Post by xyz3700 on Feb 27, 2024 0:38:22 GMT -5
Corporate email is a work tool that belongs to the employer, not employees, who must restrict its use to fulfilling their duties. With this argument, the 4th Panel of the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region (TRF-4) maintained a ruling that, in this aspect, authorized the use of e-mail conversations held by former directors of a private pension institution in the intervention process initiated by the Private Insurance Superintendence (Susep). "The absence of illegal access to corporate e-mails is based not only on articles 5 and 9 of Law No.74 referred to in the sentence, but also on the lack of inviolability of electronic correspondence of former directors and advisors stored on servers digital data from Aplub, which is why access to it does not constitute the alleged breach of telematic confidentiality", wrote in the ruling the rapporteur of the Appeal in Necessary Reexamination, federal judge summoned Oscar Valente Cardoso.
According to Cardoso, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has already decided that information obtained through corporate email monitoring is not illicit evidence, when relating to non-personal aspects and of interest to the Public Administration or the community. In other words, as long as access is limited and is relevant to functional matters – use for personal purposes is prohibited –, there cannot be a breach of Chinese Malaysia Phone Number List confidentiality. Writ of Mandamus Nelson Wedekin filed a Writ of Mandamus in light of the act of the president of the Commission of Inquiry of the Superintendency of Private Insurance (Susep) who, in December 2015, decreed an intervention regime over the Association of Liberal University Professionals of Brazil (Aplub) and, by extension, to Capemisa Aplub Capitalização S/A AplubCap.
He pointed out several irregularities in the act of decree: denial of full access to the administrative procedure; incompetence of the processing authority; existence of illicit evidence; and objective liability, which does not depend on intent or guilt, and generic accusation. The author, former president of Aplub, asked, at the point, that the 8th Federal Court of Porto Alegre determine the extrication of all e-mails obtained, as well as annul all acts that were based on or made reference to these e-mails. mails , especially those relating to the "Conclusion of the Investigation". Lawful evidence The substitute federal judge Paula Weber Rosito, when ruling on this aspect, did not see the configuration of a breach of telematic confidentiality. In other words, it cannot be said that the president of the Susep Inquiry Committee acted unlawfully by accessing the electronic correspondence of former directors and advisors stored on Aplub's digital servers.
According to Cardoso, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has already decided that information obtained through corporate email monitoring is not illicit evidence, when relating to non-personal aspects and of interest to the Public Administration or the community. In other words, as long as access is limited and is relevant to functional matters – use for personal purposes is prohibited –, there cannot be a breach of Chinese Malaysia Phone Number List confidentiality. Writ of Mandamus Nelson Wedekin filed a Writ of Mandamus in light of the act of the president of the Commission of Inquiry of the Superintendency of Private Insurance (Susep) who, in December 2015, decreed an intervention regime over the Association of Liberal University Professionals of Brazil (Aplub) and, by extension, to Capemisa Aplub Capitalização S/A AplubCap.
He pointed out several irregularities in the act of decree: denial of full access to the administrative procedure; incompetence of the processing authority; existence of illicit evidence; and objective liability, which does not depend on intent or guilt, and generic accusation. The author, former president of Aplub, asked, at the point, that the 8th Federal Court of Porto Alegre determine the extrication of all e-mails obtained, as well as annul all acts that were based on or made reference to these e-mails. mails , especially those relating to the "Conclusion of the Investigation". Lawful evidence The substitute federal judge Paula Weber Rosito, when ruling on this aspect, did not see the configuration of a breach of telematic confidentiality. In other words, it cannot be said that the president of the Susep Inquiry Committee acted unlawfully by accessing the electronic correspondence of former directors and advisors stored on Aplub's digital servers.