Take-Aways (AI)
  • The FDPIC has sup­ple­men­ted his web­site with updated infor­ma­ti­on on the revi­sed FADP, sam­ple let­ters and a noti­fi­ca­ti­on form for secu­ri­ty brea­ches, but the con­tent remains non-binding.
  • The noti­fi­ca­ti­on form con­ta­ins man­da­to­ry fields that go bey­ond Art. 15 DPA; obli­ga­ti­ons to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on only ari­se when the inve­sti­ga­ti­on is ope­ned and the form is not binding.

In pre­pa­ra­ti­on for the revi­sed FADP, which will enter into force with the ordi­nan­ce on Sep­tem­ber 1, 2023, the FDPIC has published its Web­site rede­si­gned in parts. The exi­sting, part­ly older – and unfort­u­n­a­te­ly unda­ted – infor­ma­ti­on is still inclu­ded, but the­re is also some new infor­ma­ti­on on the revi­sed FADP, e.g. infor­ma­ti­on on the obli­ga­ti­on to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on, the right to infor­ma­ti­on, the cri­mi­nal pro­vi­si­ons, etc. The sen­si­ti­ve que­sti­ons are right­ly avoided.

As befo­re, the state­ments are not bin­ding and often not expli­ci­t­ly justi­fi­ed, e.g. the posi­ti­on that under the gene­ral clau­se of the duty to inform, depen­ding on the cir­cum­stances, infor­ma­ti­on must be pro­vi­ded about the dura­ti­on of data pro­ce­s­sing (which can usual­ly be deri­ved from the pur­po­se of the pro­ce­s­sing). Also updated were Sam­ple let­ter, inclu­ding the Sam­ple request for infor­ma­ti­on (still with the request to con­firm cor­rect­ness and com­ple­ten­ess of the infor­ma­ti­on, which the respon­si­ble per­son should not do).

Also swit­ched on now is the Secu­ri­ty breach noti­fi­ca­ti­on form with expl­ana­ti­ons to this. The lat­ter should in its­elf be sup­ple­men­ted by the note,

  • that the infor­ma­ti­on pro­vi­ded can­not be used in cri­mi­nal pro­ce­e­dings against per­sons employed by the report­ing com­pa­ny, and
  • that “whist­le­b­lo­wers” – for whom the form is also express­ly desi­gned – may only report if they are not employees of the com­pa­ny con­cer­ned or have then alre­a­dy gone through the inter­nal chan­nels and if they are not ther­eby in breach of con­trac­tu­al or other con­fi­den­tia­li­ty obli­ga­ti­ons (which is likely often the case).

It should also be made clear that some of the items listed as Man­da­to­ry fields desi­gna­ted que­sti­ons do not have to be fil­led in becau­se they are go bey­ond the con­tent of Art. 15 DPA (e.g. the field “Plea­se descri­be what you know about the inci­dent so far” or the que­sti­on whe­ther other aut­ho­ri­ties such as the poli­ce have alre­a­dy been infor­med). This is infor­ma­ti­on that the FDPIC may ask for at any time, but the­re is no obli­ga­ti­on to ans­wer until the FDPIC has ope­ned a cor­re­spon­ding inve­sti­ga­ti­on. The report­ing com­pa­ny should also be awa­re that the FDPIC is sub­ject to the Public Infor­ma­ti­on Act and dis­c­lo­ses infor­ma­ti­on very libe­r­al­ly, even about secu­ri­ty brea­ches (and that the media know how to use the instru­ment of the FPO very efficiently).

In any case, the use of the form is not man­da­to­ry; the per­son respon­si­ble can also make the noti­fi­ca­ti­on in ano­ther form. The law does not sti­pu­la­te any requi­re­ments in this regard.