In Brazil, the traditional instrument for proving that online content existed is the ata notarial: a notary public personally examines the content and formalizes what they witnessed in a public instrument (CPC, art. 384). It carries something no private tool can offer — fé pública, the presumption of truth attached to acts of a public officer.

It has become fashionable for evidence startups to pitch against the ata notarial. We think that framing misunderstands both instruments.

What each does best

The ata notarial answers who says so with the strongest possible voice: a public officer, personally, under a legal presumption of veracity. Centuries of doctrine and unquestioned acceptance stand behind it.

Technical capture answers how it was preserved and how you can check with tools a narrative cannot match: a controlled environment rather than an office computer's browser; video, full pages, files and technical logs rather than a textual description; cryptographic fingerprints; a hash-linked custody chain; independent time anchors; and verification that the opposing expert can run without trusting anyone.

Note that these are answers to different questions. The ata's strength is institutional; the capture's strength is technical. An ata drafted from content viewed in an ordinary browser can faithfully describe what a manipulated page displayed — public faith attests the witnessing, not the network path. A technical capture, conversely, documents everything except the one thing fé pública provides: an official's voice.

Better together

The instruments compose naturally, and sophisticated practice already combines them:

  • Capture first, then formalize. Content preserved technically at first sight — before it changes or disappears — can ground a later ata; the notary examines preserved, integrity-protected material rather than a page that may have already been edited.
  • Notarize the record, not the internet. An ata over a capture's report and verification gives the record institutional weight on top of technical weight.
  • Match the instrument to the matter. Routine volume may not justify a notarial act for every item; a contested centerpiece of a case may deserve both layers. That is a judgment call for counsel — not a slogan from a vendor.

Our position, plainly

Technical capture is not a substitute for the ata notarial, and we decline the comparison-table framing that pretends otherwise. It is a different instrument, with different strengths, that often makes the notarial act stronger by giving it better material to formalize. The right question is never "which one replaces the other?" It is: for this dispute, what combination makes the record hardest to challenge?

General information about Brazilian practice, not legal advice for any specific case.