Experts warn of flaws in data protection on the Internet

The Marco Civil da Internet has been insufficient to prevent the spread of fake news in the country, warns lawyer and professor of Constitutional Law Antônio Carlos Freitas. According to him, in practice, the rule is efficient only to hold accountable and inform the author of content to exclude posting if the Judiciary determines, not resolving the question of what is or is not an opinion. In the Marco Civil, providers can only be held civilly liable for damages resulting from content generated by third parties if, after a specific court order, they do not remove the undesirable content. The norm establishes principles, guarantees, rights and duties for the use of the Internet in Brazil. According to lawyer Yasmin Curzi, professor and researcher at the Center for Technology and Society at FGV Direito Rio, consumers are not just users of the services offered, but assume the role of suppliers, in the case of E-commerce. Personal data While the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet has privacy as one of its main points, providing for online data security, the General Law for the Protection of Personal Data (LGPD) creates regulations for the use, protection and transfer of personal data in the country. The legislation covers both public and private, in the physical and digital environment. Its implementation also aimed to create legal certainty. Lawyer Yasmin Curzi explains that the LGPD can have several applications in relation to digital platforms. For her, the most obvious is the use of data for purposes that were not recognized in the terms of service, when the use is not communicated to users. In such cases, lack of clarity and transparency may be sanctioned. Curzi cited the case of Cambridge Analytica, when the data of thousands of people had personal information collected through a psychological test on Facebook. Data was leaked and used without consent. Last week, the Justice of Maranhão determined the payment of R$ 500 reais to 8 million people affected by this leak, here in Brazil. In addition, it determined the payment of R$ 72 million for collective pain and suffering, an amount to be reverted to the State Fund for Diffuse Interests. There is still an appeal. In response to the lawsuit filed by the Brazilian Institute for the Defense of Consumer Relations in Maranhão, the judge of the Diffuse and Collective Interests Court of the region of São Luís Island, Douglas de Melo Martins, highlighted LGPD rules. Among them, the device that provides that the processing of personal data can only take place with the consent of the holder and the data can only be used for purposes that justify their collection. For lawyer Antônio Carlos Freitas, the LGPD was very important when it imposed certain sanctions in case platforms did not comply with a court decision. “The law is efficient, it just needs to be caught”, he says. The lawyer believes that the standard needs to better address the issue of how postage is distributed. Public hearing The topic was the agenda of a public hearing at the Federal Supreme Court (STF) that discussed the responsibility of providers in removing content with misinformation, extrajudicial dissemination of hate speech, without express determination by Justice. This Wednesday (29), Minister Dias Toffoli defended the self-regulation of social networks as one of the measures to combat the spread of attacks against democracy and hate speech. In a press conference after the hearing, Toffoli assessed that self-regulation by companies that manage social networks is welcome. He cited as an example the National Advertising Self-Regulation Council (Conar), a private body that brings together advertising companies that define their rules for running campaigns. “Self-regulation is always welcome, because you only leave the exceptions to the judiciary,” he said. On the first day of debate, STF and State ministers took turns also defending the regulation of social networks, with some degree of accountability for the companies that offer them to the public. On the other hand, bigtech lawyers like Google and Meta – owners of networks and applications like YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp – contested the initiative, arguing that this will not guarantee a safer internet in Brazil. They argued that a healthier digital environment could be achieved by improving existing self-regulation.

Agência Brasil