The government’s proposal to change the Law on Access to Information (LAI) promises to resolve the so -called “hundred -year confidentiality”, but bumps into a contradiction that we explain in: the problem has never been the deadline, but the distorted interpretation of what it can or not to be considered personal information. The government itself, through its decisions, demonstrates that the suggested change would not resolve the issue. Next, three concrete cases illustrate how the current management deals with issues close to the president and why the executive’s proposal fails to face the real problem.
Rather, it is necessary to talk about that of the new mayor, Hugo Motta, when asked about the secret budget of parliamentary amendments – the country’s biggest transparency problem today. He dodged mentioning the executive’s “hundred years confidential. This is the second time we have criticized the Lula government for that, but you can’t even start comparing the level of transparency of the legislature with that of the executive. How, with the executive we are discussing improvements of a robust structure – while Congress resists basic issues. The valid part of Motta’s speech is that the judiciary also needs to be charged. We agree. As mayor, he is in a position to do this.
Returning to the Lula administration, the difficulty of separating what is public information from what is privately appeared in the early days of management. The executive claiming confidentiality to protect privacy and would not meet requests that “characterize themselves by non -compliance with the public interests of the state for society.”
Another example was the negative to the request of the list of people who presented President Lula since the beginning of his term. According to, supposedly based on the General Data Protection Law (LGPD), that would be “sensitive personal information” as it would be an exposure of. Detail: The use of LGPD in these cases is prohibited by guideline.
Even if it was a matter of data protection, these justifications are not sustained. In an interview with the column, Bruno Bioni, founding director of Data Privacy Brasil, explains: “The list of people who attended the inauguration ceremony and the list of people who presented the President of the Republic are related to the function of the latter as a political agent of State and not as a partisan political agent. Therefore, there should be no association of this situation with partisan political convictions and, therefore, the framing as a sensitive data. 6, item II). In addition, it does not remove the public interest of the information, pursuant to Law 8.394/1991 and Decree No. 4344/2002, marked by decisions of the TCU “.
Another important case is that of the confidentiality imposed on those of the government. Essential information for the control of illicit enrichment and promiscuous relations between authorities and the private sector, is denied under the supposed need to protect their intimacy. We already explain in: “There is no expectation of privacy for those who choose the public sector.” In the United States, on the other hand, it is sufficient to access the public office website to locate even the complete and updated statement of assets and investments of E, and.
In short, the confidentiality problem will not be resolved by superficial changes in LAI. The central question is the misinterpretation (and sometimes opportunistic) interpretation of what should be public or private. From what we have seen so far, the government itself does not give the proper example.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
