Take-Aways (AI)
  • On Sep­tem­ber 23, the Uni­fi­ca­ti­on Con­fe­rence agreed with the Coun­cil of Sta­tes on all points.
  • High-risk pro­fil­ing is enshri­ned in law (Art. 4 fbis E‑DSG).
  • In the case of high risk, par­ti­cu­lar­ly sen­si­ti­ve per­so­nal data or ordi­na­ry pro­fil­ing by fede­ral bodies, con­sent is express­ly required.
  • In the case of cre­dit checks with par­ti­cu­lar­ly sen­si­ti­ve data or high risk, the over­ri­ding inte­rest of the con­trol­ler does not apply.

On Sep­tem­ber 23, the con­ci­lia­ti­on con­fe­rence deci­ded on the remai­ning dif­fe­ren­ces bet­ween the two cham­bers and agreed with the Coun­cil of Sta­tes on all points (cf. Flag).

That is:

  • The High-risk pro­fil­ing to be enshri­ned in law (Art. 4 fbis E‑DSG);
  • accor­din­gly must In the case of high-risk pro­fil­ing, any requi­red Con­sent to be expli­cit. The expres­si­vi­ty requi­re­ment also applies to pro­ce­s­sing of per­so­nal data requi­ring spe­cial pro­tec­tion and to ordi­na­ry pro­fil­ing (Art. 4 lit. f E‑DSG) by a fede­ral body;
  • in the case of cre­dit assess­ments that invol­ve par­ti­cu­lar­ly sen­si­ti­ve per­so­nal data or high-risk pro­fil­ing, the over­ri­ding inte­rest does not app­ly of the per­son responsible.

Both Coun­cils voted in favor of the­se moti­ons during their deli­be­ra­ti­ons today (see voting results in the Offi­ci­al bul­le­tin, pro­vi­sio­nal text). On the coming Fri­day, Sep­tem­ber 25, 2020 find the Final votes regar­ding the cor­re­spon­ding legis­la­ti­ve text held.