Without GDPR, Anatel recommends caution in the use of mobile data at Covid-19
With the go, the use of mobile data by the federal government as a tool to combat the pandemic of Covid-19 does not go, Anatel took the opportunity to reinforce a position that it had already expressed to the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations and Communications: caution and GDPR do no harm to anyone.
In a note published this Wednesday, 4/15, on “possibilities of data collection from users of telecommunications services as an input for information on mobility concentrations of people”, the agency points out that “the adoption of any measure” of this nature should “ result of a motivated decision, with legal support and due transparency for control bodies and for society ”.
Anatel’s reservations are not new, as this Digital Convergence had already pointed out. But they gain momentum with the political decision to suspend the agreement that was being struck between the MCTIC and the mobile operators for the use of data precisely as an input for information on mobility concentrations of people.
The agency’s note ignores the federal government’s motives for putting the deal on the fridge – the justification of concern about privacy is fragile for an administration that has been postponing the creation of the National Data Protection Authority. But Anatel’s formal positioning reinforces the importance of this new agency and of the GDPR itself. After all, the note points out that:
- The mechanisms and data collected and processed at this time will constitute a legacy base that will be subject to the provisions of the GDPR as of its validity, which is why such a normative instrument is an important guideline for measuring the regularity of ongoing actions.
- The collection and treatment of data are subject to current legislation and, above all, to the dictates of the Federal Constitution. The balance of protection between health and privacy is found in the highest degree of our normative hierarchy. Despite the present crisis, the moment still includes the possibility of harmonization between the two legal assets, in a motivated and transparent way.
- The judgment of proportionality must be observed insofar as the rights of individuals can be tangent. The cost-benefit must be expressly measured, compared to other solutions at the hands of the Public Power that may prove to be less invasive. Issues such as the individual’s consensus must also be at least appreciated, and motivated to be dismissed, if applicable.
- The culture of protection of privacy, although growing, is still incipient in Brazil. In a scenario in which individuals’ awareness of the topic is punctual, it is the responsibility of the Public Power to protect them in several dimensions whose reflexes may be much more permanent than the current crisis.
The transition scenario towards the validity of the GDPR, the existence of debate between assets protected by the Federal Constitution, and the exceptional nature of the solutions, indicate a great need for transparency, constant monitoring and participation of actors who can offer external, or even social, control. in the construction of the desirable legal support, as well as for the purpose of auditing the use or manipulation of the data.
Source: [Digital Convergence]