipulative
purposes and to test the effectiveness of several variance of an election advertisement. Which
version works better? And radicalization of identity and the stiffening of personal convictions lead
even to a greater division within society accompanied by a polarization of position and nullification
of any possibility of confrontation of political programs. This tailor-made information based on micro
targeting and user tracking does not really inform voters but deform democracy by neutralizing the
capacity of self-observation. IN-FORM and DE-FORM. In essence instead of forming their political
reasoning on comparison of other positions and arguments voters are strengthen in their convictions
by beings unknowing exposed to their own condition. One of the functional paradigms of being in

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 33
by beings unknowing exposed to their own condition. One of the functional paradigms of being in
the net response to a process of continuous implementation of the same and in parallel a constant
exposure to the other/the different. And a central role in the electoral campaign is played by
memes. The more a meme is diffused the more it determines its success. Memes must be
considered as media viruses that spread and reproduce and mutate their content with great speed.
They are simple and immediate structure generally an image and short sentences that enable a
careful fruition. The digital communication prefers the digital aspect over to text one due to this
immediacy, but we are moving that and thickness from the fact and presenting them only as a pure
appearance a democratic discourse in this way is impossible. Because images do not have arguments
and rational foundation capacity the only capacity is to impress. Justice and democracy are slow
verbose a lot of words talk and are complex systems built through delegate balances and reached
compromises and agreements generated by conflicted positions that are composed by a dialog. For
this reason, information finality quickly damages the democratic mechanism forcing them to go to a
speed that they cannot sustains. Arguments and justification can’t be combined by tweets and
memes that reproduces at violent speed. Logical coherence which marks speech is alien to viral
media. Information has its own logic and temporarily and exist lives behind truth and falsefully. Even
fake news is information but what is the difference with the other information? They have already
exerted their full effect before the process of verification begins. Information flies pass the truth and
through justice and are no longer reached by them. Even the worst tragedy the biggest new on the
screen can be and will be a meme so a meme is a simplification of information. Meme crocodiles
when someone dies, we create a lot of memes of this fact. We need a narcissistic reward when using
social media.

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 34
LECTURE 12 (28/04/2023)
venerdì 21 aprile 2023 11:02

We can observe that when democracy fall into the net its procedures are speed up and we call this
process dromocracy the power of speed and the possibility to exchange instantaneously preferences
and opinions turns into a more direct democracy then the direct democracy itself. Through the
representative democracy people who are the real owners of the power put this power back into the
representative hands. This is the representation process they can carry forward their request and
following negotiation, conflicts and agreements between the different social parts and they
transform these instances into legal knowledge. Digital technologies could be described as device
that when applied to a system melds its rules and forms and language and requires an adaptive
behaviour on the human part to meet the limit of the digital processing that we address into
information in the form of data. Unlike all the other living beings that relay on biological patterns,
human beings also a meta biological pattern and also meta-biological. “Meta” means something that
goes behind the survival mode and do not respond exclusively to rational choices dictated by
instinctual programs. This unpredictable and dysfunctional element that we define freedom is
incomprehensible for the machine because machines are unable to render originality creativity of
our personal project and of each individual to a calculated and countable data. Freedom is not
redactable to a data. Everything that goes beyond the algorithmic legibility is rejected and discard
not only because not useful for the functioning of the system but because it inherits by inserting
threats in it, inserting the incalculability element into the system. What are the consequences of this
digital processing on our existence and coexistence with the others? We have to digress a little bit
and take in account a theory from a Germany philosopher Habermas a professor in Frankfurt, and he
is known from theory of communicative action. Habermas “theory of communicative action” it is
basically the idea according to which if we ask ourselves what is the rationality of our action, what
we call rational, reflecting about it we call rational a behaviour that is suitable for the purposes it is
propose. Basically, we are talking about the classic rationality with respect to the purpose that we
can always judge. If I want to tear down a tree, we use an axe not hoe if someone ask why we can
provide rational arguments. The rationality that that we know and we can most commonly describe
is the rationality of the means with respect to the evidence(?). This notion of rationality always
seems to us a little bit limited, because we have behaviours in our life which does not confine
themselves related to the functionality of our goals. For example if I decide to walk instead of taking
the car is not rational decision but it is valid, not respond only on efficiency we don’t need to find
and seek the easiest way, we take pleasure in wandering a little bit. This is why music art, reading
comes from. We consider these other forms of rationality defensible we present to the other valid
arguments in the discords. We can see that in everyday life we generally tend to broaden the
concept of rationality behind the pure functionality of the purpose. We can consider rational also
the ability to argument validly towards other that it is called “argumentativeness”. When I present
an interpretation of an actor or mime for example they are in front of a public and they are paying to
listen to something how can this be reported to the rationality. Haberman believes that rationality is
a more spacious concept compared to the traditional idea of it that includes rationality with respect
to the purpose so the one we see previously and this other form of rationality that is the
argumentative rationality. According to which I call rational a behaviour that has some ways before
an interlocutor we see that in democracy and in this institution is crucial the dialog and this is the
idea of commutative action of argument. What norms and consequences does Haberman draw
about this observation? We can mention this: if at the basis of all our behaviour that are presented
as rational there is argumentativeness towards the others it will be necessary to promote this type
of rationality and to prevent the purely functional rationality to over imposed as mesh the other
form. We want to live in a world where of course there is an instrumental rationality and where
processes are conceded and organized for the purpose of producing objects and merchants and
procedures that makes our living lighter but the type of rationality that we are talking about is not
enough for us. We want this rationality to happen in a world where even the prouder idea of
rationality is fully exercises which is that engaging dialog with others convincing them confronting
with each other, exchanging opinions, a process that is understating beside knowing. According to
Habermas this is an idea from which a serious of rules can be drawn. We must avoid that the

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 35
Habermas this is an idea from which a serious of rules can be drawn. We must avoid that the
rationality of the system that is the process that organizes the goals which are production,
processes, system of power (infocratic one) so that the instrumental rationality of these processes
that are called systems that are structured, organized in view for a certain purpose prevails and
dominates the all spheres of our life erasing the communicative, argumentative rationality the one
in which instead the important is not knowing but understanding. No one of us want to live in a
word where people are tools and not interlocutors. All of this is derived from an analysis of our
intrinsicated dialogical structure of our immediate life. In order to reach an agreement with the
others and to finalize the process also the process that requires the rationality towards our goal that
it is functional, even to promote this kind of activity we need a deeper and more comprehensive
rationality which is understanding. If we have a scientific project that is aimed towards our scientific
goal, we have to discuss it argumentatively we have to confront opinions so if we don’t understand
each other, we cannot work together and apply our instrumental rationality. We can now resume
the discussion made at the beginning on digital democracy. Its task is to fluidify the coagulation of
representative democracy. How? By introducing more communication and continuous feedback. In
these democracies everything is left and needs to be decided in real time. No longer by
representative pols but though the expression of the collectively which in the future will have to deal
with the results of the current decisions. Why is important the idea of representation in politics?
Why it is dangerous? Representation holds the concept of distance while in the digital democracy
representation is replaced by the immediate participation. The idea of removing the distance is
something that goes through all the digital process. Because it makes Inchulan says that we live in
pornography because it removes all the obstacles and show directly a scenario, no narration in
between. It is a full representation of something make available. This creates problems.
If in the past this scenario of immediate democracy was imagined as a progress, today mostly as a
failure in fact if politics is based on communicative structure of rules and institution the digital world
has not a real foot in the net, it is instable so this digitals swarms are made and unmade according to
individual preferences without having a more far sided project behind them. The smartphone
intended to be mobile parliament where you could participate in political debate became little by
little a showcase where public sphere and private fade away and prevent the creation of a shared
horizon of discussion and the formation of meaning while pursuing the use of post truth. Post truth
is about viral communications trolls, social bots, memes and fake news. The information flood that
spreads without being processes by the public sphere without passing through the public sphere is
produced by private space to be sent and shared to other private platforms. The digital communities
that are around influencers are the merchandise translation of community (the digital one). They are
not communities but commodities. “Community” comes from common and unity means to put
together all resources that we have and built something that is the society. Commodities are
together not for a duration but a short time. In previous totalitarian regimes we can recognize an
amphitheatre structure of the power. We have transmission of centre to media, ideology and
spectularization of power with violence. We don’t have this structure any more in the past
totalitarian regime we had these two different movements to converge the attention to create
conversion and to diverge the attention to create entertainment in this double movement we have
media power. In the current infocracy population is no longer focus on issue of general social
relevant users are interested in. They suffer for the centrifugal force to which information are
subjected in digital platforms that focus on curiosity, gossip, triviality instead of a shared interest
(means something in between us, interest us). Political thought is representative in the sense that it
ensures the presence of the other even if is not present. Representative so the other do not need to
be strictly present because it is represented by somebody who has his trust. Representation of the
other is the formation of someone opinion is constitutive for democracy understood as a discursive
practice taking in the consideration the different part of you even those that are absent. In this
sense we can consider democracy not the power of majority but protection of minorities.
Relationship between freedom and truth the idea that when freedom is more protected than truth is
not that important because everyone has its own. While when truth is hardly affirmed it is but it
prevents the freedom to spread freely somehow so there is a battle between the affirmation of
truth and the protection of freedom.

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 36
LECTURE 13 (05/05/2023)
venerdì 28 aprile 2023 11:13

According to Habermas, rationality not only intended to make the world an organized place
something that works with algorithms mathematically. Another form of rationality is argumentative
and discursively.
Rationality is divided into (hermeneutically): “reor” (calculate) rationality to achieve some purpose
through technical environment, the other reason is another skill of human beings that they can
argumentate their idea not only mathematically but also in a discursive way. The main topic of
rationality could not be applied if we didn’t have this linguistic skill, to make plans also to more
strictly arithmetical reason. We have said also the passage that comes from the dialog of this society
that is slowing fading into monolog. Monolog is not a conversation but a form of explanation of your
own ideas that don’t have confrontation with any others. Not a discourse but a way to discard the
otherness, to dismiss the conflicts, diversity everything resistant to our vision of the world. The
disappearance of the other implies the end of the discourse because it toggles the communicative
rationality from opinions. The expansion of the other reinforce our process of self-indoctrination
which produces digital monads. Individuals means “IN” means not “DIVIDUAL “comes from division,
an individual is an element that cannot be reduced furthermore. Society has many individuals the
subject cannot be furthermore divided. Being in the net provide this possibility because we divide
our identity into different profiles. We can be a friend, artistic, skater depending on the profile we
present to others. What happens when the other disappear, the chamber of confrontation we can
call agora (a place where people go and talk, where they confront their opinions, our parliament)
this chamber of conflict with the other is also gradually deserted by the otherness and in this space
that becomes void what happens when space becomes empty? You can hear your voice resonating,
this is a metaphor to say that this place used for confrontation (intended), rain of argumentative
rationality now becomes echo chamber.
Echo/ego chamber where we can only hear our voice that is basically flipping on the walls and give
back to us not giving any integration to our ideas, this is how we create monologs.
Agora a Greek word to say “piazza”, all that places where individuals gather and discuss (like a bar,
friends in a house, private side and public side like institutional parliament and chamber of
discussion).
This ego chambers reminds us of the myth of Narcissus and Echo. Narcissus was a very handsome
guy son of two gods, his beauty was beyond compare, he was wondering in these woods and all
ninfas/girls that happen to see him felt in love with him. Especially one Echo, she started to call his
name, but he was only focused on his beauty he did not reply, she kept calling him, but nothing
happened, so she became little by little weaker and she disappeared and became just a voice, god
turned her into just voice (si e rotta, body consumed to her love). Narcissus on the other side could
not recognise his face when he looked in a paddle the reflection and his beauty made him felt in love
with himself and death in the water. Myth important because we have digital narcissism nowadays,
we have many echos voices to emerge in this digital world. Little by little we can see resemblance,
echo does not have her own voice but keeps repeating what Narcissus said. Means that there is not
a dialog between narcissist and echo but it is a monolog that echo is reinforcing. Basically, echo is
the like (silent voice of approval, somebody that cannot see us but can see himself reflected), this
dynamic is called narciselfie. Digital narcissism example: influencers and followers. Influencers do
not see other and do not listen and he is focussed on his image. On the other side there is this
nonreciprocal relationship between the followers and influencer because the followers know
everything that the narcissist want to show but this is not reciprocal. Influencer do not anything
know about followers only a number. Furthermore, the discourse presupposes the distinction
between opinion and identity. But if we are only profiles that appearance online, we present
ourselves only through online presence that is our opinion. There is a very narrow relationship
between opinion and identity. Who does not have discursive ability cleans strongly to someone
opinion they become stiff and rigid to modulate their opinion. If they have to change opinion, they
fell like they are threaten by their identity. It is very difficult to impose a discursive relationship there

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 37
fell like they are threaten by their identity. It is very difficult to impose a discursive relationship there
is a loss and lack of argumentative participation that must be in presence that dialog has.
Progressively the filter bubble we get to see to know only the information and idea that reflect us,
that are capable to strength our sense of identity and convictions. All the other types of arguments
are kept away from our side so being in the net becomes a more comfortable space than the raw
reality. “Taylor made reality” offers no resistant and no doubt and encourage has to be what we are
in a more convent way. What happens basically is that in digital sphere this growing narcissistic
transformation of our society makes us def to each other voice and we get loss of empathy. The
process of cultural homogenization and the culturation which we are exposed by the web, that is
trying to make us more comparable with their possibility to treat us. Expose us in a form of digital
tribalization (tribe) and the tribal collectives of identity reject any discourse and dialog and
understating is not possible, because their opinion is not discursive, they don’t engage, they are just
claims, and they concede entirely with their identity that cannot be renounce. Differently in the
argumentative rationality (“communicative action” as Habermas say) each participant makes a
claim, and all the others try to see if it is valid and if not accepted, they make discourse around. DIS-
COURSE ERROR comes from Greek “dis” means something that is not straight “distance” means
something that is between two forms of staying, so it means a turn a trip a journey that is not linear.
This is very interesting because also error has same idea behind, error comes from “errare” that
means wonder and also to make mistake. There is this affinity between the discourse talking and
making mistakes. Through the mistakes we have an enhancement of our knowledge we precede
through error and arguments, in fact if we want to present our opinion to a bunch of friends and we
want to convince them we have to validate to them, this is a very dynamic idea of proclaiming the
truth. The claim of validity in digital tribe are not discursive but they are absolute they do not want
to hear opposition, today tribalism in western countries belongs to the left and right parties divide
and polarize the societies and makes opinion so identities a shield that reject the otherness that
prevents us to meet the otherness. “Other” in Latin it is “alter”, alter also brings alteration so
through the other we are alterated in our identity it is not possible to us to transform if we do not
have the mirror of the other that is orienting us. Contemporary democracy are in war because they
are treated by the tribal dictatorships of opinion and identities that are deprived of any
communicative rationality. We can say that in this war of identities the communitarian element and
the reciprocal listening are lost along the way because listening is a political act and it produces unity
among humans and promotes a discursive community. Democracy is basically a community of
speakers and listeners. The digital communication is without community and basically destroys
politics of listening and lead us to listen only to our self.
Let’s move a little be further we will focus finally on justice.
Let’s talk about the digital rationality, it is that rationality that is deprived of the communicative and
argumentative action. What is crucial for this communicative action is the dialogical fundament and
the availability to be corrected by the others basically to learn. Now we are starting to know two
different types of learning: discursive and machine. Discursive can be improved by the
argumentation of others that can reorient our ideas and that can connect to others. Errors is not a
death end; errors are new starting point. Machine learning cannot be improved but optimized the
idea at the bottom is that the correction of the error is autonomous. So how this idea of machine
learning considers the discourse just like a slow inefficient and verbose form of elaboration. Why? It
is incomplete it has a limited quantity of information. A human can process not a big quantity of
information not us much the machines. The digitalization present itself as a more rational form of
rationality because takes in account more and more information that any human could ever have.
But at the same time this “flood” of information load brings breaks into the discursive frame.
Because when we have to many information we are basically lost. Big data and artificial intelligence
are trying to acquire the “divine glance” on the world only comprehensive so the detect of the social
process can enable man to optimize them. If we have through big data availability of total
knowledge, total knowledge is (DOMANDA ORALE) the idea that we can collect so many data that
we can make the discourse superfluous because an individual could never claim his own rationality
to be better than the rationality is presented by digitalization because it has bigger wider glance of
reality. But first of all, what does it mean to make smart decision? Basically, when we want to
preserve a situation and we implement this process we basically we are reproducing reality as it is.
At the bottom there is a stasis, if we want to preserve the idea that this justice must be kept, we do
not leave the justice to transform itself, we end up copying this world, situation, system and bring it

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 38
not leave the justice to transform itself, we end up copying this world, situation, system and bring it
on, we do not let it evolve it. This total knowledge that is versus the partial knowledge (partial all of
us have, we have perspectives we acquire the world the reality thanks to our perspective that
cannot be total, idea of truth and freedom, a democratic society worried to protect freedom,
totalitarian affirming the truth). This total knowledge provided by enormous bunch of data that we
produce will provide no worst, no more financial crisis and not pandemic disease. The problem is
privacy because there is not yet a common consensus on the compromise between the privacy on
our personal data and the utilization of data for social use. In China the fight against the pandemic
was led through surveillance. In Europe we have a softer idea, stronger idea of privacy, a softer
utilization of our private action recorded by devices for public use. We can also have that the
western society are more focussed on individual, eastern on collecting. The dataist hope for a
society that could work and function without politics. We erased the idea of representation; the
politicians do not represent me because I present myself (how? Online with my opinions). How this
could be possible? They see that there is stability of the system, and the different social layers are
more in agreement with the system, the political actions that is intended to dismantle a specific
reality and to create a new social condition is now useless and so politics is necessary according to
them for a society that is still have problems and issues with inequality through digital rationality we
will solve these problems. Politics will be replaced by managerial system based on data that we call
infocracy no more democracy. Data can represent in their opinion the general wheel and the
discourse because it is based on words and not on information and it can be distorted, in discourse
possibility of threat of possible solutions. If the discourse can distort the idea, we want to bring in we
have to rely on data, and decision are taken for everyone sake. This community rationality that we
have known so far is based on freedom and autonomy of humans. We say that we cannot treat
humans just like other system because we have freedom. What dataist supportive says, freedom do
not exist. It is considered an expedient to explain what is not yet explicable. Freedom => Expedient
for inexplicable. When we gather enough data through know through express it then the more, we
understand the more this idea of freedom collapse. We can say that the communicative rationality
starts from the idea of individual and the idea that humans differently from other lives is free. Why
digital rationality focusses on collectively. (ORALE) This situation produces the idea of determinism
(we are not really free but determined by our instinct, but instinct is chosen, we are all just like other
animals we are just more complex.) Reductionism all our complexity must be reduces to biological
expression. So how does it happen we have smart tools all over our body, house etc. Smart tools
that are these social instruments of measurement that is looking to us from a quantitative approach
and basically, they record our behaviours and turning it into data. The idea is that a better
information can lead to a higher productivity. Politics, governments and the public sphere are little
by little dismantle and we are going through an idea of planning control and conditional (Habermas
nightmare).
There is a bottom of freedom, the idea of determinism is that freedom is just an invention just the
part of our behaviour that we concede with our behaviour are triggered by biological combinations
we are not in charge of our decisions, but we are combination of elements.
Tipica domanda: Differenza tra legalità e giustizia.

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 39
LECTURE 14 (08/05/2023)
venerdì 5 maggio 2023 11:19

Nietzsche was one of the representer of Nihilism. Basically, Nihilism says that history and society is
slowing fainting into a reality that sees all the constructions, ideals, values, morals melting. He
summarizes this idea of claim thanks to the phrase “God is death” (German: “Got ist tot”) metaphor
that says that until a part of history we relied on the providence/help of God to live our lives. There
was this kind of correspondence, by developing science and technique we as humans realized that
we could provide ourselves, for our future we started to think that man was capable to create and
give sense to things even without the presence of God. Niche was criticizing the values of past
society and saying that truth was not absolute, but they had a moral root. We can say that in the
modern digitalism that is nihilism (digital) we have lost the faith in truth itself, fake news,
disinformation, conspiracy theories they make the truth lose its shape, its form and consistency
before our eyes. Information circulated and disconnected from reality in this hyper real space. Nitz
however said that truth and values have a moral origin. Truth is a social construct that makes
coexistence possible, well even if he said that truth had this moral origin, he didn’t deny it but
denied the claim to be absolute. Once the absolute value of truth has disappeared (big narrative has
finished) in the man there is this desire (impulse) for the research of another one (paradigm). We
recognize that we need solid points to hook our sociality on. In order for the state of war (chaos) to
chase man must begin to fix the truth. Define (“Finis” enclose something into a definition, to reach
an agreement with the others). This is possible by finding valid and binding definition of the things.
In this way we prevent the different validity claims, we prevent it to lead to conflicts. Definitions are
able to hold sociality together. Anyway, Chulan (?) says that the infocratic society has lost the drive
of truth. As a fragmented disintegrated society that is tribalized (tribes that do not communicate for
real but only claiming their absolute point of view), they reinforce their identity while they lose the
capability to build a society on common basis. What happens is that in the past regimes we have
seen narratives has the capabilities to bring individuals together (politics, religion). After that we
have seen big narratives melting, we are now facing new nihilism through information instead of
having this centripetal force has instead a centrifugal force (information do not keep individual
together but fixes the individual with their own same perspective). It is not a stable society the
digital one does not produce community (based on boundaries and on obligations).
If we leave the form of our opinion only on the net it is likely to happen that we don’t encounter
another part that is capable to discuss our opinion in order to individuate errors, we can’t really have
a dialogical experience online we are oriented to enforce our opinion and not to confront with
others. The confront becomes immediate conflict and if there is not a third part it becomes a war.
Why the digital society is not a stable society? It does not encourage discussion. Basically, we are
inside digital swarms each one participant does not have obligation toward others and so it all relays
on the will of the individual (no obligation to participate). No clear identity that can be withdrawn.
We can have a lot of profiles; we approach what we meet on the net with some scepticism we are
not sure that behind the shield/screen there will be something real.
How can we define truth? Truth basically Nietzsche says that it is nothing else than an agreement,
historically truth does not remain the same in history (also scientific one), science has to produce
new knowledge.
The basic idea is that in the traditional nihilism truth and falsehood existed as two distinct levels:
Nietzsche said that what was falsehoods was proposed as truth and that truth was dismissed as
falsehoods. They were mystified according to Nietzsche. While int the digital nihilism we can say that
the distinction itself between falsehood and truth is missing. In this sense those who lie do not
question the existence of truth itself but paradoxically denying it they affirm their existence. The
offender does not lose detach with justice just because he commits crime, he knows what is legal
and right, so he hides himself by committing this crime.
Not because we proclaim a different form of truth (or we question the truth) the thing is that by this
reality made of fake news we don’t distinguish anymore real (reality) and what is not. We can say

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 40
reality made of fake news we don’t distinguish anymore real (reality) and what is not. We can say
that fake news are not straight lies they are indifferent to truth (of the facts) so they affirm
themselves and spread not because of their quality or authenticity but by the hype and noise they
produce. The crisis of truth puts in jeopardy also the trust of fact themselves. When freedom of
opinion does not include any reference to fact (to factual truth) then it degenerates into a farce
(falsa). If our opinion is based on fake news on theories of conspiration what is our opinion bringing
into reality? It is kind of stack in a bobble of post reality. We can see that the digital post truth is
more truthiness (it is not truth but a degenerate form) truth perceived but has a void of objectivity.
We reconnect to truth an objectivity but truthiness that is the truth that develops and spreads on
the net there is no need for objectivity. No need to connect to things of the world, it is a truth that
lives online and has its argumentative power. We can say that the digital reality is like to erode facts
and also things. Hannah Arendt philosopher from last century, she argued that factual truths despite
their vulnerability, their possibility to be misunderstood, in the narrative and manipulated in the
ideology they are stubborn and resilient. The problem is that the digital order abolishes the solidity
of being. The digitalized and computerized world is anything but stubborn instead is possible to
shake it and manipulate it (our believe). Digital is diametrical opposed to what is real and to what is
factual. It also weakens the knowledge of fact and the relationship with reality. There is an example
we can provide: digital and analogic photography.
Difference is that in analogical you can give effects, but you will register what is present (what exists)
(“photographus” light impressed, something in the world). Digital one cannot record what is present
can be extremely manipulated and present a reality very far (can be) from the reality itself, also now
we are having AI that produces imagines that look like real, but they are not (truthiness). Poor
families used to have their pictures for wedding/Christmas because photography was meant for a
specific moment. It was a engraft activity, no digital one, linked to capability of men working on
reality (analogic). Differently nowadays we can make the same example with many moments of our
life. Photography is impressive because hyperproduction tells something on how we value the
moment (not celebration, but the need to be present online/participate). Need to be part of
something, we do it by projecting our identity. “Seproduire” (French) means produce us and show
ourselves. We play a role, and we match many things to it that previously were not of photography.
We ask for validation on others we want to show our identity through photography a part of our life,
in the past they were for private remembrance. “Ricordo” means to hear something in the past. It is
possible to build an history around images only to who knows how to relate what this image means
we need a narrative behind that the memories (digital one even with tons of tons of data they
cannot say anything about us without a director). Meaning is in who observe it no in the data itself.
We can say that information alone is unable to explain the world, information has this quantitative
and numerical nature and because they work fairly when there are billions and billions of data, the
information can also not explain/inform but obscure the understanding. When we have too many
pictures it becomes difficult to build a narrative. When we have too many information, we cannot
build an opinion that is structured. Information also is the real of semblance. Semblance means the
possibility for one thing to present itself in one way or exactly in the diametrical opposite one. When
we have information noise, we cannot find a tread to get through it, because information does not
follow a line they just gather. They don’t have a rational development but just get in/bringing their
little piece. How does it get success the information? We have capability to grasp attention, so this is
why when information becomes so big it does not inform us but disorient us.
Access to the digital world is accompanied by a basic distress because there is no reference to the
real world and the semblance do not have anything with experienceable form of life, so data can be
something very different from reality.
Information is additive and cumulative. Truth is narrative and exclusive.
Information produces this hips/bunches of information rubbish and on the other hand we see that
the road that leads to the pursuit of justice and truth is a very lonely place because it is a complex
task, it is complicated and requires effort. Nowadays we can observe that the demanding practices
that are also those that stabilizes our lives (such as: trust, dialog, responsibility, agreement) are
disappearing because we prefer to follow the tread of the new information. There is no time for
truth because it requires time (justice too) and discussion and the communication in the net is
instead based on strong impulses and emotions. These emotional solicitations grasp our interest and

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 41
instead based on strong impulses and emotions. These emotional solicitations grasp our interest and
produces a great intensity (news that made the web cry), they are based on emotions that are very
intense but not very persistent in terms of time. What happens is that we don’t have time to feel the
emotion that this fact produces because it is constantly replaced by another one. Truth and justice
take a lot of time (demand long and slow observation) while information shortens our side and cuts
our brave (pushes us to dromocracy). Dromocracy where we live today requires running after
information without reaching stable knowledge and requires us to become aware of everything
without really getting to know something. Communication does not produce community and the
digital memories lose the tread of the memory (remind) and a friend is not anymore someone to
count one but just a number to count. In this sense the platform where we live and operate /work
with other humans it is the new world where we are living and despite the fact this form of existence
is implemented more and more, still dominated the feeling of disorientation. If we think about these
words that Heidegger said “HEIMATLOSIGKEIT” (“hemat” means home, “losig” means to lose) so it is
the perception of losing our home it is the fact that we feel without rules, we wonder in this world.
Heid could not predict the digital area but still when digitalization was arising, he could see that this
is what it was producing the man does not feel at home to this world anymore. Algorithms
disorientate us that cannot be fully understood and, in this sense, prevent us to understand the
neural networks where humans have not access. In this sense we can say that the world we used to
live (earthly order) is not made of information but of things that are lasting and that create a stable
and habitable environment. The earthly order is replaced by the digital order nowadays that
decreolize (?) the world by computerizing it. The word “reality” “res” means “cosa/thing” our reality
has footholds and fixed points on the existence because it is made of things/objects. While not
objects but information is structured and organizing the world where we are living. This detachment
between experience of reality and live makes the world unclear and unreliable. The reality that is
surrounding us is no longer populated by forms things and objects.
“Objects” means “OBICERE” standing point, objects are things opposing to the subject. When I walk,
I stumble upon (creates resistance in our experience, we get in touch with reality with our hands,
manipulating it). What happens when we don’t have any more objects. Objects little by little
becomes inform (?). They are terminated by the information, they become little by little devices to
provide data. We don’t have any more a pen but a pen that transmit data on the screen. Bed that
records quality of sleeping to the doctors. Objects are junk of information (suck information). In this
sense we can say that things and truss are form of stabilization of human live they provide continuity
so that man despite the changing nature that he has, can recognise a share and a common
rationality. The information differently from things are unstable and they lack the solidity of being
(they cannot provide a horizon of stability). Today we can say that this hyper attention of
information makes us infomaniac.
What is this migration of interest from things/object to data do? We can see that the industrial
revolution brought into the market a quantity of gods and of merchandize that previously were not
reachable. Today the world is flooded with goods and things that once they stop being they becomes
garbage. This is the same thing with everything, information, dresses. We can see for example in
Bangladesh big hills of dresses that were dismissed (fashion brings in). Consumption becomes more
and more compulsive and detached from humans, it responds to needs no more natural but to
other. This proliferation of objects is not a form of preys but instead a symptom of removing the
importance from the object. Today is important information that colonize it and transform them into
agents that process information. Clearly the infosphere provides us greater freedom but at the same
time it exposes us to surveillance that creeps in the files of everyday life. Surveillance comes into the
form of entertainment and also convenience, in the act of carrying many tasks that are too heavy
and too boring are done by machines. At the same time, they also monitor us and influence our
choices. Infosphere has for sure this emancipatory aspect “free us”, the punishment that we have
for disobedience was work fatigue and paying. Infosphere by its emancipatory effect is freeing us
from these dimensions. Human beings are gradually transforming their mental things to things that
can work for him. Our subjective spirit is transforming into an object. Hegel used to say that a tool is
something without activity (inert) we can used it, but it does not start from the object the action of
being used. Man on the object needs to use is smartness and capability to makes something become
active. But the instrument is something that we consider lazy because does not have autonomy. The
next step that digital civilization is trying to reach is to implant in objects also the intelligence to deal
with themselves. With this emancipatory effect the digitalization promises a life that is comparable

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 42
with themselves. With this emancipatory effect the digitalization promises a life that is comparable
to a game. Initially feared lack of footholds the fact that reality it is smooth and does not offer any
grasp this sphere is now leaving a way to a more cheerful liveness typical of game. We are basically
becoming from homo faber to homo ludens. The difference is that faber is the one that works with
his capability using the work and resource that it offers and through his work he builds and creates
his reality and environment (he creates the umwelt), different from welt that is the naked world,
umwelt is the prepared environment for men. Ludens does not work in place and in this way his life
becomes a game. Game does not need effort, does not need engagement and can be left at your
convenience. There is another relevant aspect of this process of dismantling the reality for how we
know it turning it into digital keys, that do not regard object themselves but relationship with object.
Erik Fromm in one of his books he said that modern society is more oriented towards having than
towards being. But in this digital society we can find that experience and communication are more
important than possession.
Today we don’t want to have boundaries, neither with people because they are outdated and more
important, they reduce the possibility of gaming experience. If we live at the most, we can do we
want to live being free and without limits (slogan of consumeristic capitalism). The more you
experience the happier you are. Idea we have to be detach from things we have to be oriented on
their value and not on the memory they produce (emotions) because they are just objects. Let’s
thing also about when we buy something like brand, what are we buying? Not for its quality (not
only), but we also buy something for strong emotions connected to the specific object. We perceive
things primarily on the basis of the information that they contain rather than their consumption
value. By buying things we want to buy and consume with emotions that as we know are
implemented by story tellers. If we think about it the idea that the object is less and less important is
also provided by the sharing economy (does not focus on possession, it weakens the identification
with things that characterize possession) and what is important is that man is not interested in
things and possession do not submit to the morality of concreteness. He will be less oriented to
work, and he will prefer to play, he will prefer fun and experience to possessions. Possession, first of
all, is something we have to have in order to express the relationship of possession. It is an intense
relationship; it is loaded with psyche content possibility of having access to services do not trigger in
us. We have access to many services, but it is not the same things (for example eBook we don’t own
it). This change radically the idea of the thing. The capitalism as we know nowadays is the most
refined form that slowly turned not only things nature resources emotions into merchandizes, but
also extended this process of immaterial things. Products that are emotional charged and enriched
with stories and narratives in this sense the line between culture, human work, communication and
commerce it is more and more narrow.

Communication: 22 last lesson

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 43
LECTURE 15 (12/05/2023)
lunedì 8 maggio 2023 09:02

We are today facing AI that is used for the legal spheres and we have to first focus on what type of
AI we are referring to. Today we find AI in our appliance, cars, houses. This AI have been developed
generally to copy HI (human intelligence), but we must realize even for HI we do not have a single
definition and it depends on the rationality that we consider. Dialogical argumentative rationality
intended to focus on art, poetry, discussion, music and the mathematical instrumental one. We
could ask who was more intelligent Picasso or Einstein? They are two different types of intelligence,
there is a distinction but not a contraposition. When we talk about AI, we need to define what
intelligence are we trying to reproduce and what are its fundamental elements. Just like for Human
organism intelligence needs a brain that develop algorithms (calculations), memory where all data
are stored, the basic to execute these calculations, and nervous system where data and information
can be transmitted from one point to another and then apply the command and decision that the
algorithm as produced.
This is a little bit what AI, its ingredients are mostly the same: supercomputer (equivalent to the
computational part of the brain), data referred to biological organism is the memory, nervous
system that in the digital world consist in the network (fiber optic network, metal cable, wireless)
and the terminals that are the application areas factory, smart cart, watch or mobile phone. We
have to consider this very important idea that all this scenario is possible thanks to the huge
networks of sensors that grasp data all the time. This process in the biological organism happens
how? Nerves and senses (touch, see, smell, hear). In technology all these elements are given by
satellite, detection system etc.. The sensors take the data, this data is stored in mass memory,
analysed, and processed by very powerful algorithms (powerful) and in the end of this process a
decision is taken according to calculation patterns, this decision must be translated to an action.
How these ingredients are mixed to obtain autonomous and intelligent system that we have today.
The first element that we have to deal with talking about AI is algorithm. What is it? A mathematical
model composed by a series of formulas based on theories, statistical biological that are copying the
neural learning system but, in any case, the algorithm is that engine that process information and
data that have been collected by the sensors in order to learn something and eventually to translate
into a decision. The most used algorithm nowadays is called machine learning that are extreme
complex statistical model, use many data collected by complex sensors and that tries in some way in
a statistic basic to educate the machine in such way that if something happens frequently the
machine begins to expect that this something can happen again. In the reality these models have
developed over time now they are extremely complex, their origin is back in ’60 and ‘50 in that
period the problem was that the mathematical models and algorithms were so advanced that were
impossible to calculate them. AI tells us that the first effort was made to try to have a simultaneous
translation system, in time of cold war when Americans wanted to translate in real time the Russian
conversations intercepted. Extremely powerful algorithms existed but these algorithms did not have
an analytic solution, no calculated in pen and paper so computer were needed to execute the
calculations and obtain the results. But computers in those days were not sufficiently powerful so
theory went faster than practice and we could also observe the development patterns in AI during
‘60 ‘70 ‘80 stopped (plato) a period when (winter of AI) it was not possible to have computers
powerful enough to solve these extreme complex algorithms. Algorithms have developed in many
ways, today we talk about deep learning a type of machine learning that uses a logic experienced by
biological system, architecture of neurons. However, these algorithms are trying to do something
like human brains do, connections between a lot of data unrelated and on the basic of these
connections they try to predict and understand something like we do. In the beginning of this
millennium, we started to see a little development this is when hard technology came into play. At
certain point supercomputer technology became sufficiently powerful to use for algorithms. To
understand what happened in history of this computer technology we have to go back to ‘50 when a
group of researchers developed an apparently useless object called “resistant transfer device”
(transistor). It was an accidental discovery; these researchers were studying semiconductors and the
behaviour with them (high and low temperature). This material was exotic in their time, and they
won also Nobel prize for understanding this process of transport and for creating this resistance
transfer device. In reality no one at that time understood the potential of this device because the

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 44
transfer device. In reality no one at that time understood the potential of this device because the
resistance transfer was a switch that could be used like a morse code lamp to turn off a signal to
make 1 or 0 a sequence of digital data. In the ‘70 this device in the main type got abbreviated into
transistor changed dramatically its dimension to few hundred microns (from centimetres). This
development enabled to put many of these very small transistors in a single electronic board called
“electronic integration” that is many switches many transistors integrated into a single object
(integrated circuit, CHIP). By adding more transistors, we can process more calculation on data. From
the ‘70 to today the ability to integrate transistors into circuit has increased steadily according to
Moore’s law the possibility of integrating more and more transistors. Today the transistor has
become large only a few microns, small as biological entities.
The resource from the ‘70 to our day, the integrated circuit (thinking hearth of our mobile, smart
objects) has double their computer power every 18 months. We can understand that if
mathematicians develop complex algorithms (AI for example: language recognition, calculation of
satellites, game of chess) finally the electronic industry developed machine capable of doing a lot of
calculation (doubled every 18 months) these machines became even more powerful calculators.
These two levels have connected so supercomputer came out so powerful to calculate very precisely
extremely complex algorithms, like chess, car autonomously, many sensors like cameras, gps, wheel.
Today we distinguish vertical AI and the general AI. Vertical is when the computing power is used
for a specific objective (game of chess). The general AI differently has the ambition to imitate the
human being so to deal with data in a more generic and wide way (our everyday life).
This is important and also terrifying task that requires enormous computer power and data that we
provide and the ability to store equal large data. Let’s consider closer in the field of law like in many
other fields the digitalization has overwhelmed with novelties and infinite possibilities that regards
the juridic sphere interested who is operating in the legal framework. The problem arises precisely
that is rapid and invasive process seems to be capable to provide us more question that answer that
we can provide, we are crashed from innovations. To fully understand the extend of the change we
need to go behind the scenes of the Greek digital theatre and consider invisible changes behind
sparkly new products that are placed. Idea of phenomenology. We have the phenomenon, we have
the appearance that is what start to appear and that can consolidate in the phenomenon we
expected to have, or this appearance was just misleading and was just a resemblance. We have to
turn off this flashy power of technologies and see the problematic points. Also, we have to do that
because to understand the extend of the consequences of the digital revolution in the legal sphere
we have firstly to recognize advantages that it brings in and also to protect them from the
conservative attempts and from corporativism of those who practice the legal profession like judges
and lawyers are not happy to lose their jobs and be substituted by machines. We have to put aside
the importance of AI in order not to be put out of the system by those who work with that. The first
aspect that must be recognised is that behind this thing which is that of relationship between law
and technology we can recognize a new plot of power. Power that moves further and further away
from traditional institution, and from the centre proceeding by a more widespread and obscure
ways.
The transition basically is from an order to a system, order with political collocation and a system
where the power becomes internal and circulating. Power assumes a systemic configuration which
removes weight and importance from politics and produces super solutions that is superhuman and
therefore potentially in human solution. The horizontal trend of these dynamics is functional to their
diffusion and self-implementation and not to the affirmation of a more democratic context as
originally assumed. In this and other aspect of the appliance of AI to our life we have this
ambivalence. On one hand we have this solution to be called and disembodied in the other side it is
also precious as experience of pandemic has shown us recently. The lack of reverence of political
nature, the legal tech has the project to implement predictive justice which on the basic of IT
processing juridical big data, such as sentences, and other procedural data is able to predict in
advanced which decision will be adopted and also penalties and also compensation sometimes. We
have a kind of scan of the institution and information technology is kind of able to provide a hyper
realistic picture of the legal legality, to predict decision of a new case.
The possibility to predict the outcome of a trial is an important legal value and the tendency to

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 45
The possibility to predict the outcome of a trial is an important legal value and the tendency to
respect the precedent is consistent with the legal certainty that is promised by democracy. Why we
write law? We want law to be certain and we do not want arbitrary voices to step in between. In this
sense also all these sciences of law that in the past chased the legal calculability and tried to seek an
objectivity of law against this risk of arbitrariness and subjectiveness in the sentences. Precisely the
ability to ensure a justice free from prejudice, errors and human distortion it is today one of the
greatest merits that is recognised to predict justice. However, those who criticize this formulation do
this for various reasons, it can be summarized in the need (that is affirmed by justice), to preserve its
human habitat made of language, relationship, words, emotions. In the absence of which there is
risk not only to put in crisis our anthropological model (the model how we relate) but also the idea
that the institutional scope of justice in general that is the capacity for mediation and
reconsideration between associates. We have these two risks. In fact, through telematic process the
space and time and the perception of the other these conditions are deeply manipulated and kind of
emptied and often not in clearly perceivable ways, that heritage of experience that the traditional
process contains is eliminated and substitute by an idea of society not in presence but a reticular
society. Avoiding the contact that produces conflicts generates even greater violence.
The rigidity of these computerized procedures wants to reach the truth through paths based on
calculation and that are indifferent from any other motivations. This procedural environment that is
drawn lose the connection with history and social context so the singularity (specificity) of the case
in question lose its context. This brings problems because it is like a legal sphere that is subtended in
hyper reality. Preserving human habitat of justice naturally includes the possibility of errors. Also the
idea of being able to eliminate them through the use of algorithms means also that we have to face
two orders of problems: on one hand the excess of rigidity of these procedures, in the Roman law
we had this motto that says: “When law becomes to rigid then it will not produce justice but
injustice” this is one problem the other problem is the tendency to consolidate the status quo,
basically glows attaches, the horizon of justice to what has already happened. We have a legal and
social conservation that is reinforcing the jurisprudential lines that were already adopted. The idea
of justice in the future (algorithms) and free from prejudice basically translate into a consolidation of
legacies that are always present in a certain order that is created. Furthermore, contemporary
jurisprudential trends intend to put principles and values at the centre of justice and not so much
the individual cases. Principals are wider and more open and they are like a flag so we have to move
toward it but we know that it will move forward so we have to chaise it (dialectical process), we
create justice that is created by us so there is this way of producing legality that does not depend
from a strict form of justice but we have to mould it according to the new needs that are showed to
us. The problem is that dealing with principles and values is something that requires a combinatorial
capability (that is entirely human and that is not replicable by machines).
Our laws are not perfect there is not absolute in beauty, not in justice etc... When we translate our
necessities into laws, we leave them open to be reviewed and modified. They have to follow our
new needs. Nowadays we define family in different ways from 50 years ago, not only biological but
cluster of relationship, natural children are all children. If we had this stiff idea, we could not develop
in order to embrace the new need of society.
We can spot in this picture two different and opposite sides of the law: on one hand we have law
those that see it as an objectively science that is perfectly amenable to the laws of mathematical
calculation and algorithms, on the other hand there are those who sees in the law a profoundly
human knowledge that does not have rigid and secure solution to offer always, but which braves
through interpretative process that is based with the individual situation and inspired by the
constitutional principle such as balance, proportionality and reason.
Neither of these two paths is immune for errors and finding the right balance is one of the great
legal bets of our days.
The idea is that a flash and bone judge can detach himself from law when he sees that the case
needs to be threatened differently (seems to be reconduct able to a certain law) but it is unfair so
how does he do it? He has human experience, he knows what means to be exposed to death (end of
our life) and he is so compenetrated in the other and the idea is that he will not let the law
overcome what was in the past, the single situation. The judge can say he is not applying this law
because it is unfair, and he proposes to review it by higher principles. A real judge can restart from a

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 46
because it is unfair, and he proposes to review it by higher principles. A real judge can restart from a
blind spot (he has principles, values) that a machine does not have.
AI is extremely important because data can be seen and interpreted in different perspective so we
can enhance the playground of the judge, because we have information that previously we did not
have we had only experience. The idea that machines could and would be able to solve this problem
is something tricky because it is something like a hope that is placed in the future while machines
are nowadays producing effects on our society.
AULA BETTI INFORMATICA ISTITUTO FILOSOFIA DEL DIRITTO ORARIO: 10, 10:30

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 47
LECTURE 16 (15/05/2023)
venerdì 12 maggio 2023 12:12

cyber_And_Computer_Law Page 48