30 Mar BILL OF LAW PROPOSES TO AMMEND URBAN MOBILITY LAW TO DEMAND BIOMETRIC IDENTIFICATION FROM INDIVIDUAL TRANSPORT APPS AND PLATFORMS USERS
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, Congressman José Guimarães presented last Monday (March 23, 2020) the Bill of Law No. 811/2020 (“PL 811/2020”), which intends to amend Law No. 12,587/2020 (“Urban Mobility Law”) so that network communication apps and other platforms used for individual private paid transportation, such as Uber, Cabify and 99, begin to request from user’s their biometric identification prior to initiating the service.
The reason for such requirement is to ensure greater security to urban transportation, especially for app drivers, by verifying the identity of the user of the service.
Currently, private transportation apps allow users, the passengers, to subscribe to their platforms and use their services without any major restrictions. No document that proves the user’s identity or the authenticity of his data is requested at the moment of subscription, which facilitates the creation of false profiles.
One possible solution to enable the creation of false profiles is to request an official identification document (such as the Driver’s licenses, RG and/or Brazilian Taxpayer ID – CPF/ME) when the individual subscribes to the service. It seems that such measure would help platform’s administrators to verify the users’ identity, but it would not avoid the creation of a false profile or other types of strikes.
One possible solution to enable the creation of false profiles is to request an official identification document (such as the Driver’s licenses, RG and/or Brazilian Taxpayer ID – CPF/ME) when the individual subscribes to the service. It seems that such measure would help platform’s administrators to verify the users’ identity, but it would not avoid the creation of a false profile or other types of strikes.
According to article 5th, I of the LGPD, the users name, e-mail address and official identification document are classified as personal data, once they allow the identification of a natural person or make a natural person identifiable.
Biometric data, on the other hand, are considered to be sensitive personal data, as provided in article 5th, II of the LGPD, as this category of data is mostly irreplaceable and has a greater potential to generate discrimination and discomfort to the data subject if it is improperly disclosed.
The processing of sensitive personal data in this case seems, at this stage, to be exaggerated and may stumble upon the principles set forth in the LGPD, mainly the principles of purpose, adequacy and necessity (article 6, I, II and III of the LGPD).
Adequacy and necessity aim to ensure that the processing of the data subject’s personal data is compatible and limited to the minimum necessary to comply with the proposed purpose, this means, only using relevant, proportional and not excessive data during the processing.
Adequacy and necessity aim to ensure that the processing of the data subject’s personal data is compatible and limited to the minimum necessary to comply with the proposed purpose, this means, only using relevant, proportional and not excessive data during the processing.
The adoption of these measures implies financial costs and investment, which in certain situations may prevent economic and technological development, as well as innovation of certain platforms.
The adoption of these measures implies financial costs and investment, which in certain situations may prevent economic and technological development, as well as innovation of certain platforms.
This article is intended exclusively to provide information and does not contain any opinion, recommendation or legal advice from KGV Advogados concerning the matters herein addressed. Copyrights are reserved to Kestener, Granja & Vieira Advogados.
No Comments