The minister, of the (Supreme Federal Court), defended on Wednesday (23) the requirement of prior suspicion and grounded for authorization in criminal investigations of breach of searches made on sites such as the.
The court resumed the judgment on the plenary. Mendonça had asked for more time to analyze the theme. According to him, setting a very wide thesis would open dangerous breaches and proportionality is needed.
“We need to discuss the limits of an investigation. Today for me to approach a person on the street, I need a suspicion. But here is the possibility of opening for undetermined people without having a suspicion of this conduct. We will create an investigation drag,” he said.
The case that led the theme to the court is that of the murder of the councilwoman, the. The feature discusses the limits for opening type data in criminal investigations and whether these breaks can reach random people.
The trial was suspended after Mendonça’s vote and should be resumed at Thursday (24).
The minister expressed concern with the so -called probative fishing, prohibited by Brazilian law. The practice, also known as Fishing Expedition, are indiscriminate speculative investigations, without certain objective or declared. The expression would be an analogy to launch networks in the hope of “fishing” any proof to subsidize a future accusation.
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.
As Sheet It showed, Mendonça understands that the two open currents go to extremes, with a total negative to very wide access or flexibility.
And they have already voted, diverging from the position of the rapporteur, minister, today 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.
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 had been with the request for a view.
“Despite the efforts employed in the attempt to better delimit the scope of the due diligence that would be admitted, I understand that the risk of authorizing investigative measures on indeterminate, albeit determined, but on which no element of previously identified suspicion is too high, not adapting to constitutional requirements,” Mendonça said in the return of the case.
For Moraes, it is necessary to have the founded suspicion, but understands that the “court order may reach indeterminate persons, provided that it is determined from other elements of evidence previously obtained in the investigation and justify the measure.”
According to Mendonça, the proposal opens room to, from a suspicion, release probative fishing. The ministers debated in plenary on the subject. “We can’t get the pathology and disrupt investigations,” said Moraes.
“No need to have bank and fiscal secrecy? Why would it be? Let’s end. The relationship is giant. Because I’m invading people’s privacy. When I make a breakdown, I take it all,” Mendonça replied.
