Automated decisions are increasingly present in society, although they can often be considered a positive instrument. On the other hand, they can have a negative impact on citizens' lives, due to the lack of transparency in the functioning of algorithms, which makes it difficult to identify abusive and discriminatory practices. To mitigate this situation, art. 20 of the General Law for the Protection of Personal Data - LGPD, guarantees the data subject the right to review those decisions that affect his interest. However, with the suppression of the review by a natural person and the lack of provision expressed in the LGPD, as to who would be responsible for carrying out such a review, whether by a natural person or the system itself, it creates a situation of legal uncertainty. This research work seeks an answer from the descriptive methodology, with a bibliographic review; and exploratory, with the survey of lawsuits that run in the courts of Brazil, to verify the position of the Judiciary in the face of a situation provided for in art. 20 of the LGPD, with the aim of establishing a parameter in order to remedy the omission left by the legislature. Thus, when the judiciary is called upon to decide a dispute, the judge cannot evade his obligation to judge, under the allegation of the obscurity of the legal system. In short, the magistrate must judge his acts in accordance with the principles and fundamental rights provided for in the Federal Constitution, especially the dignity of the human person.
|
