Take-Aways (AI)
  • Dis­pu­te over clas­si­fi­ca­ti­on of par­ti­cu­lar­ly sen­si­ti­ve data: Mino­ri­ty wants to pro­tect all gene­tic data, majo­ri­ty only cle­ar­ly iden­ti­fy­ing gene­tic data.
  • Dis­agree­ment on “high-risk pro­fil­ing”: Mino­ri­ty II wants to clas­si­fy any pro­fil­ing with par­ti­cu­lar­ly sen­si­ti­ve data as high-risk.
  • Dis­cus­sion about expli­cit con­sent: Two mino­ri­ty moti­ons call for expli­cit con­sent also for high-risk pro­fil­ing, not only for par­ti­cu­lar­ly sen­si­ti­ve data.
  • Mino­ri­ty demands com­ple­te aboli­ti­on of group pri­vi­le­ge as an excep­ti­on to infor­ma­ti­on obli­ga­ti­ons and justification.

In the spring ses­si­on, the upper hou­se of par­lia­ment has now dis­cus­sed the dif­fe­ren­ces regar­ding the draft revi­si­on of the DPA. A com­pre­hen­si­ve over­view can be found in the flag Spring Ses­si­on 2020 of the Natio­nal Coun­cil. Howe­ver, the main dif­fe­ren­ces con­cern the fol­lo­wing points:

  • The mino­ri­ty pro­po­ses to fol­low the pro­po­sal of the Coun­cil of Sta­tes and the Fede­ral Coun­cil, respec­tively, with regard to the clas­si­fi­ca­ti­on of data requi­ring spe­cial pro­tec­tion in terms of defi­ni­ti­on, accor­ding to which all gene­tic data should be con­side­red as requi­ring spe­cial pro­tec­tion. The majo­ri­ty still wants to adhe­re to the rest­ric­tion wher­eby only tho­se gene­tic data that cle­ar­ly iden­ti­fy a natu­ral per­son should also qua­li­fy as data wort­hy of spe­cial pro­tec­tion. Whe­re the demar­ca­ti­on should take place accor­ding to such a defi­ni­ti­on is unclear and is likely to lead to dif­fi­cul­ties in practice.
  • In addi­ti­on, the Grand Cham­ber con­ti­nues to dis­agree on the con­cept of high-risk pro­fil­ing. Accor­ding to a mino­ri­ty II, any pro­fil­ing that leads to par­ti­cu­lar­ly sen­si­ti­ve per­so­nal data should now be con­side­red high-risk pro­fil­ing. This qua­li­fi­ca­ti­on seems uncon­vin­cing, sin­ce the risk for a per­son in a pro­fil­ing does not only result from the type of data, but abo­ve all from the con­cre­te pro­ce­s­sing method of the profiling.
  • In addi­ti­on, two mino­ri­ty moti­ons advo­ca­te an expan­si­on of the requi­re­ment for express con­sent. While the majo­ri­ty wan­ted to anchor this only for the pro­ce­s­sing of par­ti­cu­lar­ly sen­si­ti­ve per­so­nal data in devia­ti­on from the cur­rent law, the mino­ri­ty moti­ons demand expres­si­ve­ness also for high-risk pro­fil­ing (both by a pri­va­te per­son and by a fede­ral body).
  • The mino­ri­ty also wants to dele­te the group pri­vi­le­ge in its enti­re­ty (as an excep­ti­on to the obli­ga­ti­on to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on; as a justification).

The deal is expec­ted to go befo­re the Coun­cil of Sta­tes in the sum­mer. Howe­ver, against the cur­rent back­drop, it seems unli­kely that it will come into force this year.