The (Federal Supreme Court) resumes on Wednesday (23) the judgment on the possibility of the court determining, in investigations, access to data from people who searches on sites such as the. The minister, who had asked for more time to analyze the theme, must vote with a different thesis from those that are already under discussion.
The concrete case that brought the theme to the court is that of the murder of the councilwoman, PSOL. The feature discusses the limits for opening type data in criminal investigations.
The court will define whether or not it is possible to break up on online search data confidentiality in a generic way and, if so, on what occasions.
According to interlocutors heard by SheetMendonça understands that the two open currents go to extremes, with a total negative to very wide access or flexibility. Thus, it must propose an intermediate path.
The minister should suggest more criteria than those proposed by Alexandre de Moraes, for whom it is sufficient to justify the usefulness of registrations for the investigation and the period of collection, even if it reaches undetermined people.
And the minister has already voted, diverging from the position of the rapporteur, minister, now retired.
Rosa Weber’s vote was given in September 2023. In her view, the Internet’s Civil Marco prevents the supply in a widespread way. This fixed legislation, according to the minister, that court orders in the digital environment must be individualized.
For her, inform the connection and access records of all users who have done a certain type of research disrespects fundamental rights to privacy, personal data protection and due process of law.
“It is not admissible to break the telematic confidentiality of data from random persons on which there is no evidence of committing criminal offenses, otherwise it is under penalty of legitimizing the indiscriminate debut to the privacy of third parties in relation to which there are no suspicion,” he said.
Upon opening divergence, Moraes said it was constitutional to request connection records or access to applications for criminal investigation, provided that requirements such as “evidence of the occurrence of the illicit, motivated justification for the usefulness of the registrations requested for investigative or probative instruction to which the registrations refer”.
Moraes also said that the breach of confidentiality does not expose publicly data, but assists the police and are accessible to the prosecutor, parties and judicial authorities.
Zanin followed the understanding, but suggested changes in relation to the minister’s thesis. According to him, an item should be included in the thesis establishing that there may only be access to personal data when “there are reasons that substantiate a suspicion in the face of a determinable person.”
The trial was, when Mendonça asked for a view of the case – more time for analysis. According to him, the theme is complex and his vote must be long.
The case that came to the Supreme is a resource that deals with investigations of the murder of Marielle and her driver, Anderson Gomes, in 2018. The process is of general repercussion, which means that your thesis will serve for all similar actions in the country.
In these investigations, the breach of confidentiality of all people who did research related to the councilwoman and their schedule in the days before the crime was decreed.
It was determined that Google provided the access protocols to) or the identification of devices that had sought information such as “Marielle Franco”, “Marielle Councilwoman”, “Marielle Councilwoman”, “Casa das Black”, “Rua dos Inalidos, 122 ″ or” Rua dos Inalidos “.
The first and second instances as well as the STJ (Superior Court of Justice) understood in the same way. By maintaining the previous decisions, the STJ decided that the court order delimited the research parameters in a given region and time period and was therefore not disproportionate.
It also considered that the restriction on fundamental rights to investigate crimes against life, of international repercussions, does not pose a risk to people eventually affected because, if not found their connection with the investigated fact, the information will be discarded.
Google tells the Supreme that. This is because the terms indicated are common, involve public person and the period of search was long (96 hours).
