Submitted by PPG Ci?ncias Criminais (ppgccrim@pucrs.br) on 2018-07-11T18:42:24Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Disserta??o_Ivan Jezler Costa J?nior_vers?o dep?sito biblioteca PUCRS_08_06_2018_com capa e contracapa.pdf: 2153899 bytes, checksum: 22b1ffc03b820d4e1b4f17b19739ea18 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Sheila Dias (sheila.dias@pucrs.br) on 2018-07-16T13:19:03Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Disserta??o_Ivan Jezler Costa J?nior_vers?o dep?sito biblioteca PUCRS_08_06_2018_com capa e contracapa.pdf: 2153899 bytes, checksum: 22b1ffc03b820d4e1b4f17b19739ea18 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-07-16T13:27:26Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Disserta??o_Ivan Jezler Costa J?nior_vers?o dep?sito biblioteca PUCRS_08_06_2018_com capa e contracapa.pdf: 2153899 bytes, checksum: 22b1ffc03b820d4e1b4f17b19739ea18 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-03-22 / This paper analyzes the Civil Internet Framework in the context of the right to evidence in criminal proceedings. From the new technological resources of investigation energized by electronic compartments and by the Internet, the main legislative vacuums were pointed out in the orientation of these means of proof. There are no strong guiding rules, which contributed to a jurisprudential oscillation, with arbitrariness and decisionism in judicial decisions analyzed. In the pursuit of an absolute and anticipated truth, the trivialization of the hidden means of investigation had been demonstrated, even directly, when a public audience had been witnessed and concluded, which pursued the insertion of back door in applications with rigid encryption to propitiate the collection of communications stored in these telematic vehicles. The criminal prosecution organs questioned on this solemnity still supported the suppression of the rules of international cooperation for the collection of electronic data abroad. The distinction between interception and capture of conversations had still been drawn in a watertight manner. The general objective of the research is to analyze if the Civil Framework of the Internet presents itself as sufficient to regulate the capture of telematic data stored in electronic compartments. For that, a critical and multidisciplinary analysis of the themes was done, based on the consultation of scientific works and journalistic publications, and the documentary research was used to demonstrate the need to face the theme and the practical relevance of the theme, as attested by the analysis of the decisions of the Superior Courts and manifestations of other procedural subjects. As a result, the necessity of a proper legal regime for the search of digital data stored in electronic compartments was evidenced. The devices that regulate orthodox search and seizure do not have the ability to maintain the integrity and sameness of content volatile, tangible, and easily deteriorated. At the same time, in the wake of what had been commented on the ontological distinction between interception and informational search, the rule of Law no. 9,296, dated July 24, 1996, can not preserve the specificities of the collection of stored content. In this step, the application of the extensive and privileged interpretation, a taxation with protection in a constitutional hermeneutic, had been removed. It is concluded that the Civilian Internet Framework did not provide, with requirements and assumptions, the blind spot mentioned. There are no clear rules as to legitimacy, competence, reasoning and timing. This void provided the analysis of decisions of the first degree to the Federal Supreme Court, which evidenced the legal insecurity built by a non-existent or deficient legislation. / Este trabalho analisa o Marco Civil da Internet no contexto do direito ? prova no processo penal. A partir dos novos recursos tecnol?gicos de investiga??o energizados por compartimentos eletr?nicos e pela Internet, elencaram-se os principais v?cuos legislativos na orienta??o desses meios de prova. N?o h? regras orientadoras fortes, o que contribuiu para uma oscila??o jurisprudencial, com arbitrariedade e decisionismo em decis?es jurisdicionais analisadas. Na busca de uma verdade absoluta e antecipada, a banaliza??o dos meios ocultos de investiga??o fora demonstrada, inclusive diretamente, quando se presenciou e se colocou, a termo, uma audi?ncia p?blica que perseguiu a inser??o de porta dos fundos em aplicativos com criptografia r?gida para propiciar a coleta de comunica??es armazenadas nesses ve?culos telem?ticos. Os ?rg?os de persecu??o penal inquiridos nessa solenidade ainda sustentaram a supress?o das regras de coopera??o internacional para a coleta de dados eletr?nicos no exterior. Ainda fora tra?ada a distin??o entre intercepta??o e capta??o das conversas de maneira estanque. O objetivo geral da pesquisa busca analisar se o Marco Civil da Internet se apresenta como suficiente para regrar a capta??o de dados telem?ticos armazenados em compartimentos eletr?nicos. Para tanto, foi realizada uma an?lise cr?tica e multidisciplinar dos temas, a partir da consulta a trabalhos cient?ficos e publica??es jornal?sticas, sendo cogente a pesquisa documental para demonstrar a necessidade de enfrentamento do tema e a relev?ncia pr?tica do mesmo, como ficou atestado pela an?lise das decis?es dos Tribunais Superiores e manifesta??es de outros sujeitos processuais. Como resultado, evidenciou-se a necessidade de um regime jur?dico pr?prio para a busca de dados digitais armazenados em compartimentos eletr?nicos. Os dispositivos que regram a busca e apreens?o ortodoxa n?o t?m o cond?o de manter a integridade e mesmidade de conte?do vol?til, tang?vel e com f?cil deteriora??o. Ao mesmo tempo, na esteira do que fora comentado sobre a distin??o ontol?gica entre intercepta??o e busca informacional, o regramento da Lei n. 9.296, de 24 de julho de 1996, n?o pode preservar as especificidades da coleta de conte?do armazenado. Nesse passo, fora afastada a aplica??o da interpreta??o extensiva e privilegiada, uma taxatividade com amparo em uma hermen?utica constitucional. Conclui-se que o Marco Civil da Internet n?o supriu, com requisitos e pressupostos, o ponto cego mencionado. N?o h? regras claras quanto ? legitimidade, compet?ncia, fundamenta??o e prazo. Esse vazio proporcionou a an?lise de decis?es do primeiro grau ao Supremo Tribunal Federal, o que evidenciou a inseguran?a jur?dica constru?da por uma legisla??o inexistente ou deficiente.