Although little talked about until a few months ago, the Positive Registry is a reality that has been discussed in the country since 2003. After years in progress in the National Congress, in 2011 the system was legally formalized through Law 12,414 — The Positive Registry Law . One of the big questions on this topic is: if we have had the Positive Registry since 2011, why has the subject only now gained space in debates and in the media? The main answer to this question is precisely the way the system was originally designed. According to the original wording of the Positive Registration Law, for people's data to be included in this information bank, it was necessary for each person to expressly agree to this insertion, declaring to the database that they would like to participate in the positive registration — authorization known as opt in.
Imported from the German positive registration
Iran Telegram Number Data model, opt-in proved to be ineffective within the reality of the Brazilian market, which during the eight years of validity of the law with its original wording, registered opt-in of only 10% of potential credit borrowers in Brazil . Given this low adherence to the initial system, in April 2019 Complementary Law 166 was published which, among other changes, changed the model from opt in to opt out — which means that now positive registration is done automatically and , those who do not wish to have their data included there must request its deletion from database managers.
Is the opt out model less protective for the consumer? During the discussions that preceded the change from the opt-in to opt-out model , there was concern that this change would threaten consumer privacy, as there would no longer be a need for prior approval for data sharing. However, analyzing all the aspects changed in the legal reformulation, it is clear that the new wording represented an evolution in the protection of consumer data. While the original wording of the law did not bring clear limits on the use of this data, but only a single requirement, which was the use for credit purposes (which in practice proved to be difficult to control), the reformulation brought new limits to the use and data sharing, such as.
