Ministers and voted to authorize Google search confidentiality in criminal investigations, but indicate requirements to be met and the requirement for reasoning.
The (Federal Supreme Court) resumed on Wednesday (24) the judgment on the possibility of the court to determine the delivery of data from people who sought information on search engines such as the investigation bodies.
The case that came to the Supreme is a resource that deals with investigations of the murder of the councilwoman 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.
So far, there are four votes in this regard and two other more restrictive votes, given by the rapporteur, retired minister Rosa Weber, and André Mendonça.
The divergence was opened by Alexandre de Moraes and accompanied by Cristiano Zanin, Gilmar and Kassio. Ministers, however, suggest different levels for the criteria that should be fixed by the Court.
The forecast is the trial to be resumed at the session of Thursday (25), the last presided by Luis Roberto Barroso. Edson Fachin must be the first to speak up. Besides him, there is a need to vote Dias Toffoli, Luiz Fux and Barroso. Flávio Dino does not vote in this case for replacing rose, who voted before leaving the court.
On Wednesday, Gilmar argued that the judicial request for connection records or access to Internet applications for criminal investigation or criminal procedural investigations, including the provision of personal data by providers, in compliance with a keyword for keyword.
“I think the general repercussion thesis should curb the indiscriminate use of this severe investigative measure for any kind of offense, including the risks of criminal selectivity and random direction of inquiries to people identified based only on this investigative measure,” he said.
“Whatever the technological scenario around us, it cannot be lost that it is the good application of fundamental rights of procedural nature, especially from effective judicial protection, which allows us to distinguish the rule of law from the police state,” he said.
According to the vote, for this, there must be evidence of the illicit, motivation of the use of these data for the investigation and the period.
In understanding the dean, only in the case of heinous crimes does the court order allow reverse searches to refer to indeterminate persons. The so-called reverse searches is the way the search for users is done through keywords.
Kassio accompanied him at this point.
In the Marielle case, it was determined that Google provided the IPs (access protocols to) or the identification of devices that had sought information such as “Marielle Franco”, “Marielle Councilwoman”, “Marielle Councilor Agenda”, “Casa das Black”, “Rua dos Inalidos, 122 ″ or” Rua dos Invalidos “.
Kassio also reinforced the concern about the balance between the creation of dangerous precedents for fundamental rights and the need not to make investigations unfeasible.
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).
Rosa’s vote was given in September 2023. In her view, the Internet Civil Mark prevents supply widespread. 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.
