Nanocidadania: vidas deletadas na era da informação

Abstract

The deployment of software, emergent from rules-based automation routines, to perform mass denial of access to fundamental and human rights pursuant to social security, has been approached as a complex phenomenon, whose reasons range from legal, political, and economic ones, but also include some other ones resulting from the outdated administrative culture of Brazilian public sector, public companies’ environments included. Research object delimitation, therefore, was a multifaceted enterprise, even if directed to the sole purpose of jurisprudential analysis. The automated undoing of rights pursuant to social security whose reasons and motives were concealed into hidden computing rules — inserted into a set of systems whose codes, configurations and operational patterns have yet to be made known to the legal community — is called the enunciation of sub-constitutional and sub-statutory norms that violate statutory and constitutional law. Since form the literature raised and analyzed a ready-to-deploy and adequate to research theoretical support could not be found, another broad literature review was needed into the fields of science methodology, jurisprudence methodology, language theory, social theory of law, language biology, and, particularly, into neurophysiology, a process which resulted, after a review of Kelsen, Luhmann, Teubner, Maturana, and Varela, into the identification of a theory of autopoietic law, with sovereignty based on the ecosystem, by Boulot and Sangalia, which, although still in the development phase, was already quite adequate to serve as a base for practical research activities. The first two chapters take readers coming from legal-fields all the way from either positivism or naturalism taught as commons-sense knowledge in undergraduate legal education to the current state of the art in the theory of legal autopoiesis, both in its initial Luhmannian version, and later, in its most current teubnerian version, to finally introduce him or her to the theory by Boulot and Sangalia as a natural unfolding of that of Teubner, once Maturana and Varela have been studied. Social security law appears alive to the researcher, though threatened by death. If theories regarding legal-systemic experiences took a transdisciplinary turn this was far from a choice of pure will. It was, rather, necessary and required by research development. The legal normative system was perceived as a niche crop of the normative ecosystem of homo sapien societies. Social security law seen as a tool basic to species survival. Any threat to it, as a threat to nations endurance, if not to humanity itself. The third chapter, standing on the sturdy theoretical ground just built, could be pragmatic, focused, direct, and assertive. Access to Information Statute was the main tool in this phase of the démarche, which sought to answer questions such as: is there opacity in human communication regarding social security rights? If so, this a legitimate impedance to the exercise of human rights? Has organizing public administration in unconstitutional terms any consequences on the balance of the normative ecosystem of sapien’s society in Brazil? Specifically, in said society, how does a possible disturbance of normative ecosystem balance, from an unconstitutionally organized administrative cybernetics, affects the legal system?