In four years of government, Bolsonaro imposed 100-year secrecy at least 65 times on data from people close to him, under the excuse of protecting privacy.
Even with requests made under the Access to Information Law (LAI), nº 12,527, of November 18, 2011 that contained personal data, Bolsonaro used resources that prevented access to the data of public agents involved in cases that he considered sensitive involving the government .
Among them: purchase of vaccine against Covid-19, which culminated in a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (CPI da Covid); corruption in the Ministry of Education (MEC); visits received by the first lady, Michelle Bolsonaro; process of the cracks and arrest of a football player aligned with the president.
The action, however, distorts the principles of the LAI, putting it in conflict with the General Law for the Protection of Personal Data (LGPD) No. privacy, as well as the personal data of every citizen who is in Brazil, in accordance with existing international parameters.
The LAI is an instrument of public transparency, which assumes that citizens need to know how decisions are made and where public resources, such as investments and even civil servants’ salaries, go. The LGPD, on the other hand, guarantees the protection of the privacy and safety of the individual, protecting him from possible abuses committed by the State or corporations.
Both the LAI and the LGPD “have guidelines aimed at the processing of personal data based on the tripod confidentiality, integrity and availability, a concern that is aligned with the principles of prevention and security”, says Ilderlândio Teixeira, member of the National Agency of Data Privacy Professionals (ANPPD).
What the government did was transform the LAI into an instrument contrary to the principle of its creation, that is, to bring the maximum transparency possible about the State’s actions to society as a whole, as soon as there is a request.
Therefore, the secrecy of one hundred years is debatable when it involves public agents, who make decisions that affect the State and society. And this opens up space for a legal interpretation. Because, when talking about public agents, information regarding public decisions that affect social reality must be made public.
Although the LAI provides for nine hypotheses for restricting access, among them those referring to “the person of the President and Vice President of the Republic and their spouses and children”, this condition is only maintained until the end of the mandate and must be refer only to personal data, with the exception of the cases provided for in the LGPD, in its article 4, item 3.
The discussion, therefore, revolves around the content of the act itself, which, in principle, cannot be omitted, if the citizen so demands, as it concerns people involved in investigations that have already been concluded and which have been publicized and are of broad interest. Social.
Both the LAI and the LGPD were created with the respective objectives of raising the degree of reliability of public affairs and protecting citizens against abuses, so that healthy relations between the constituted powers and social and political agents are guaranteed. As a result, by protecting citizens from possible abuses and creating an environment of trust and transparency, better practices and actions for the common good can be achieved.
Hiding, omitting, diverting focus, deceiving and obstructing justice do not contribute to harmonious coexistence among all those who are an integral part of any society. In a world crossed by highly invasive technologies, in which personal data is worth as much as gold, it is essential that everyone knows where public resources are being taken, as well as how personal data is being used.
Public people also have the right to have their lives preserved, but there is a hierarchy between those ordinary citizens and those who manage public goods. When using public buildings to receive agents whose interests are private, there lies an interpretation of the laws in which the public interest must always be above the interests of individuals, and if these individuals seek personal advantages, then the protection of their data must be questioned .
Public property must be protected, and this includes information from political representatives who exercise power, opening the possibility of criticism about what is happening and with which actors these representatives elected by popular sovereignty are interacting.
If there is public interest in certain information, then it should be publicized and not privatized, as Carlos Affonso Souza, director of the Instituto Tecnologia e Sociedade (ITS) commented: “When the government refuses access to a document for a hundred years, it doesn’t because the information is important for the security of the State, but because I understand that it is private and that there is no public interest in it”.
This is a good test for public institutions to demonstrate the necessary stability for quick and reliable responses to be given to the citizen, as well as to avoid dubious interpretations that could transform democratic instruments into tools that feed palace machinations.
This is the true meaning of LAI and how good information governance should operate, through efficient file and document management.
At the same time, it is recalled that it was in this current term that the President of the Republic leaked, in a live, confidential data on the investigation of a virtual attack on the Superior Electoral Court (TSE), as supported by the Federal Police report sent to the Federal Supreme Court. (STF) at the beginning of the year.
With a wealth of experience honed over 4+ years in journalism, I bring a seasoned voice to the world of news. Currently, I work as a freelance writer and editor, always seeking new opportunities to tell compelling stories in the field of world news.
