Is it possible to expunge a person's criminal record to protect their privacy?
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2025 9:10 am
Completely eliminating criminal records as a measure to protect privacy poses a complex challenge that requires balancing various legal and social principles. The Constitutional Court's SU458/12 ruling thus becomes a valuable guideline on this issue, highlighting the need to carefully consider aspects such as purpose, utility, necessity and restricted circulation status for personal data recorded as criminal records.
In the document described, the Court recognizes that the right to Habeas Data operates in the specific area of the administration of personal databases, highlighting that its exercise is legally impossible in relation to personal information that is not contained in a database. In this sense, it focuses on establishing the importance of criminal record databases and how they fulfill various functions within the Legal System, including verifying criminal surrogates, determining punishability, and establishing the existence of disqualifications, among others.
Do you think that data protection is just about having a facebook database or obtaining authorizations for the processing of information?
The aforementioned ruling distinguishes two facets in the power to suppress legal data: the first is aimed at allowing the complete elimination of certain information that no longer fulfills a clear and precise purpose established by the law that required its collection; the second is aimed at safeguarding it with restrictions on its circulation. In any case, the Court emphasizes that the total suppression of criminal records is constitutionally and legally impossible, due to the fact that the data is linked to legitimate functions in criminal matters, intelligence, law enforcement and immigration control.
The Court emphasizes that data retention is not an absolute act; the conditions of use may change, and thus the treatment must be adjusted to the principles of purpose, utility, necessity and restricted circulation. In this context, the judgment states that the indiscriminate disclosure of personal information related to criminal records effectively does not fulfill a legal or constitutional purpose , and may also facilitate the uncontrolled exercise of information power, constituting a barrier to access to employment, social inclusion and equality, which are rights established by the Constitution.
In the document described, the Court recognizes that the right to Habeas Data operates in the specific area of the administration of personal databases, highlighting that its exercise is legally impossible in relation to personal information that is not contained in a database. In this sense, it focuses on establishing the importance of criminal record databases and how they fulfill various functions within the Legal System, including verifying criminal surrogates, determining punishability, and establishing the existence of disqualifications, among others.
Do you think that data protection is just about having a facebook database or obtaining authorizations for the processing of information?
The aforementioned ruling distinguishes two facets in the power to suppress legal data: the first is aimed at allowing the complete elimination of certain information that no longer fulfills a clear and precise purpose established by the law that required its collection; the second is aimed at safeguarding it with restrictions on its circulation. In any case, the Court emphasizes that the total suppression of criminal records is constitutionally and legally impossible, due to the fact that the data is linked to legitimate functions in criminal matters, intelligence, law enforcement and immigration control.
The Court emphasizes that data retention is not an absolute act; the conditions of use may change, and thus the treatment must be adjusted to the principles of purpose, utility, necessity and restricted circulation. In this context, the judgment states that the indiscriminate disclosure of personal information related to criminal records effectively does not fulfill a legal or constitutional purpose , and may also facilitate the uncontrolled exercise of information power, constituting a barrier to access to employment, social inclusion and equality, which are rights established by the Constitution.