eco­no­mie­su­i­s­se: Demands on data policy

In the dos­sier “A data poli­cy of trust for pro­gress and inno­va­ti­on” for­mu­la­ted the fol­lo­wing nine “demands and fields of action”:

  1. No crea­ti­on of data ownership.
  2. Data traf­fic must not be rest­ric­ted by new legislation.
  3. Exi­sting legal instru­ments ensu­re access to data and safe­guard invest­ments in data-based products.
  4. Trust as the basis for data pro­ce­s­sing and innovation.
  5. No fun­da­men­tal legal right to data portability.
  6. Busi­ness Anony­mizati­on Standards.
  7. Pro­mo­te the risk-based approach to data governance.
  8. Sup­port Open Govern­ment Data (OGD).
  9. Indu­stry-spe­ci­fic mini­mum requi­re­ments for cyber­se­cu­ri­ty and impro­ve­ment of thre­at and cri­sis management

The­se points are sub­se­quent­ly justi­fi­ed in detail. With regard to the first point, the cri­ti­cism of the idea of data owner­ship, eco­no­mie­su­i­s­se refers to a Publi­ca­ti­on by Thouven­in and Weber. The issue has been rai­sed not only, but espe­ci­al­ly sin­ce the call for the crea­ti­on of data owner­ship by Eckert The idea is being dis­cus­sed, but the majo­ri­ty in Switz­er­land is oppo­sed to it, in par­ti­cu­lar by Fröh­lich-Bleu­ler. It has also occu­p­ied the poli­ti­cal are­na on various occa­si­ons. The Fede­ral Coun­cil only touch­ed on this topic in its mes­sa­ge on the FADP:

During the dis­cus­sions with experts, solu­ti­ons other than the envi­sa­ged mea­su­res were also dis­cus­sed, such as the pos­si­bi­li­ty of making data available to the Rules for rights of dis­po­sal and rights of use in rem to be assu­med. Howe­ver, the­se solu­ti­ons were in many cases con­side­red not via­ble jud­ged too dif­fe­rent from deve­lo­p­ments at the inter­na­tio­nal level (for exam­p­le, no other Euro­pean coun­try pro­vi­des for pro­per­ty rights in data).

The eco­no­mie­su­i­s­se paper has been recei­ved with some skep­ti­cism, for exam­p­le by the NZZ (“Wish List of a Busi­ness Repre­sen­ta­ti­ve”) and the Repu­blic.