Brazil's Twitter Files: Independent Revelations on Online Censorship.
Welcome to TwitterFilesBrazil.com, your dedicated portal to unraveling the complex web of social media censorship, with a particular focus on the Brazilian electoral period.
This site is an independent initiative to share the striking findings of Michael Shellenberger, David Ágape, and Eli Vieira — journalists and researchers who, although not directly associated with us, have brought to light internal communications between Twitter executives and Brazilian authorities, unveiling a scenario of political influence and control previously unknown to the public.
Our mission is to offer a space for transparency, where these documents can be freely accessed, and to foster an open dialogue about the implications of these censorship practices on freedom of speech and democracy. Here, you will find a meticulous compilation of data, analyses, and coverage from national and international media, providing a broad and unfiltered view of the events that have shaped public debate.
Join us in our mission to bring clarity and awareness about the challenges faced by society in the digital age, advocating for a future where communication is free and not curtailed by hidden interests.
Twitter Files - Brazil
Brazil is engaged in a sweeping crackdown on free speech led by a Supreme Court justice named Alexandre de Moraes. De Moraes has thrown people in jail without trial for things they posted on social media. He has demanded the removal of users from social media platforms. He has required the censorship of specific posts without giving users any right of appeal or even the right to see the evidence presented against them.
Now, Twitter Files, released here for the first time, reveal that de Moraes and the Superior Electoral Court he controls engaged in a clear attempt to undermine democracy in Brazil. They:
- illegally demanded that Twitter reveal personal details about Twitter users who used hashtags he did not like;
- demanded access to Twitter’s internal data, in violation of Twitter policy;
- sought to censor, unilaterally, Twitter posts by sitting members of Brazil’s Congress;
- sought to weaponize Twitter’s content moderation policies against supporters of then-president Jair Bolsonaro.
The Files show the origins of the Brazilian judiciary’s demand for sweeping censorship powers, the court’s use of censorship for anti-democratic election interference, and the birth of the Censorship Industrial Complex in Brazil. TWITTER FILES - BRAZIL was written by Michael Shellenberger, David Ágape, and Eli Vieira.
We presented these findings to de Moraes, the Supreme Court (STF), and the High Electoral Court (TSE). None responded. Let’s get into it.
“We are… pushing back against the requests...” On February 14, 2020, Twitter’s legal counsel in Brazil, Rafael Batista, emailed his colleagues to describe a hearing in Congress on “Disinformation and 'fake news.”
Batista revealed that members of Brazil’s Congress had asked Twitter for the “content of messages exchanged by some users via DMs” as well as “login records - among other info.”
Batista said, “We are… pushing back against the requests,” which were illegal, “because they do not meet [Brazilian Internet law] Marco Civil legal requirements for disclosure of user's records.”
Batista noted that some conservative Twitter users had gone to the Supreme Court “after they learned from the media that the Congress was trying to get their IPs and DM content. In light of this, the Supreme Court granted an injunction suspending the requirement given its failure to fulfill legal requirements.”
Update on the "Federal Prosecutor - TOS" subject - LATAM - Weekly Report from Feb 14, 2020
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rafael Batista <[redacted]@twitter.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 1:15 PM
Subject: LATAM - Weekly Report
To: [redacted]@twitter.com
Cc: [redacted]@twitter.com>, [redacted]@twitter.com
Hi [redacted],
Please find below highlights of the week (we received 13 new cases this week - including 7 congress requirements and 1 decision from the Supreme Court):
BR Congressional Committee on Disinformation and 'fake news': As mentioned in the last weekly report and during our last Weekly Team Meeting, we received some requests from the Congress seeking content of messages exchanged by some users via DMs, login records - among other info. We are working with OC in the replies pushing back against the requests because they do not meet Marco Civil legal requirements for disclosure of user's records. In addition, some Twitter users belonging to a group called Conservative Movement filed a writ before the Supreme Court after they learned from the media that the Congress was trying to get their IPs and DM content. In light of this, the Supreme Court granted an injunction suspending the requirement given its failure to fulfill legal requirements. Even though the Supreme Court has not yet decided on the merits about the legitimacy of the Congress to obtain user data without a court order, the fact is that this decision gives us an additional argument to challenge the requirements.
Supreme Court decision: We've received yesterday a court order from the Supreme Court to disclose user data from @Leitadas_Loen, @Lets_Dex and @_brasileirinhos. It came from an ongoing criminal investigation before the Supreme Court about fake news and threats against Supreme Court members and their families (these accounts are also under investigation at the congress in relation to the same issues). The investigation but considering the decision talks about "user qualified data", we will report what they will not collect such data, which according to a federal decree refers to name, affiliation, address and marital status. We need to have data that we have available on the platform and inform that Twitter currently retain (BSI + IPs logs) in accordance with local law.
Context:
Brazil’s Supreme Court and Superior Electoral Court Seven justices comprise Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court (TSE). Three of those justices are also members of the Supreme Court (STF). One of them, Alexandre de Moraes, presides over the TSE.
Here's background on the rise of Brazil's Censorship Industrial Complex by David Ágape:
PUBLIC
FBI, Soros, And Secret Police In Vast Censorship Conspiracy In Brazil
Months-long investigation reveals global effort to counter populism in violation of the Latin American nation's constitution
DAVID AGAPE
JAN 30, 2024 • PAID
[Heart icon] [Speech bubble icon] [Share icon]
FBI Director Christopher Wray (left); Brazil's Superior Electoral Court President Alexandre de Moraes at the trial of former President Jair Bolsonaro, accused of misinformation (center) Alexander Soros, Chair, Open Society Foundations (Getty Images)
“Google, Facebook, Uber, WhatsApp and Instagram provide registration data and phone numbers without court order”
On January 27, 2021, Batista emailed his colleagues about a police investigation against him for refusing to give personal Twitter user data to the São Paulo State Public Prosecutor Office.
The Prosecutor claimed that Twitter’s “attitude is isolated, because all the other big technology companies such as Google, Facebook, Uber, WhatsApp, and Instagram provide registration data and phone numbers without a court order."
But Twitter “has not [sic] affirmative obligation to collect registration data” explained Batista to the prosecutor and “there is no phone number associated with the account under investigation.”
Criminal Investigation (summary and strategy)
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 5:29 AM Rafael Batista <[redacted]@twitter.com> wrote:
[Privileged and Confidential]
Hi [redacted],
I am sharing details on the criminal investigation and next steps. I hope it helps for the Lit Weekly Sync next week. Thanks for taking it, much appreciated and I will keep you updated after my deposition on Friday.
Subject matter. Police Investigation for alleged crime of disobedience supposedly committed on two occasions by Rafael Batista, as a legal representative of Twitter Brasil, for failure to comply with requests of the São Paulo State Public Prosecutor Office. According to the Public Prosecutor: (i) “This attitude is isolated, because all the other big technology companies such as Google, Facebook, Uber, WhatsApp and Instagram provide registration data and phone numbers without court order” and (ii) “Twitter claims that it does not keep registration data, but as occurs with any other platform, the registration data that individualizes each user are phone or email, being thus absurd the justification provided by Twitter”.
Context. According to the case records, (i) the Public Prosecutor Office issued two official letters to Twitter Brasil requesting registration data of “pqcarolzinha_” for allegedly association with organized crimes and (ii) Twitter Brasil replied twice stating that: (a) the company has not affirmative obligation to collect registration data - the Marco Civil is very clear about the definition of registration data, which includes only name and profession; and II - personal qualifications, understood as full names and a user's order (b) any other data (v.g. e-mail and phone number) could be disclosed only pursuant to the current legislation and to legal writings conducted in the process. Besides, there is no phone number associated with the accounts under investigation.
“This is the first time an actual criminal investigation was filed against an employee”
On February 18, 2021, Batista emailed his colleagues again to report back on his deposition. He said he told the prosecutor that “Twitter operates in Brazil since 2012 and this is the first time an actual criminal investigation was filed against an employee for allegedly non-compliance either with a request or a court order.”
Batista said he pointed out that “There is no affirmative obligation in the country for collection and consequently provision of 'registration data." Moreover, Brazil’s Internet privacy law, “Marco Civil… covers only:"
I - physical address; and
II - personal qualifications: understood as full name, marital status and profession" - none of them collected by Twitter.”
Criminal Investigation (summary and strategy)
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 9:15 AM Rafael Batista <[redacted]@twitter.com> wrote:
+Safety, Content & Law Enforcement (SCALE-LEGAL) for awareness
***Privileged and Confidential***
Hi Team,
Today was my 'deposition' for alleged crime of disobedience for not attending two requests from the São Paulo State Public Prosecutor Office to deliver user private information absent court orders. Happy to provide you with a more detailed summary but here are the highlights:
- We've emphasized that protecting and defending the privacy of people who use our services is one of our core values at Twitter;
- Twitter Brazil is very cooperative in judicial proceedings and investigations with ful respect to local legislations;
- Twitter operates in Brazil since 2012 and this is the first time an actual criminal investigation was filed against an employee for allegedly non-compliance either with a request or a court order;
- There is no affirmative obligation in the country for collection and consequently provision of 'registration data';
- The rule of law regulating Marco Civil is very clear about the definition of registration data, which covers only: "I - physical address; and II - personal qualifications: understood as full name, marital status and profession" - none of them collected by Twitter;
- Any other data (IP addresses, e-mail or phone number - defined as personal data) could only be disclosed after judicial review and in accordance with certain legal requirements, pursuant to the current legislation, legal writings and court precedents;
We are going to prepare and present "closing arguments" and the authority must prepare a report in the next few days, close the investigation and submit it to the Public Prosecutor Office for appreciation. A decision will be issued soon either closing the investigation permanently or then submitting it to a criminal court.
We've also filed a writ, which is still under advisement pending a decision on the injunction to stay the original request.
We will keep you posted!
“We are unfortunately living strange times in Brazil.”
One month later, on March 18, Batista emailed his colleagues again, this time with, “Great news!”
A judge rejected the prosecutor’s request for “private user information absent a court order” and also “rebukes the prosecutor for forcing compliance through a non-existent obligation, without clarity about the purpose of the criminal investigation and most importantly, reinforcing that acts that seek to identify private and constitutionally protected information require previous judicial review.”
Criminal Investigation (summary and strategy)
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 4:57 PM Rafael Batista <[redacted]@twitter.com> wrote:
***Privileged and Confidential***
All,
Great news! The Magistrate assigned to the writ of mandamus we filed against the São Paulo State Public Prosecutor Office requisition has just granted an injunction:
i) suspending the local prosecutor original requisition (seeking private user information absent a court order);
ii) determining the São Paulo State Public Prosecutor Office to abstain from taking any (civil or criminal) actions against Twitter and its employees;
iii) recognizing - in advance - that the requisition was issued to compel Twitter to do something against statutory provisions;
The decision covers several important points and also rebukes the prosecutor for forcing compliance through a non-existent obligation, without clarity about the purpose of the criminal investigation and most importantly, reinforcing that acts that seek to identify private and constitutionally protected information require previous judicial review.
We are already working with OC to make the best use of this decision to hopefully shelve the criminal investigation initiated against me permanently.
Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns.
-
Rafael Batista
Sr. LATAM Legal Counsel
Batista's colleague Regina Lima replied to his email, “What Rafa forgot to mention is that the employee under threat here was him. The matter continued to escalate in a dangerous way, and his resilience throughout the process was amazing.”
She added, “We are unfortunately living strange times in Brazil. We are seeing a concerning trend on aggressive law enforcement requests and court orders restricting fundamental rights.”
Criminal Investigation (summary and strategy)
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 2:09 PM Regina Lima <[redacted]@twitter.com> wrote:
Adding [redacted] as I have mentioned this case to him and Jim in GCStaff last week.
What Rafa forgot to mention is that the employee under threat here was him, the matter continued to escalate in a dangerous way and his resilience throughout the process was amazing.
We are unfortunately living strange times in Brazil. We are seeing a concerning trend on aggressive law enforcement requests and court orders restricting fundamental rights. Not necessarily targeted at Twitter but more as a result of the political scenario.
This is a phenomenal result that will allow us to continue to hold firm for the protection of the privacy of our users.
Thank you Rafa, the litigation team and scale.
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 6:04 PM Jim Baker <
Thank you Rafa. Excellent news. Much appreciated.
Jim
“An unfortunate and surprising update.”
Then, on March 30, Batista emailed his colleagues again with “An unfortunate and surprising update”: the São Paulo State Public Prosecutor Office was back on the attack, “initiating a criminal proceeding” and claiming a “conflict of interest/lack of impartiality of the Judge.”
Criminal Investigation (summary and strategy)
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:51 AM Rafael Batista <[redacted]@twitter.com> wrote:
Privileged and Confidential
Hi All,
An unfortunate and surprising update: Ignoring all information provided during the criminal investigation, including my testimony, the detailed petitions and even the writ of mandamus decision, I was formally charged by the São Paulo State Public Prosecutor Office, initiating a criminal proceeding in the court. Prosecution also claims conflict of interest/lack of impartiality of the Judge who reviewed our writ of mandamus because of disciplinary complaints against him.
The criminal records are under advisement with a different Judge (not the one assigned to the writ), who is going to decide whether the criminal proceeding will continue or be preliminarily dismissed (this decision is subject to an appeal from both sides).
Therefore, we've already started working on two different fronts in order to:
i) uphold the preliminary injunction rendered in the writ of mandamus (the court must issue a decision about the alleged conflict/impartiality soon); There is also a claim by the prosecution pointing out another court as competent since the original investigation takes place in a different city.
ii) convince the Judge to dismiss the lawsuit before it gets to a more advanced stage that requires either court appearance or further discussion on the merits. In this sense, we have just filed a summarized petition and discussed it in person with the Judge seeking immediate dismissal, but he decided to hear from the public prosecutor before reaching a decision.
We will keep you posted on any developments.
Best,
One week later, on April 5, 2021, Batista emailed his colleagues to say, “I am happy to share that we had great and relieving news…. The criminal court preliminary dismissed the charges against me mainly because it was not possible to identify any element of crime in my conduct.”
The ruling was because Twitter does not collect “registration data” of its users and the Marco Civil “clearly states that access to protected information such email - personal data - could only be done through specific judicial review.”
Criminal Investigation (summary and strategy)
From: Rafael Batista <[redacted]@twitter.com>
Subject: Re: Criminal Investigation (summary and strategy)
Date: April 5, 2021 at 5:36:10 PM PDT
To: [redacted]@twitter.com, [redacted]@twitter.com, Jim Baker <
Cc: [redacted]@twitter.com, Litigation Team <[redacted]@twitter.com>, Regina Lima <[redacted]@twitter.com>, "Safety, Content & Law Enforcement (SCALE-LEGAL)" <[redacted]@twitter.com>
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
First of all, thank you so much [redacted] and [redacted] for taking the time out to join the sync today with OC on this matter and thanks @Regina_Lima for all your support. I am happy to share that we had great and relieving news just a few minutes after our meeting.
The criminal court preliminarily dismissed the charges against me mainly because it was not possible to identify any element of crime in my conduct. While we should expect an appeal - prosecution appears unlikely to change his mind on next steps - the decision touches several important aspects:
- material aspect: it arises from the technical impossibility to comply with the requisitions. Twitter in both answers reported that its controllers do not collect 'registration data' of its users - under the definition of Brazilian laws;
- legal aspect: this one arising from Marco Civil provisions where it clearly states that access to protected information such email - personal data - could only be done through specific judicial review.
It closes with a statement refusing PP's central argument that some of our peers/competitors currently provide email and phone# associated with specific accounts absent a court order. According to the court it does not necessarily imply an obligation to be imposed against Twitter when it is strictly observing local statutory provisions.
I will update this group with any additional information!
Thank you all again!
“Google Brazil… weakens our stance on privacy since we have always pushed back…"
On May 31, 2021, Batista wrote to his colleagues to lament that “Google delivered to the Brazilian Senate at least 200 gigs of videos that had been deleted from YouTube by people connected to the federal government” related to a Brazilian Senate investigation of the government’s response to COVID-19.
Batista called Google’s actions “a very concerning precedent… that contradicts and weakens our stance towards privacy since we have always pushed back against requests from congressional commissions, even when involving only basic subscribe info and IPs….”
In the same email, Batista noted that a member of Congress named Gleisi Hoffmann, who presides over Lula da Silva’s Workers’ Party, and who had sued Twitter for “attacks against her honor,” seeking “private data and removal of some Tweets,” had finally dropped her lawsuit.
LATAM Report (Week of May 31, 2021)
Other Relevant Issues from BR (SCALE):
- Constitutional Investigation COVID-19 - We have just learned that Google delivered to the Brazilian Senate at least 200 gigs of videos that had been deleted from YouTube by people connected to the federal government. As you may have heard about it, there is an ongoing constitutional investigation before the Brazilian Senate which, in general terms, seeks to identify the actions and omissions of the Federal Government in confronting the Covid-19 Pandemic in the country, including investigation on people who potentially encouraged the use of ineffective drugs against the virus. I was able to access the congressional request but we could not get access to Google's response because it is under seal. However, it is a very concerning precedent even if they've delivered via Google LLC - it was apparently delivered with no indication to MLAT and media coverage is talking about Google Brazil. Also, this contradicts and weakens our stance towards privacy since we have always pushed back against requests from congressional commissions, even when involving only basic subscribe info and IPs.
Thanks,
-
Rafael Batista
Sr. LATAM Legal Counsel
"Unmask several Twitter accounts..."
In the same email, Batista noted that a court in São Paulo had demanded that Twitter “unmask several Twitter accounts… related to criticism/alleged offenses against Fernando Capez, a Brazilian professor and politician, former congressman and currently special secretary in the São Paulo Consumer Protection Agency” who was “a defendant in criminal proceedings - recently a federal court seized millions of reais from his bank account and the Tweets are related to these facts. We will therefore push back against this court order…”
LATAM Report (Week of May 31, 2021)
Gleise Hoffman x Twitter - As mentioned during the last LATAM Report, Twitter was served with a new civil litigation matter that was filed by a Congresswoman given what she called 'attacks against her honor'. She was seeking account private data and removal of some Tweets. Considering the content was already down and that we pushed back against the court order to identify all involved users based on procedural aspects, the plaintiff opted to withdraw the suit against us.
Brazil (LE):
Criminal Court in São Paulo - Twitter was served with a court order arising from a criminal investigation on fraud against financial institutions aiming to unmask several Twitter accounts. After reviewing the Tweets, we noticed that most of them are related to criticism/alleged offenses against Fernando Capez, a Brazilian professor and politician, former congressman and currently special secretary in the São Paulo Consumer Protection Agency. He is indeed part of criminal investigations and also a defendant in criminal proceedings - recently a federal court seized millions of reais from his bank account and the Tweets are related to these facts. We will therefore push back against this court order but we would like to highlight that this criminal court specifically is very aggressive and therefore we will keep monitoring it very closely and study the need to file a writ of mandamus.
Other Relevant Issues from BR (SCALE):
Constitutional Investigation COVID-19 - We have just learned that Google delivered to the Brazilian Senate at least 200 gigs of videos that had been deleted from YouTube by people connected to the federal government. As you may have heard about it, there is an ongoing constitutional investigation before the Brazilian Senate which, in general terms, seeks to identify the actions and omissions of the Federal Government in confronting the Covid-19 Pandemic in the country, including investigation on people who potentially encouraged the use of ineffective drugs against the virus. I was able to access the congressional request but we could not get access to Google's response because it is under seal. However, it is a very concerning precedent even if they've delivered via Google LLC - it was apparently delivered with no indication to MLAT and media coverage is talking about Google Brazil. Also, this contradicts and weakens our stance towards privacy since we have always pushed back against requests from congressional commissions, even when involving only basic subscribe info and IPs.
Thanks,
-
Rafael Batista
Sr. LATAM Legal Counsel
“We won't deliver any name at this stage…”
On June 11, 2021, Batista emailed his colleagues to say that the government had opened a criminal investigation against Twitter and that Brazilian “authorities are seeking the name and address of the person responsible for conducting the case internally at Twitter…”
Batista reassured his colleagues: “We won't deliver any name at this stage…”
From: Rafael Batista <[redacted]@twitter.com>
Subject: LATAM Report (Week of June 07, 2021)
Date: June 11, 2021 at 8:32:26 AM PDT
To: LitigationTeam <[redacted]@twitter.com>, [redacted]@twitter.com
Cc: Regina Lima <[redacted]@twitter.com>, Diego De Lima Gualda <[redacted]@twitter.com>
Brazil (Litigation)
• Global Removal discussion ([redacted] x Twitter) - Great news - again - arising from this global removal discussion. The court of appeals in São Paulo rejected both the extraordinary (directed at the Supreme Court) and the Special appeals (directed at the Superior Court of Justice - highest Brazilian Court for non-constitutional matters) filed by the plaintiff and therefore upheld the previous judgment contrary to the global takedown order issued by the lower court. This was a great decision and such a good result for us. Hopefully as we continue to build precedent on our side, more groups of judges will come around to this position.
Brazil (LE)
• Criminal Contempt threat (Electoral Matter) - Twitter was served notice of a criminal investigation for allegedly non-compliance with an electoral court order from the last municipal brazilian elections. LE authorities are seeking the name and address of the person responsible for conducting the case internally at Twitter, since legally they can not follow with contempt measures against the company. We won't deliver any name at this stage, because even though there was indeed a delay, we did fully comply with both the RR and IR requests (BSI). However, before complying we appealed to the court of appeals given some legal requirements that were missing, and the appeal was in fact fully granted. Therefore, we don't believe there is any reason for a criminal contempt investigation. We are already working with a criminal attorney in a preliminary answer for the immediate dismissal of the investigation.
Thanks,
“Even though the complaint is legitimate, the requests are unreasonable.”
Batista emailed his colleagues on June 14, 2021, to say that “Twitter was served last year with a 'complaint notice', which now was turned into a civil investigation against us.”
Batista explained that “The complaint was brought by Djamila Ribeiro, a Brazilian philosopher and journalist after racist offenses/hate crimes directed to her (no specific content has been provided though). Among several requests, she is seeking:
i) monitoring measures of all trending topics to avoid offensive content especially against black woman;
ii) disclosure of user information without court orders in racially motivated crimes;
iii) message triggers in a regular basis informing people about ethical and legal parameters of responsibility for what is published on social networks;
iv) standard messages/texts about such ethical and legal parameters to new users;
v) payment of collective moral damages."
LATAM Report (Week of June 14, 2021)
From: Rafael Batista <[redacted]@twitter.com>
Subject: LATAM Report (Week of June 14, 2021)
Date: June 18, 2021 at 8:39:06 AM PDT
To: LitigationTeam <[redacted]@twitter.com>, [redacted]@twitter.com
Cc: Regina Lima <[redacted]@twitter.com>, Diego De Lima Gualda <[redacted]@twitter.com>
Brazil (LE)
- IR (CSE) - Twitter was served with a new court order to provide user data and content related to the @[newrolas, which was preserved and suspended for CSE violations. Considering the content involved, we recommended LP to deliver the cybertip number of the report to NCMEC along with existing IP logs and will route LE to the Brazilian embassy for more information regarding their request for content.
- BR Attorney's Office investigation - Twitter was served last year with a 'complaint notice', which now was turned into a civil investigation against us. It was filed before the BR Attorney's Office and the victim essentially requires us to initiate a Conduct Adjustment Agreement suggesting measures to inhibit hate speech on Twitter - complaint notices usually precedes civil or criminal investigations and may even lead to class action suit, but in this case the decision made was for a civil investigation more context, where we will be heard about policies and practices to avoid hate speech. Even though the complaint is legitimate, the requests are unreasonable and we do not have any affirmative obligation to implement them. However, we still think it's very sensitive from a reputational standpoint depending on how this issue is addressed externally, so we are working really close with Comms and PP on this. In addition, as you know, we are not in the best regulatory moment and have some delicate ongoing investigations that could be affected by it. Context: The complaint was brought by Djamila Ribeiro, a Brazilian philosopher and journalist after racist offenses/hate crimes directed to her (no specific content has been provided though). Among several requests, she is seeking: i) monitoring measures of all trending topics to avoid offensive content especially against black woman; ii) disclosure of user information without court order or in radically motivated crimes; iii) message triggers in a regular basis to inform people about ethics and legal ethical norms reserved for new users; v) payment of collective moral damages. We have been advised by PA to conduct an internal analysis and provide a statement, including all assumptions that could trigger further legal actions, as well as possible legal risks for the company. We are already working with a criminal attorney in a preliminary answer for the immediate dismissal of the investigation.
Another case related to an “extreme right” blogger “akin to Alex Jones” named Allan dos Santos.
Twitter wanted to suspend the user, explained Batista, but “the user's history of litigating to keep their accounts active… we worry that the inherent messiness of the internal reviews [at Twitter] could make it challenging to explain the basis of a suspension action.
Therefore we've agreed to let the strike system play out, and have us take action when it is clear and unambiguous upon their next violation of our rules, which is just a matter of time considering his list of violations and recent Tweets on COVID issues/misinfo…”
LATAM Report (Week of June 14, 2021)
Other relevant issues in BR
• Allan dos Santos (problematic account / previous violations) - We are discussing with T&S more, specifically with Yoel, possible actions on some accounts engaged in repeated violations (or near-violations) of our rules and operating in bad faith. All accounts belonging to Allan dos Santos are extreme right, akin to Alex Jones, but Twitter Service did not correctly count the strikes on one of his accounts back in May and therefore it is still active - as of now, he has 4 COVID strikes and 2 Safety strikes, and that is disregarding the fact that his previous account, that was CWC'ed last August globally following a Brazil Supreme Court decision, already had other strikes. The problem here is: given the user's history of litigating to keep their accounts active, e.g. with YouTube recently where the court granted an injunction compelling Google to reactivate his YT channel, we worry that the inherent messiness of the internal reviews could make it challenging to explain the basis of a suspension action. Therefore we've agreed to let the strike system play out, and have us take action when it is clear and unambiguous upon their next violation of our rules, which is just a matter of time considering his list of violations and recent Tweets on COVID issues/misinfo. However, when it happens and it seems to be just a matter of time, it is a must for us to substantiate any suspension decision with clear evidence of policy violation. In that sense, it will be important to align in advance how much information (including public tweets) we would be able to provide in court if required to sustain any suspension decision. As you know we do have concerns in Brazil when it comes to litigation challenging account suspensions given the consumer-friendly focus of local courts, which precedently puts on the companies the burden to file in court copies of the infringing content.
Argentina (LE)
• Argentina Elections: We are working with local OC on a legal assessment regarding the upcoming legislative elections in Argentina and will align with PP and LP what we should expect from their National Electoral Agency.
-
Rafael Batista
Sr. LATAM Legal Counsel
Information “related to @CarlosBolsonaro (president's son)”
On July 2, 2021, Batista reported on an information request “related to Carlos Bolsonaro (president's son) - We received an official letter from the federal police supported by a court order seeking registration data from @CarlosBolsonaro.
Therefore, we are working on a reply where we will push back as follow
(i) Twitter does not collect registration data - which under BR definition refers to personal data such as professional qualification, address and full name;
(ii) it is not possible to provide data relating to a specific tweet - no IP available;
(iii) even if it were possible, the legal retention period of logs in BR are 6 months and it has already been exceeded - Tweets are from 2018; and
(iv) the profile @CarlosBolsonaro is a verified account."
LATAM Report (Week of June 28, 2021)
IR related to @CarlosBolsonaro (president's son) - We received an official letter from the federal police supported by a court order seeking registration data from @CarlosBolsonaro. Therefore, we are working on a reply where we will push back as follow (i) Twitter does not collect registration data - which under BR definition refers to personal data such as professional qualification, address and full name; (ii) it is not possible to provide data relating to a specific tweet - no IP available; (iii) even if it were possible, the legal retention period of logs in BR are 6 months and it has already been exceeded - Tweets are from 2018; and (iv) the profile @CarlosBolsonaro is a verified account.
Brazil (Litigation)
• [redacted] x Twitter (foreign IPs) - We have reached a final judgment where Twitter was demanded to provide IP logs from a specific account given serious threats/offenses against the plaintiff. All Tweets were suspended for TOS violation but LP was unable to find any identifiers that pointed to this account being located in Brazil. We therefore appealed against the lower court's decision based on procedural and jurisdiction aspects. The plaintiff has initiated a provisional enforcement seeking accrued fines - the amount is not high - but the judge can still raise the amount if we don't deliver the data - to avoid it, we are working to speed up the judgment before the court of appeals - we will present oral arguments when it comes the time.
Sincerely,
-
Rafael Batista
Sr. LATAM Legal Counsel
“There is a strong political component with this investigation.”
On August 18, 2021, Batista emailed his colleagues to say that the Superior Electoral Court has demanded that the accounts of “heavy supporters of President Bolsonaro” who “have been constantly engaging in coordinated attacks against members of the Supreme Court” and “Superior Electoral Court… The court order is focused on the demonetization of these accounts - from different platforms…”
These demands appeared to be politically motivated to target pro-Bolsonaro sentiment. “Even though this obligation initially does not touch us, the court also determined Twitter, YouTube, Twitch TV, Instagram and Facebook to:
i) refrain from algorithmically suggesting profiles and videos of political content discrediting the electoral system (legitimacy of elections) in association with those users/accounts and also
ii) identify the origin of specific content (we have not been served with any specific Tweet URLs).”
Electoral Court Order - BR Superior Court of Justice
Em qua., 18 de ago. de 2021 às 18:46, Rafael Batista <[redacted]@twitter.com> escreveu:
*Privileged and Confidential*
Hi [redacted] (fyi),
As we have anticipated, we are expecting a very challenging electoral period in Brazil next year (there is a full assessment here), with intense debate around some specific topics, including civic integrity. As an initial result of this debate, Twitter Brazil and some other peer companies were served today with a court order from the Superior Electoral Court of Justice to take action on several accounts:
@ravoxbrasil, @VlogdoLisboa2, @tercalivre, @allandosantos, @AlanLopesRio, @taoquei1, @oswaldajor, @JornalDaCidadeO, @FolhaPolitica, @BonilCoverRei, @camila_abdo, @EmersonTeix, @albertosilva_BR, @drrafazaooficial and @nas_ruas (All of them are already aware of the decision - even though the investigation is under seal, the court order has leaked to the press and reverberated a lot).
These accounts are heavy supporters of President Bolsonaro and have been constantly engaging in coordinated attacks against members of the Supreme Court and more recently also against members of the Superior Electoral Court, with focus on discrediting the National Electoral System. Given that scenario, an investigation procedure was requested by LE (Federal Police) and opened by the Superior Electoral Court to investigate the acts of those agents against not only the Judiciary, but also to investigate the spreading of misinformation about the electoral system. The court order was issued in the context of this investigation.
The court order is focused on the demonetization of these accounts - from different platforms, i.e. the main court request is to platforms to suspend any kind of monetization and money transfer to those users (funds shall be deposited in a bank account indicated by the court). Even though this obligation initially does not touch us, the court also determined Twitter, YouTube, Twitch TV, Instagram and Facebook to: i) refrain from algorithmically suggesting profiles and videos of political content discrediting the electoral system (legitimacy of elections) in association with those users/accounts and also ii) identify the origin of specific content (we have not been served with any specific Tweet URLs).
Twitter’s Head of Legal Diego de Lima Gualda, a colleague of Batista’s, responded saying, “There is a strong political component with this investigation and the court is trying to put pressure for compliance.”
Electoral Court Order - BR Superior Court of Justice
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 5:25 PM Diego De Lima Gualda <[redacted]@twitter.com> wrote:
All,
Just an update.
Our request to postpone the on-site meeting with the Superior Electoral Court was denied and the meeting will take place tomorrow at 11:30 BR time.
There is a strong political component with this investigation and the court is trying to put pressure for compliance. In the decision denying the postponement the court has clarified Twitter is not expected to provide any information. In fact the purpose of the meeting is for the court to provide additional instructions for the companies to comply with the order.
The plan is to send OC to the meeting with the sole purpose of listening and informing that the order is currently under review and that Twitter will provide all required attention and diligence to address the request.
Let us know if you have any further questions.
Thanks.
Diego.
The “court wants to identify account handles… and also somehow reduce engagement.”
Two days later, On August 20, 2021, Batista reported some alarming news about new demands from the Superior Electoral Court (TSE).
Batista reported that “it seems like the court wants to identify account handles that would have specifically added certain types of trending hashtags and also somehow reduce engagement of specific content on the platform (ie. refrain specific accounts from being suggested to others.”
This represented a significant escalation in the court’s anti-democratic efforts. Batista noted that “President Bolsonaro himself and several of his supporters are being investigated in this procedure (15 Twitter account handles have been provided so far).”
LATAM Report (Week of August 16, 2021)
From: Rafael Batista <[redacted]@twitter.com>
Subject: LATAM Report (Week of August 16, 2021)
Date: August 20, 2021 at 8:56:02 AM PDT
To: LitigationTeam <[redacted]@twitter.com>, "Safety, Content & Law Enforcement (SCALE-LEGAL)" <[redacted]@twitter.com>
Cc: Regina Lima <[redacted]@twitter.com>, Diego De Lima Gualda <[redacted]@twitter.com>
Hi Team,
Please find below the highlights of the week:
Brazil (LE)
• Superior Electoral Court - We attended a meeting through OC yesterday to understand the scope of this investigation towards Twitter and it seems like the court wants to identify account handles that would have specifically added certain types of trending hashtags and also somehow reduce engagement of specific content on the platform (i.e. refrain specific accounts from being suggested to others). I will attend an additional off-site meeting next week in Brasilia with the court justice and local authorities to discuss technical feasibility and will get back to you with additional info and full legal strategy. As we reported, the BR Superior Electoral Court has opened an investigation on attacks being performed by a group of individuals against the electoral court system and the electoral/voting system through the publication and spreading of misinformation content. According to the decision, the coordinated actions of those agents could involve several criminal conducts, including abuse of political and economic power, undue use of communication means to influence elections, corruption, fraud, among others. President Bolsonaro himself and several of his supporters are being investigated in this procedure (15 Twitter account handles have been provided so far). The law enforcement authority conducting the investigation (Federal Police) has requested a precautionary measure to the court for platforms to stop the creators' monetization of such content by allowing these users to continue to receive money in connection to it and the electoral superior court has partially granted it but the decision is not yet permanent, as the court wants to hear from us first before making it permanent.
“We are going to push back.”
Brazil’s High Electoral Court (TSE), which de Moraes controls, also demanded that Twitter reveal the identities of users.
On October 25, 2021, Twitter’s senior legal counsel, Rafael Batista, emailed his colleagues to let them know that the TSE was “compelling us to track down and unmask users who used specific hashtags.”
The TSE’s request was illegal, noted Batista, and so Twitter would resist the court’s order. Batista said that Twitter was “going to push back” because there was “no evidence of illegality in the use of hashtags” and because the TSE was demanding “mass and indiscriminate disclosure of private user data, which characterizes a violation of privacy and other constitutional rights."
LATAM Report (Week of October 25, 2021)
Superior Electoral Court Investigation - Twitter has been served with an additional court order compelling us to trackdown and unmask users who used specific hashtags. However, as we had already stated during the court hearings we attended with LE and the Court Justice, we are going to push back against this court order mainly because of the following: (i) decision does not minimally cover Marco Civil requirements (ii) no evidence of illegality in the use of hashtags, which may characterize monitoring and fishing expedition (iii) mass and indiscriminate disclosure of private user data, which characterizes a violation of privacy and other constitutional rights, as recognized by the Superior Court of Justice.
Brazil (Litigation)
Gerson Florindo de Souza (Major of Ubatuba, State of São Paulo) x Twitter Brazil - Great news arising from this litigation matter filed by a local politician against Twitter and Alexandre Frota, a Brazilian Congressman. The court has fully granted our arguments and dismissed the claim against Twitter. In addition, the court stated that "Twitter arguments is accurate as there is no reason for these records to proceed under seal, specially when we are so close to a new electoral year, when the issue of misinformation issue will be widely present and should be combated by all, voters, authorities, candidates, where transparency should always prevail".
[redacted] x Twitter Brazil - This week the plaintiff filed in court seeking the imposition of huge fines against us for bad faith litigation and the issuance of an official letter to the Public Prosecutor's Office to investigate potential contempt by Twitter given our failure to reinstate her accounts. The accounts were suspended by Platform Manipulation, SPAM policy and behavior of multiple accounts violation (including for violating the illegal or certain regulated goods or services policy - sexual services). The court was reasonable and refused criminal penalties at this stage, but applied a 1.000 BRL daily fine until we reinstated the accounts. We are working with LP on an affidavit and will appeal this decision. We will also schedule a court hearing, where we strongly recommend presenting a copy of the infringing Tweets that LP was able to retrieve.
Brazil (Additional information - Electoral)
The Superior Electoral Court (TSE) decided on Thursday (28) to remove from office the congressman Fernando Francischini before the normal expiration of his constitutional terms for spreading false information about the electronic ballot box and the voting system during the 2018 elections. TSE considered that the conduct of spreading disinformation can represent misuse of the media and abuse of political power, and this was the first decision of its kind, which sets a precedent for the next electoral period.
Rafael Batista
On November 26, 2021, the courts of Brazil issued sweeping censorship demands.
A court of appeals orders Twitter to “globally remove,” not just in Brazil, “specific URLs related to the plaintiff.” The court claimed that Brazilians could find other ways to see the content, such as through a VPN, which masks a user’s location.
The court also sought to know the identities of users who were not in Brazil. In another case, Twitter was “pushing back against an injunction that granted data provision (IP logs) to unmask 62 accounts that retweeted an original illegal content…” Of the 62 accounts, “8 accounts are not even located in Brazil…”
LATAM Report (Week of November 22, 2021)
• Clóvis de Barros Filho x Twitter Brazil: Unfortunate news - a decision on the merits has just been issued by the court of appeals compelling us to globally remove specific URLs related to the plaintiff, under the superficial argument that it can still be accessed by Brazilian users through IP circumvention means. This lawsuit was started by a famous professor who claims that users would have taken out of context one of his recorded lessons and replicated excerpts implying he is a pedophile. The discussion is essentially about jurisdiction and Marco Civil requirements for content removal. We have just filed a motion for clarification and if not successful, we are planning to take it both to the Superior Court (highest BR court for non-constitutional matters) and to the Supreme Court. The court has also demanded us to remove several URLs without specific review, which includes content we understand far from being illegal (i.e: this informative Tweet from an important magazine/verified account displaying an interview the plaintiff himself gave a few years ago). We would also like to highlight that we are facing a high daily fine (BRL 1.3M) and may not be able to stay accruing until we get a final decision on the merits of our appeal before the Superior Court. @[Karen], we will reach out to you separately on this with a risk assessment and a full legal strategy. Google and FB are also involved and we will reach out to understand their strategy.
• [redacted] x Twitter Brazil: We are working on an appeal pushing back against an injunction that granted data provision (IP logs) to unmask 62 accounts that retweeted an original illegal content. We will also highlight jurisdictional aspects since 8 accounts are not even located in Brazil (IPs beyond Brazil).
• Civil Class Actions - Minors: Twitter has been served with a new civil class action, from the same public prosecutor from Bahia, now involving Twitter accounts belonging to famous alcoholic beverage brands that would be organically disclosing content forbidden to minors. We are still reviewing this matter and will get back to you with a full assessment soon.
Rafael Batista
The Police are “under a lot of pressure from the Superior Electoral Court.”
In March 2022, Twitter’s Head of Legal for Latin America said that he met with “the judge,” referring to de Moraes.
He said he was surprised to find there the Federal Police (Brazil’s FBI) and technical court staff working on the hashtag investigation.
TSE pushed for private user data under the justification of “exceptional circumstances” and wanted to use Twitter as a crime precognition machine to “anticipate potential illegal activities.”
En: Fwd: Electoral Court Order - BR Superior Court of Justice
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 4:35 PM Diego De Lima Gualda <[redacted]@twitter.com> wrote:
Team,
Hope you are well.
This is to provide you with a report about the meeting at the Superior Electoral Court today.
First of all, the meeting was not only with the judge. He invited the federal police and the Superior Electoral Court technical members that are leading the investigation.
The overall tone of the meeting was positive and we had the opportunity to explain the technical limitations to comply with the request as provided in the court order.
We have emphasized that with respect to search for information/content based on hashtags there is no "technical advantage" for Twitter, since the information is not structured to be produced in this way. They understood that we cannot assert who is the first user of a hashtag; that we are unable to provide IP information from specific Tweets; that there are no detailed reports on the use of hashtag during the time (statistics showing progression every 15 min), and that, generally speaking, our abilities to produce relevant and useful information depend on providing handles/specific URLs.
That being said, as expected, the court has emphasized that these are exceptional circumstances, that the court is trying to anticipate potential illegal activities that can jeopardize the upcoming elections from happening, and that all companies need to contribute by applying their best efforts to support law enforcement on this procedure. In other words, we should expect them to refine the requests, to invite us to discuss alternatives, negotiate how to comply, including timelines, but ultimately they want Twitter to produce information that is relevant for the investigation.
As our objective was to prevent immediate application of fines and to "negotiate" possible alternatives within the existent limitations, the meeting as said was successful.
Two months later, Gualda said that the Federal Police “is under a lot of pressure from the Superior Electoral Court to provide tangible results for this investigation (remembering that in this procedure the Federal Police is supporting an investigation that is conducted by the Superior Electoral Court itself).”
En: Fwd: Electoral Court Order - BR Superior Court of Justice
Deadline: the Federal Police is expecting a response as soon as possible and it has clarified that the Superior Electoral Court is asking whether Twitter has already complied with the order. In that sense, it would be very important to confirm by Monday and, to the extent that the information will be provided, to comply with the requests at the beginning of the next week.
From a local perspective, my account is that we should try to comply with the requests outlined above (provided that technically it is feasible) as it is a much better scenario than the original one. From the conversation with the officers in charge of the investigation, we could note that the Federal Police is under a lot of pressure from the Superior Electoral Court to provide tangible results for this investigation (remembering that in this procedure the Federal Police is supporting an investigation that is conducted by the Superior Electoral Court itself). In that sense, it seems that further escalation of this issue to the court may result in a less "flexible" environment for Twitter to negotiate compliance.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
Thanks.
Diego.
“There is no reason for this lawsuit to be under court secrecy.”
Leading up to the 2022 presidential election in Brazil, TSE made censorship demands to prevent citizens from commenting on election policies and procedures.
On March 30, 2022, the day after de Moraes took office as president of the TSE, the TSE mandated Twitter to, within a week and under the threat of a daily fine of 50,000 BRL (US$ 10,000), supply data on the monthly trend statistics for the hashtags #VotoImpressoNAO (“PrinteVoteNo”) and #VotoDemocraticoAuditavel (“DemocraticAuditableVote”).
En: Fwd: Electoral Court Order - BR Superior Court of Justice
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 1:03 PM Diego De Lima Gualda <[redacted]@twitter.com> wrote:
Privileged and Confidential.
Hi Team,
This is to provide you with an update about this case - we have updated the memo with the new information.
After our meeting at the Superior Electoral Court, we received the new court order (attached) on 3/29/2022, by which the court determined Twitter to, in 7 days and under daily fine of BRL 50,000.00:
(i) provide information about the statistics on the monthly progression of the hashtags #VotoImpressoNAO; #VotoDemocraticoAuditavel and #BarrosoNacadeia in 2021. However, the Court, in this same item, provided a list of several accounts, most of which are already object of the Fake News investigation carried out by the Federal Supreme Court, including the account of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro;
(ii) provide, on a text spreadsheet or in CSV format, subscription data and IPs of the users that used the hashtag #VotoDemocraticoAuditavel in the period of 24 hours from 7/27/2021, at 6:22am (this is based on the advanced search results presented in the previous response);
(iii) provide information about the statistics on the progression of the hashtag #VotoDemocraticoAuditavel over time (each hour) in the period of 7/27/2021 and 7/31/2021; and
(iv) provide all subscription data of the user @cassiogtntijo and last IP log of access right before their tweet on 7/27/2021 (this is the "first user" identified through advanced search using the hashtag #VotoDemocraticoAuditavel).
The Court has confirmed that user data and hashtag data from before 2021 are not necessary to be provided and therefore Twitter is also requested to produce user data with respect to the "first users" of #barrosoNacadeia and #VotosImpressoNao.
Additionally, the TSE demanded subscription information and IP addresses of users who used the hashtag #VotoDemocraticoAuditavel in 2021. Brazilians wanted to debate printouts to enhance their unique voting machines, but the TSE wasn’t happy about their cause and pressured Twitter to give up their personal data.
In an e-mail sent in November 2022, a Twitter lawyer detailed actions taken by Moraes and TSE during the presidential race. The judge wouldn’t explain why he ordered Twitter to remove Evangelical pastor André Valadão’s (@andrevaladao) entire account under a heavy fine.
Twitter “filed an appeal against the order”, pointing out they didn’t know why they were being ordered to do so, but complying. TSE would threaten Twitter to comply “in 1 hour” under an hourly fine of BRL 100,000 [US$ 20,000] to censor an inactive account for disinformation committed elsewhere.
En: Fwd: LATAM Weekly Report (Week of October 31, 2022)
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 9:24 AM [redacted]@twitter.com> wrote:
Hi team,
Please find below the highlights of the week:
Brazil (LE)
• Official Letter sent by the Supreme Federal Court - @andrevaladao - We received a court order issued by Justice Alexandre de Moraes involving the account @andrevaladao, which belongs to a famous Brazilian pastor, supporter of President Jair Bolsonaro. In the recent weeks, pastor Andre Valadão was sharing fake news, including a declaration that the Superior Electoral Court would have ordered him to share a retraction text, but that is false. The Supreme Court ordered us to remove the account, disclose all subscription data available and preserve content in 2 hours, under hourly fine of BRL 100k. Even though the court order we received does not mention the exact reason why they are targeting the account, we CWC'ed the account and disclosed data, as we did in response to other court orders issued by the Supreme Court in the same context, and filed an appeal against the order, pointing out that we do not have access to the substantiation of the decision and that the removal of the entire account is disproportional.
• Official Letters sent by the National Council of Justice - Similar to the cases we received last week, the National Council of Justice (CNJ) sent us other official letters, by which they ordered the suspension of the accounts @montanagna and @werson_rego which belong to two Judges, under daily fine of BRL 20k. According to CNJ, the Judges used their accounts in several platforms to post political content and support a presidential candidate, which is not allowed by Brazilian law in relation to Judges. As we do with Supreme Court cases, we complied with both determinations and pushed back to point out that (i) the removal of the entire accounts is disproportional and they should determine the removal of specific tweets; (ii) the owners of the accounts are able to remove the content/his account themselves; (iii) the suspension should not last forever and should be limited to, at least, the end of the disciplinary procedure against the Judge and; (iv) in the @montanagna case, there were no tweets in the account, so the content was, apparently, only shared in other platforms.
Notification Letter about the Report Feature sent by the Federal Public Ministry in São Paulo - In July, the Federal Public Ministry sent us a letter, by which the authority requested information about the report feature and why anyone could use a third-party's handle or email to submit a report. We filed an answer clarifying how the report feature does not signify there is no violation of user's rights. On Oct 14 Brazil Legal received a new letter about our reporting tools and how they might have been a matter of public attention in the country and elsewhere. We are still discussing possible adjustments to the feature with internal teams, so we have filed an answer repeating our main arguments and telling the authority that we are working on changes.
TSE also targeted elected House members Carla Zambelli (@Zambelli2210) & Marcel van Hattem (@marcelvanhattem) for alleged misinformation, threatening a fine of BRL 150,000 (US$ 30,000) if Twitter did not comply within 1 hour. Twitter pushed back. Among other objections, it argued that “there is no reason for this lawsuit to be under court secrecy.”
En: Fwd: LATAM Weekly Report (Week of October 31, 2022)
Superior Electoral Court - Official letter ordering the suspension of account @zambelli2210 - We received a court order from the Superior Electoral Court ordering the CWC of this entire account because Mrs. Zambelli, an elected official, has been spreading misinformation about the electoral process and encouraging disorder and insurrection. In the country, as you may have heard, there are truck drivers blocking roads and highways in several spots around the country. The incumbent President has not expressly conceded his defeat, so the Court seems to be worried about minimizing the disorder in Brazil. We provided the CWC of the account, but, since per the new Resolution from TSE the blocking of accounts is allowed temporarily, we filed an answer informing the CWC and asking the court which is the period so we can unCWC the account.
Superior Electoral Court - Official letter ordering the suspension of account @zambellicarla2 - We received a court order from the Superior Electoral Court ordering the CWC of this entire account because the Court thinks that it is associated with Mrs. Zambelli, who had her account suspended by the Court (case above), and she tried to evade the suspension. Since we had to comply within 1 hour, under hourly fine of BRL 150k, we provided the CWC of the account, but pointed out that the account was created back in September 2022, and only changed its username to @zambellicarla2 on Nov 2, 2022. We decided to give the Court this information because it is possible that the account @zambellicarla2 belongs to another user, non-related to Carla Zambelli, and only changed its username to impersonate her after her account was suspended (this is a public fact and was broadcasted by Brazilian press). We also received a similar official letter targeting the account @zambellicarla22, and provided the CWC and disclosure of data.
Superior Electoral Court - Official letter ordering the suspension of account @marcelvanhattem - We received a court order from the Superior Electoral Court ordering the CWC of specific content (but not indicated by URLs) posted by this verified account within one hour, under hourly fine of BRL 150k, because the user reportedly used his profile in social media platforms to post fake news and encourage the rejection of the electoral system by the electorate. We presented an answer indicating that (i) no URLs were indicated, so we are not able to comply with the court order; (ii) the court itself indicated that the content is to be removed from Twitter; (iii) if there is any content to be removed, the user himself can adopt measures to do so, since the court knows his identity; (iv) there is no reason for this lawsuit to be under court secrecy, so why verify and use new measures in 1h only within the 3 days after the Election. We are waiting for the court to respond to our objections.
“Unusual requests …. compelling us to provide… user data based on hashtag mentions.”
On August 17, 2022, a member of Twitter’s legal team emailed the groups saying that Twitter “received a new court order” relating to “an inquiry with the aim to identify individuals/groups behind a potential coordination of efforts to attack the institutions and the electoral system across different platforms.
President Bolsonaro himself is investigated in this process…”
She added, “We have received several unusual requests coming from this inquiry, the most recent relevant one compelling us to provide an undetermined amount of user data based on hashtag mentions.
The hashtags concern a mobilization around the elections - roughly translated as #PrintedVoteNO; #DemocraticAuditableVote and #BarrosoInJail - Barroso is the former TSE President….According to the report we currently have, there were 182 tweets in the period of interest… We need the content, user handles and respective BSI data asap…”
En: Fwd: Electoral Court Order - BR Superior Court of Justice
We received a new court order in the scope of this investigation. Short recap: this is an inquiry with the aim to identify individuals/groups behind a potential coordination of efforts to attack the institutions and the electoral system across different platforms. President Bolsonaro himself is investigated in this process, there is great public attention to this case as well as a legitimate concern with the integrity of the democratic system. We have received several unusual requests coming from this inquiry, the most recent one compelling us to provide an undetermined amount of user data based on hashtag mentions. The hashtags concern a mobilization around the elections - roughly translated as #PrintedVoteNO; #DemocraticAuditableVote and #BarrosoInJail - Barroso is the former TSE President. We were able to narrow down the request, with the Federal Police specifying what they wanted after a meeting.
Now, the Superior Electoral Court ordered Twitter to disclose, in 5 days, data related to users that posted tweets with the #BarrosoNaCadeia, between 00h00 and 15h59 (BRT) on August 3, 2021; #VotoDemocraticoAuditavel between 14h and 19h59 on August 3, 2021; and #VotoDemocraticoAuditavel between 22h00 and 22h59 on August 10, 2021. The data requested is: a breakdown of the last IP log of access right before the user posted the tweet(s) with such hashtag(s) - which is not available, and the specific tweet with applicable hashtag.
In the past, Site Integrity provided us with the hashtag report, the initial pull of data and content and the table with the results of such pull, which based our conversation with the police authority.
We already have the tweets posted with the hashtags #VotoDemocraticoAuditavel on such dates and will request LP to produce the data accordingly, but, considering the amount of tweets posted with the hashtag #BarrosoNaCadeia on August 3, 2021 (40,800, as provided in tab I-B of the results document), Site Integrity did not provide us with copies of such tweets at the time.
However, considering this new court order, we need this content in order to comply with the disclosure order and check which users are subject of the data disclosure determination. According to the report we currently have, there were 182 tweets in the period of interest:
We need the content, user handles and respective BSI data asap, but please let us know how much time you estimate the team would be able to complete this pull, and also if there are any concerns or difficulties regarding this request. Our formal deadline to respond is 5 days (next Monday), but since we have a good relationship with them, we could ask for an extension.
We would just like to highlight that this case is high priority and sensitive, as you know, and while we understand that it may take a toll on the team, we also know how important it is to comply or, at least, have grounds to challenge the determination. Here is the background document on this entire investigation - updated with this new development.
