ARTICLE 19 South America today launched a new study on “Protection of Personal Data in Brazil”. The study focuses on three bills currently going through the Brazilian Congress that aim to regulate how personal data is handled by companies and public bodies.
“Personal data” is a term that can include document numbers, purchase history, health status information, political preferences, marital life, among many others.
The bills analysed were Bill 5276/2016, proposed by the Ministry of Justice, Bill 4060/2012, authored by federal deputy Milton Monti (PRB-SP), and Bill 330/2013, presented by Senator Aloysio Nunes (PSDB-SP), and whose text substitutes that of Senator Antônio Carlos Valadares (PSB-SE).
The analysis seeks to classify the bills based on 15 criteria related to issues that should be addressed in order to protect the rights to privacy and freedom of expression and information. Each were rated as “Satisfactory”, “Partially Satisfactory”, “Absent” (when the topic is not addressed), or “Unsatisfactory” on these criteria.
Of the three bills analyzed, the one which addressed most of the criteria is Bill 5276/2016, authored by the Ministry of Justice. In eight of the 15 criteria, the bill was classified as “Satisfactory”.
Bill 330/2013, presented by Senator Aloysio Nunes, met six criteria satisfactorily, less than half of the total. In six other criteria, the bill obtained the classifications “Absent” or “Unsatisfactory”.
Lastly, Bill 4060/2012, proposed by the Federal Deputy Milton Monti, is the worst of the three for ignoring elements that would protect the rights to privacy and freedom of expression and information. Only one criteria was classified as “Satisfactory”, and another 10 were classified as “Absent” or “Unsatisfactory”.
For Laura Tresca, ARTICLE 19 South America’s Digital Rights Officer, and responsible for the report, the debate around the regulation of personal data management in Brazil should be supported by Bill 5276/2016, with the aim of improving it.
“Although, of the three, it covers a number of issues that are important for protecting the rights to privacy and freedom of expression and information, Bill 5276/2016 still fails in some respects. Its wording is not explicit enough to determine that the law would be applied to the entire public sector, including security forces, nor would it employ language that would ensure that the so-called “right to forget” cannot be claimed to exclude personal data. In addition, the bill also does not delimit cases in which personal data could be handed to third parties for statistical research purposes. These are flaws that can and should be corrected during the parliamentary debate,” she said.
You can read the study here. [PT]