In March, the Commission on Access to Administrative Documents (CADA) estimated that the software source code for calculation of income tax was communicable citizens. New sacred! However, three months later, this release has obviously very difficult to break through the thick walls of Bercy.
CADA is a very useful authority for the documents jealously held by public authorities. We had already tested, each time successfully, in respect of the Hadopi, the CNIL, or the Ministry of Culture. A power input was detonated in 2014: a researcher wished indeed have communication software source code simulating the calculation of tax on income of natural persons
Surprise.! In January 2015, in its response, CADA considered that “ computer files constituting the source code solicited, produced by the General Directorate of Public Finance as part of its public service mission, are of the nature of administrative documents . “In short: the computer code is considered a single administrative document, communicable via a CADA procedure, making the request
This almost historic opinion was not a first. as we have thought so. In 2012 already, this time a person had requested access to the source code of INSA Toulouse recruitment software. The director of this public engineering school it was, however, opposed on the grounds that his wish “ is equivalent to a request for detailed scale adopted by the Inter-INSA admissions committee .” But CADA replied that on the contrary, the famous software code was also there perfectly communicable (CADA’s opinion).
The green light CADA did not weigh, for now
For the most recent case, Bercy had first attempted to oppose a technical argument: the scattered files of tax calculation simulator is like “ document was requested be regarded as non-existent in the absence of automated processing in common use may produce a comprehensible version of . “
But the argument is not considered, since for the CADA “ the assessment of the administration that the envisaged reuse would encounter technical difficulties or even a physical impossibility, can not justify the refusal to disclose the requested document in the state where the administration holds . ” Better, it considers that the applicant ‘ is free to use it as provided in Article 12 of the Law of 17 July 1978, in the absence of intellectual property rights held by third parties in the administration , including the director general of public finances does not mention . ” The article said that, unless approved by the administration, code reuse is possible, provided that the information “ not be adversely affected, as their sense is not denatured and that their sources and date their last update are mentioned . “
A few months after that notice, which is forcing anything, where is this? “ For now, these are only good words, tells us that a researcher at the origin of the request (call it MX, the latter preferring to remain anonymous). This is at the stage where you can expect the response of the minister’s office. I plan to attack the coup before the administrative courts. “
Give the code Etalab, give the code to everyone
But why have requested a source code? “ I have two goals for this request. Ideally this would be to change attitudes Administration . This is more uncertain and very ambitious “conscent it. The other concerns directly OpenFisca, the open micro-simulation engine that can calculate a large number of social benefits and taxes. Supported by the Etalab mission within the General Secretariat for the modernization of public action, this tool a nice educational purpose: to help citizens better understand the social and tax system (see article)
<. p> Our researcher would therefore qu’OpenFisca “ can grow much faster enjoying the source code so you do not have to recode what has already been done by the General Directorate of Public Finance .” Of course, these advances could also facilitate the commercial sector or even compete for the distribution of free simulators.
And the side of the Ministry of Economy?
Side ministry, things done. At their own pace. Three months after the CADA episode in a “ Note to the Minister ” we read, Bruno Parent, Director of the Tax Department (Public Finance Directorate), blows hot and cold .
Extract from the internal memo to the Minister DGFiP
He knows, by the CADA is not binding. “ The administration could therefore maintain its refusal to position .” However, he predicts hiccups: “ If it continues to refuse despite the positive opinion issued by CADA administration is liable to an action for abuse of power before the administrative judge, but also a risk image of a closed and opaque administration operation. “Yes, keep secret piping tax calculation is spot when ministers are constantly singing in chorus the praises of the Open Data …
Bercy for, not without fear
On the one hand, such a release is risky: “ The source code can reveal the finest in its detail, biases the interpretation of the tax doctrine “confesses unblushingly the official said. It is therefore understood that the ministry wants to move forward with cat care, probably because the enlightened interpretations to light by the code will be operated with a vengeance by the tax law firms … “ There articles in the tax code that open the way to several possible interpretations. Anyone should be able to see how they do “MX reacts its part, the person making the referral.
The source code can reveal” Bias “DGFiP the interpretation of tax law.
Another danger is that of allowing a third party “ to provide a tax simulation tool that would allow the analysis to the contrary to those of the government, themselves made using a tool of administration “or” tools to develop independent tax reform simulation “explains Bruno Parent. “ To simulations, it is still necessary that the state gives sufficient data for simulations ” nevertheless relativized MX
Weighing the pros and cons, despite intends DGFiP all respond positively to the request of the citizen on condition that it is clear “ all responsibility for any use that may be made and any warranty support for its use ” .
Why this cautious response but positive? On one, because the software is that computer translation of the Tax Code and tax doctrine, “ themselves free access of citizens .” Two, because “ Transparency Tax liquidation rules seems obvious in a democratic republic and an acceptability factor of tax .” Another argument in favor of opening “ The ability to reuse this source code for the purpose of research or simulation can only encourage informed public debate around the tax, especially at parliamentary level “. Finally, “ the proactive policy of the government towards more open data (Open Data) goes in this direction .”
The Ministry of Economy anticipates a phenomenon of flashover
Notably, Bruno Parent also predicts a risk of epidemic, with regard to the source code of computer applications developed by other administrations. “ Although it excludes programs contributing to the research tax offenses (exception in the law CADA), this opinion focused on interdepartmental information systems of the state, is not shared by DGFiP and should be promptly informed in law. An inter-ministerial consultation is justified, many other ministries and public institutions can be involved on topics they consider strategic. “
Two lessons in this passage: first, the issue of access to the source code still divided. In our columns, Jacques Marzin, a number of inter-ministerial Directorate of Information and government communication systems (Disic) xeemple fears that this could lead the government to turn away from free software: “ I would not as a side effect, it brings the administration to choose only proprietary software for failing to provide their code ‘we’ he said last week.
On the other hand, the importance of this issue is considered as a referral for the opinion of the State Council is suggested to the government. It will indeed have a right to lighting the highest administrative court against the big maneuvers ahead
Meanwhile, MX impatient. “ This shocks me. Why wait over a year to make a decision dictated by the law? “In preparation for the next referral to the administrative courts, this researcher has in any case already topping its future targets “ The day I got the source code for the income tax, I will make similar demands for other .” This confirms expectations of the ministry.
The annoyance of April
This time for artistic skating as much annoys the April, the Association for the Promotion of Free Software: “ If we summarize the situation: CADA says DGFiP must contact the source asked the director of the Tax Department considers the source code to be transmitted, but nothing happens and Mr. X sees coming. It’s like a little in the house that crazy of “Twelve Tasks of Asterix”. It is time that the French government recalls its purpose to serve the citizens and make proof of its modernity . “
Couchet Frederick, managing director of the association, continues its momentum, “ The tax is one of the foundations of our Republic, and transparency, a condition that allows the citizen to accept it. So even if the opinion of the CADA is not binding, DGFiP can not ignore them. It would be normal DGFiP shall grant the request and broadcasts the same source code under a free license. Hide the algorithms that implement the law, and in this case the calculation of income tax, makes no sense. “
No comments:
Post a Comment