Filhos de um Deus menor? O caso Vividown e a privacidade na internet
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5380/rfdufpr.v64i2.64319Palavras-chave:
Jurisprudência. Direitos humanos e democracia. Cyberdireito, ética e governança. Privacidade vs liberdade de expressão. Direitos legais e constitucionais.Resumo
Na esteira dos recentes e importantes eventos de flagrantes violações da privacidade, é proposto um repensar da justificativa do direito à privacidade, pois tais violações levantam questões de responsabilidade democrática e, ao menos potencialmente, contribuem para corroer a legitimidade das atuais organizações de governança locais e internacionais. Neste artigo, discutir-se-á primeiramente o caso da violação da privacidade de um jovem autista intimidado (bullied) e o consequente julgamento de três executivos do Google. Depois, serão analisados os argumentos dos especialistas, acadêmicos ou não, que concordam com a afirmação do Google de que, se a primeira sentença não tivesse sido contestada, as comportas para várias outras jurisdições teriam sido abertas e, como consequência, serviriam como pretexto para aumentar o controle na internet, comprometendo a liberdade de expressão enquanto direito inalienável que não deveria ser censurado. Por fim, além das sentenças e dos seus contextos imediatos, propõe-se uma justificativa teórica da análise exposta. O principal argumento consiste no valor do direito à privacidade estar baseado na leitura de que sua violação prejudicaria a capacidade dos cidadãos de participar efetivamente da política democrática.
Referências
AGLIETTA, M. and REBÉRIOUX, A. (2005). Corporate Governance a Drift: A Critique of Shareholder Value. Cheltenham, U.K.; Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar.
ALEXY, R. (2002). A Theory of Constitutional Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ANDRESANI, G. (2016) “The (In)Security State: Political not Existential”, paper presented at the ERCS (The Common Good: Ethics and Rights in Cybersecurity) major conference ‘Cybersecurity Ethics: The Common Good and the Digital Commons as Justification Registers in Digital Governance, Surveillance and Security’, funded by the ESRC, Hull, UK, 20-21 October.
ANDRESANI, G. (2019) “A Defence of Digital Rights and Values”, paper presented at the ‘Human Rights in a Changing Context’ conference, Durham, UK, 9-10 May.
ANDRESANI, G. and FERLIE, E. (2006) “Studying Governance within the British Public Sector and without: Theoretical and Methodological Issues”, Public Management Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 415-431.
ANDRESANI, G. and STAMILE, N. (2016) “It’s a Bad World Out There! Taking Liberty (Out)With Emergency” presented at the ERCS/International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR) pre-conference workshop ‘Surveillance and Security in the Age of Algorithmic Communication’, Leicester, 26 July.
ANDRESANI, G. and STAMILE, N. (2017) “Legal Reasoning to the Barbed Wire”, paper presented at the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL), King’s College, London, 12-16 June.
ANDRESANI, G. and STAMILE, N. (2018) “Transparency in Internet Regulation and Governance: Arguments and Counter-Arguments with Some Methodological Reflections”, RBEP, 117, pp. 443-476.
ANDRESANI, G. and WARD, T. (forthcoming) “Arguments and Stories in Legal Reasoning: The Case of Evidence Law”, ARSP.
BARBER, L. and PALMER, M. (2010). “Google chief prizes creativity”, June 3, 2010, https://on.ft.com/2ZSgJcx.
BEAUCHAMP, T. L. (2010). Relativism, Multiculturalism and, Universal Norms: Their Role in Business Ethics. In G. G. BRENKERT and T. L. BEAUCHAMP (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics, (pp. 235-266). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BERNAL, P. (2014). Internet Privacy Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BOWIE, Norman E. and JAMAL, Karim (2006). “Privacy Rights on the Internet: Self-Regulation or Government Regulation?”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 323-342.
BRENKERT, G. G. (2009). “Google, Human Rights, and Moral Compromise”, Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), pp. 453-478.
CALABRESI, G. (1996). Il dono dello spirito maligno. Gli ideali, le convinzioni, I modi di pensare nei loro rapporti col diritto. Milano: Giuffrè.
CAMPBELL, T. and MILLER, S. (eds) (2004). Human Rights and the Moral Responsibilities of Corporate and Public Sector Organisations. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
DALTON, Dan R., WIMBUSH, James C. and DAILY, Catherine M. (1996). “Candor, Privacy, and ‘Legal Immunity’ in Business Ethics Research: An Empirical Assessment of the Randomized Response Technique (RRT)”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 87-99.
DENIS, G., BOWIE, N., BEAUCHAMP, T. L. and ARNOLD, D. G. (eds) (2018). Ethical Theory and Business. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
DIGNAM, A. and GALANIS, M. (2008). “Corporate Governance and the Importance of Macroeconomic Context”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 201-243.
DOH, J. P. and GUAY, T. R. (2006). “Corporate Social Responsibility, Public Policy, and NGO Activism in Europe and the United States: An Institutional-Stakeholder Perspective”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43, No 1, pp. 47-73.
DONADIO, R. (2010). “Larger Threat Is Seen in Google Case, New York Times”, https://nyti.ms/2P2FeTp.
EDWARDS, L. (2010), “Annoyed Now: Google & Italy, Pangloss”, February 25, https://bit.ly/2OK6Dcl.
ETZIONI, A. (1999), The limits of Privacy. New York: Basic Books.
FERLIE, E., MUSSELIN, C. and ANDRESANI, G. (2012) “El pilotaje de los sistemas de educación superior: una vision desde la perspective de la gestion publica”, in KEHM, Barbara M. (ed.), La nueva gobernanza de los sistemas universitarios. Barcelona: Octaedro.
FIANDACA, G. and MUSCO, E. (2014). Diritto penale. Parte generale. Bologna: Zanichelli, 7th ed.
FLEMING, J. A. (2004). “Securing Deliberative Democracy”, Fordham Law Review, 72, pp. 1.435-1.475.
GILIOLI, A. (2010) “Piovono Rane”, https://bit.ly/2YSjhpI.
GUNTHER, K. (1993) The Sense of Appropriateness: Application Discourses in Morality and Law, New York: State University of New York Press.
HABERMAS, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms, Polity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
HARTMAN, E. M. (2001), “Moral Philosophy, Political Philosophy, and Organizational Ethics: A Response to Phillips and Margolis”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 673-685.
HEATH, J., MORIARTY, J. and NORMAN, W. (2010), “Business Ethics and (or as) Political Philosophy”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 427-452.
INTRONA, L. D., POULOUDI, Athanasia (1999). “Privacy in the Information Age: Stakeholders, Interests and Values”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 22, No. 1, Ethics of Information and Communication Technology, pp. 27-38.
JOHNSON, D. (2001). Computer Ethics. London: Prentice Hall International, 3rd ed.
KAFKA, P. (2010). Google’s European Road Trip Gets Even Worse, All Things Digital, February 24, https://bit.ly/2GTNaj4.
KAMM, F. M. (2002). Rights, in Coleman, J. and Shapiro, S. The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
KNILL, C., TOSUN, J. (2012). Public Policy: A New Introduction. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
LE MENESTREL, M., HUNTER, M. and BETTIGNIES, H.-C. de (2002), “Internet e-ethics in Confrontation with an Activists Agenda: Yahoo! on Trial”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 39, No. 1-2, pp. 135-144.
LIPINSKI, T. A. (1999) “The Commodification of Information and the Extension of Proprietary Rights into the Public Domain: Recent Legal (Case and Other) Developments in the United States”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 22, No. 1, Ethics of Information and Communication Technology, pp. 63-80.
LYON, D. (1994). The Electronic Eye. The Rise of Surveillance Society. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
MANTOVANI, F. (2013). Diritto Penale. Parte generale. Padova: CEDAM.
MATTEN, D. and MOON, J. (2004). “A Conceptual Framework for Understanding CSR in Europe”, in HABISCH, A., JONKER, J., WEGNER, M. and SCHMIDPETER, R. (eds), CSR across Europe (pp. 335-356), Berlin: Springer.
MOON, J., KANG, N. and GOND, J.-P. (2010). “Corporate Social Responsibility and Government”, in COHEN, D., GRANT, W. and WILSON, G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Business and Government (pp. 512-543). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MOORE, A. D. (2000). “Employee Monitoring and Computer Technology: Evaluative Surveillance v. Privacy”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 697-709.
MORIARTY, J. (2005). “On the Relevance of Political Philosophy to Business Ethics”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 15, No.3, pp. 455-473.
MUCCHETTI, M. (2010). “Il pm, la privacy e Google: loro vogliono il Far West”, June 6, 2010, https://bit.ly/2yKTMMr.
NAGEL, T. (1995). “Personal Rights and Public Space”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 24, No.2, pp. 83-107.
NEWELL, P. (2002). “Managing Multinationals: The Governance of Investment for the Environment”, Journal of International Development, 13, pp. 907-919.
PESLAK, A. R. (2005). “An Ethical Exploration of Privacy and Radio Frequency Identification”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 59, No. 4, pp. 327-345.
RICHARDS, N. M. (2015). “Four Privacy Myths”, in SARAT, A. (ed), A World Without Privacy. What Law Can and Should Do? New York, Cambridge University Press.
ROSENBERG, R. S. (1999). “The Workplace on the Verge of the 21st Century”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 22, No. 1, Ethics of Information and Communication Technology, pp. 3-14.
SCANLON, T. M. (2004). “Adjusting Rights and Balancing Values”, Fordham Law Review, 72, pp. 1.477-1.486.
SEN, A. (1993). “Does Business Ethics Make Economic Sense?”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. No. 31, pp. 45-54.
SMITH, J. D., (2009). “Internet Content Providers and Complicity in Human Rights Abuse”, in ARNOLD, D. G., BEAUCHAMP, T. L., BOWIE, N. (eds), Ethical Theory and Business. London: Prentice Hall International, pp. 442-445.
SOLOVE, D. J. (2002). Conceptualizing Privacy, California Law Review, Vol. 90, No. 4, pp. 1.087-1.155.
SOLOVE, D. J. (2011). Nothing to Hide. The False Tradeoff between Privacy and Security, New Haven- London: Yale University Press.
SPINELLO, R. A. (2010). “Informational Privacy”, in BRENKERT, G. G. and BEAUCHAMP, T. L. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 366-387.
THOMSON, J. J. (1984). “The right to privacy”, in SCHOEMAN, F. D. (ed.), Philosophical Dimension of Privacy. An anthology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
TINCANI, P. (2016). “Un altro dono dello spirito maligno. Nuova sorveglianza e comportamenti individuali”, in PELLICCIOLI, L. (a cura di), La privacy nell’età dell’informazione, L’Ornitorinco, Milano.
WARBURTON, D. (2010). “Google Moves China Operations to Hong Kong”, March 23, 2010, https://bit.ly/2GTyRv6.
WARREN, S. and BRANDEIS, L. (1890). “The Right to Privacy”, Harvard Law Review, 4, pp. 193-220.
WHITCOMB, D. (2010). “Cyber-bullying Cases Put Heat on Google, Facebook”, March 9, 2010, https://reut.rs/33mn9mc.
WHITMAN, J. Q. (2004). “The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity Versus Liberty”, Yale Law Journal, 113, pp. 1.151-1.221.
ZICCARDI, G. (2016). L’odio on line. Violenza verbale e ossessioni in rete. Raffaello Cortina, Milano.
ZUCCA, L. (2007). Constitutional Dilemmas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
CASE LAW
Corte di Cassazione, III sez. pen., 3 Febbraio 2014, n. 3672.
Court of Justice in Case C-131/12.
Tribunal of Milan, 12 April 2010 n. 1972.
Corte di Appello of Milan, December 21, 2012.
LEGISLATION
Art. 167 of Legislative Decree n. 196 of the 2003 Privacy Code.
SITES
Googleblog (2010). Serious Threat to the Web in Italy, February 24, 2010, https://bit.ly/31tMloS.
Repubblica (2010). Disabile picchiato e filmato, condannata Google. Gli Usa: “La libertà di internet è vitale”, https://bit.ly/2KyxGC3.
Sole24 (2010). Minacciato su Facebook per la sentenza Google, April 15, 2010, https://bit.ly/2MNd5wI.
The Guardian (2010). Google Street View “broke Australia’s privacy law”, https://bit.ly/2YzNHSm.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Os autores que publicam na Revista concordam com os seguintes termos:
– os autores mantêm os direitos autorais e transferem à Revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons — Atribuição 3.0 Brasil — CC BY 3.0 BR, que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e da publicação inicial na Revista;
– os autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada na Revista (ex.: publicar em repositório institucional ou como capítulo de livro), com reconhecimento da autoria e da publicação inicial na Revista;
– qualquer pessoa é livre para compartilhar (copiar e redistribuir o trabalho em qualquer suporte ou formato) e para adaptar (remixar, transformar e criar a partir do trabalho) para qualquer fim, mesmo que comercial, devendo todavia, em qualquer caso, dar o crédito apropriado, prover um link para a licença e indicar se mudanças foram feitas no trabalho original, nos termos da Licença Creative Commons — Atribuição 3.0 Brasil — CC BY 3.0 BR e respeitados a Lei nº 9.610, de 19 de fevereiro de 1998, e outros normativos vigentes.
