Inter­pel­la­ti­on Feri (17.3530): Child pornography

Sub­mit­ted text

Today, sexu­al child abu­se incre­a­sing­ly takes place by means of new infor­ma­ti­on and com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on tech­no­lo­gies. The­re are no limits to the rapid­ly evol­ving phe­no­me­na of child por­no­gra­phy, sexu­al abu­se via live strea­ming, sex­ting, SNUFF movies, etc. Recent media reports show that public pro­se­cu­tors and poli­ce forces are con­fron­ted with incre­a­sing­ly com­plex cases and are rea­ching their limits in inve­sti­ga­ti­ons due to the flood of digi­tal data. In prac­ti­ce, it can be obser­ved that child por­no­gra­phy is beco­ming more serious and the vic­tims youn­ger.
Bright field sta­tis­tics (cf. poli­ce crime sta­tis­tics 2014 – 2016) show an increa­se of 16 per­cent in 2016 com­pared to the pre­vious year in repor­ted cri­mes for pro­hi­bi­ted por­no­gra­phy (Art. 197 StGB).
The­se data also show that over 70 per­cent of the vic­tims are minors. The ext­ent to which offen­ses against sexu­al inte­gri­ty are com­mit­ted through the use of ICTs has not been syste­ma­ti­cal­ly recor­ded in Switz­er­land to date. Sin­ce 2017, it has now been man­da­to­ry for the poli­ce corps to record the varia­ble “offen­se occur­rence” for a sel­ec­tion of offen­ses (inclu­ding Artic­les 187, 198, 197 SCC). Thus, cyber­crime phe­no­me­na should be visi­ble in poli­ce crime sta­tis­tics in the future.
I would ask the Fede­ral Coun­cil to ans­wer the fol­lo­wing questions:

  1. Would he be wil­ling to cla­ri­fy, whe­ther the curr­ent­ly valid foun­da­ti­ons of cri­mi­nal law are up to date and suf­fi­ci­ent­ly take hold to ful­ly pro­tect child­ren from sexu­al explo­ita­ti­on and abu­se through new and rapid­ly evol­ving forms of com­mis­si­on using ICTs, as requi­red by inter­na­tio­nal law?
  2. Would he be wil­ling to Juris­dic­tion in the can­tons on offen­ses against the sexu­al inte­gri­ty of child­ren in a report and to exami­ne whe­ther they take into account the new phe­no­me­na by means of the rapid­ly deve­lo­ping forms of com­mis­si­on (sex­ting, SNUFF films, child sexu­al abu­se via live strea­ming, child sexu­al abu­se in the area of child traf­ficking, etc.) and how they do so?

State­ment of the Fede­ral Coun­cil of August 30, 2017

  1. In their Postu­la­te 15.3407 “Pro­tec­tion of per­so­nal rights”. the inter­pel­lant asked the Fede­ral Coun­cil to exami­ne in a com­pre­hen­si­ve report how exi­sting laws could be trans­fer­red to the digi­tal space. In it, she refer­red, among other things, to the are­as of the pro­tec­tion of minors and the dis­se­mi­na­ti­on of “seve­re” por­no­gra­phy. In the view of the Fede­ral Coun­cil, the pre­sent inter­pel­la­ti­on is about the same main que­sti­on. It the­r­e­fo­re refers to its state­ment of 1 July 2015 on this postu­la­te. In it, it refer­red to its report adopted on Octo­ber 9, 2013 “Legal basis for social media“who con­clu­ded that no major regu­la­to­ry gaps were curr­ent­ly appa­rent. Howe­ver, sin­ce an impro­ve­ment in indi­vi­du­al are­as could not be ruled out through cer­tain amend­ments to the law, a num­ber of mea­su­res would be taken within the frame­work of various acti­vi­ties (revi­si­on of the Fede­ral Act on Data Pro­tec­tion [FDPA; SR 235.1], “Youth and Media” pro­gram, revi­si­on of the Tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons Act [FMG; SR 784.10]), a pos­si­ble need for legis­la­ti­ve action with regard to social media had also been cla­ri­fi­ed or had alre­a­dy been cla­ri­fi­ed. The Fede­ral Coun­cil came to the con­clu­si­on that the com­pre­hen­si­ve cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­on sug­ge­sted in the postu­la­te had alre­a­dy been car­ri­ed out or initia­ted and that a fur­ther report on this was not neces­sa­ry.
    The fol­lo­wing points are rai­sed in the opi­ni­on Fol­low-up report “Legal Basis for Social Media: Rene­wed Assess­ment of the Cur­rent Situa­ti­on”, the Fede­ral Coun­cil on May 10, 2017 adopted. In this report, too, the Fede­ral Coun­cil sees no need for new regu­la­to­ry mea­su­res at the pre­sent time: The issues rai­sed in the 2013 Social Media Report have lar­ge­ly been taken into account in the ongo­ing regu­la­to­ry pro­jects. In this regard, refe­rence should be made in par­ti­cu­lar to the new legis­la­ti­on adopted as part of the imple­men­ta­ti­on of the Coun­cil of Euro­pe Con­ven­ti­on on the Pro­tec­tion of Child­ren against Sexu­al Explo­ita­ti­on and Sexu­al Abu­se of Octo­ber 25, 2007 (Lan­za­ro­te Con­ven­ti­on; SR 0.311.40), which ente­red into force on July 1, 2014. Artic­le 197 Cri­mi­nal Code (StGB; SR 311.0; por­no­gra­phy). Per­sons up to the age of 18 are now pro­tec­ted from par­ti­ci­pa­ting in sexu­al depic­tions (Artic­le 197 (4) and (5) SCC); the scope of appli­ca­ti­on has thus been expan­ded. The pen­al­ties in Artic­le 197 (4) and (5) SCC have also been par­ti­al­ly increa­sed, and the con­sump­ti­on of pro­hi­bi­ted por­no­gra­phy has been made punis­ha­ble. Fur­ther­mo­re, anyo­ne who recruits a minor to par­ti­ci­pa­te in a por­no­gra­phic per­for­mance or who indu­ces him or her to par­ti­ci­pa­te in such a per­for­mance is now punis­hed (Artic­le 197(3) SCC). It fol­lows from the approach and pur­po­se of Artic­le 197 SCC that a lar­ge num­ber of the inju­red par­ties are minors.In the con­text of the Revi­si­on of the FMG is also inten­ded to obli­ge tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons ser­vice pro­vi­ders to pre­vent access to con­tent pro­hi­bi­ted under Artic­le 197 (4) and (5) SCC in accordance with the gui­de­lines issued by the Cyber­crime Coor­di­na­ti­on Unit (KOBIK) to block lists main­tai­ned by the com­pa­ny. The Fede­ral Depart­ment of the Envi­ron­ment, Trans­port, Ener­gy and Com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons (DETEC) has been com­mis­sio­ned to Sep­tem­ber 2017 a mes­sa­ge on the amend­ment of the FMG to work out.
    With regard to sex­ting, the Fede­ral Coun­cil in its Comm­ents on Inter­pel­la­ti­on 13.4266 Amherd “Need for action on sex­ting”. and Moti­on 14.3367 Amherd “Com­ba­ting sex­ting”, which penal pro­vi­si­ons app­ly in con­nec­tion with sex­ting and why the­se pro­vi­si­ons and Artic­les 28 et seq. of the Ger­man Civil Code (“Zivil­ge­setz­buch”) app­ly. Civil Code (ZGB; SR 210) and the FDPA offer suf­fi­ci­ent pro­tec­tion. The Coun­cil of Sta­tes rejec­ted the moti­on as the second cham­ber in 2016; it is the­r­e­fo­re closed.
    In view of this situa­ti­on, it is not neces­sa­ry at the moment to cla­ri­fy fur­ther whe­ther the cur­rent basis of cri­mi­nal law is up-to-date and effective.
  2. The inter­pel­lant hers­elf points out that sin­ce 2017 in the poli­ce crime sta­tis­tics (PKS) the recor­ding of an offen­se is man­da­to­ry for offen­ses that are con­side­red possible/typical for cyber­crime. This also inclu­des offen­ses under Artic­les 187 (sexu­al acts with child­ren), 197 and 198 (sexu­al harass­ment) SCC. This inno­va­ti­on is inten­ded to meet the need of the aut­ho­ri­ties and the public to learn more about the ext­ent and forms of cyber­crime. In the view of the Fede­ral Coun­cil, the eva­lua­ti­on of this data over a few years should be awai­ted befo­re, if neces­sa­ry, an ela­bo­ra­te com­pa­ri­son of can­to­nal juris­dic­tion is envisaged.

AI-gene­ra­ted takea­ways can be wrong.