A new trending feature on Instagram can be used to collect data from potential victims for online scams.
These are the “Add yours” seals, used to transform Stories into a “The metro sent it” game. Someone creates a rule with the seal and complies by posting a photo – for example “You and your dog”. And followers replicate in their own Stories, with the respective photo of their pet, encouraging even more people to join the chain.
The problem is that some requests are far from innocent. In the last week, the version that asked for the person’s “heading” went viral. This kind of abbreviated signature serves to validate that you have read and individually accepted each page of a contract, for example.
“The initial by itself has no legal validity, as it can be changed by the holder at any time. So much so that it is more susceptible to fraud”, explains lawyer Rafael Barreto, a partner at Garcia, Soares de Melo e Weberman Advogados Associados.
“For the validity and security of documents with legal consequences, such as purchases and sales, a signature is necessary. But if the signature of the holder is his name and spelling, the risk [de publicar a rubrica nas redes sociais] is too big considering they can fake them”.
Other suspicious requests that have already circulated through Instagram Stories were “Write your name and we’ll see your handwriting” or “Write q, g and 9”.
“Spelling can be used to create false documents, as if the holder were in writing, causing him inconvenience with the propagation of false information in his name”, evaluates Barreto.
It takes the opportunity to reinforce the preservation of other personal information, such as date of birth, or daily routine. “These ‘tips’ attract criminals not only to digital crimes, but also kidnappings, robberies, etc.”
It went bad. And now?
If you are the victim of a digital crime because of the rubric, Barreto recommends that you file a police report and that your Instagram profile be reported in the tool.
The provider (Instagram) can refuse to take the account off the air, claiming freedom of expression and censorship (as provided for in article 19 of Law 12.965/2014, the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet). But the holder of the violated right can propose a judicial measure for its withdrawal or propose a remedial measure against the one who committed the crime without prejudice to criminal investigation.
As a rule, the provider does not need to respond civilly, except after a court order, does not take the necessary measures within its limits and within the period indicated by the judge.