Decree on Big Techs empowers government bodies and generates criticism; understand
Edited 15 days ago by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT), the decree that changed the Marco Civil da Internet has provoked debate among experts, representatives of the technology sector and parliamentarians. The measure expands the inspection and accountability mechanisms of large digital platforms, known as Big Techs, and gives more powers to public bodies in supervising the activities of these companies in Brazil.
The text assigns new powers and reinforces the performance of institutions such as the AGU (Attorney General of the Union) and the ANPD (National Data Protection Authority), which now occupy a central position in the analysis of conduct considered abusive or contrary to the public interest.
According to the government, the objective is to create more effective instruments to tackle problems related to misinformation, the misuse of personal data, the lack of algorithmic transparency and the eventual inaction of platforms in the face of illicit content.
In practice, the AGU gains greater protagonism in the articulation of judicial and administrative measures against companies that fail to comply with legal determinations or decisions by Brazilian authorities. The ANPD now expands its supervisory capacity over the processing of personal data, being able to act more incisively in investigations and sanctioning processes.
The initiative takes place amidst the advancement of the international debate on the regulation of digital platforms. Several countries have been discussing mechanisms to increase the responsibility of technology companies in areas such as data protection, competition, artificial intelligence and the circulation of information on social networks.
Despite the justification presented by the government, the decree received criticism from entities linked to the digital sector and experts in freedom of expression. Part of the concerns are related to the possibility of excessive concentration of powers in Executive bodies.
"The main concern, however, lies with the merit of the parameters that were adopted. The rules under debate touch on highly sensitive topics - including freedom of expression, economic activity, digital commerce and the responsibility of providers - and require in-depth reflection before becoming regulatory commands", says an excerpt from an open letter signed by ALAI (Latin American Internet Association), the Brazilian Chamber of the Digital Economy and the Digital Council of Brazil.
Critics argue that the expansion of administrative powers can generate legal uncertainty and open space for divergent interpretations about the limits of state action in digital environments.
There are also questions about possible impacts on innovation and the functioning of services offered by global technology companies.
Opposition congressmen presented at least 24 PDLs (Project Legislative Decree) with the aim of overturning the decree. Federal deputy Adriana Ventura (Novo-SP) defended the initiatives and stated that the government exceeded its limits.
The parliamentarian argued that the decision creates obligations for both platforms and citizens, creating legal uncertainty. "It is a perfect affront to freedom of expression, because there is no law. The government is ignoring something that has no law," he declared.
Adriana Ventura warned of the risk of self-censorship among citizens given the uncertainty about what can or cannot be said on digital platforms. For her, using the defense of democracy as a justification for restricting opinions represents a contradiction.
"What democracy is left standing if it doesn't accept criticism? Democracy doesn't protect itself by reducing freedom", said the parliamentarian.
Loophole to criminalize opinion
For Eduardo Felipe Matias, professor of International Law at USP (University of São Paulo), the changes made by the government open a loophole for the criminalization of opinion.
"It's something necessary, they are serious crimes provided for in the Penal Code. The problem is when they start to be confused with opinion. So, there is a possible loophole, which should not exist. The distinction is clear, but it may end up existing."
The regulations oblige Big Techs to have reporting mechanisms for the removal of criminal materials - such as content that incites crimes, for example - that are more improved and accessible, without the need to wait for a court decision determining that any post should be taken offline.
There is also a "second loophole" for Eduardo, which is "the possibility that the AGU may be able to question advertising that is considered misleading when it goes against public policy."
"The internet has become a place ripe for fraud and scams, so the article is good, however, by opening the loophole that if advertising is against a public policy, the AGU can intervene. Does intervening mean notifying and the platform being forced to remove that publication? You give this body power to question something that would be legitimate", added the expert.
Source: CNN