Inter­pel­la­ti­on Glätt­li (21.3580 ): Regu­la­ti­on of facial reco­gni­ti­on in public spaces

Inter­pel­la­ti­on Glätt­li (21.3580): Regu­la­ti­on of facial reco­gni­ti­on in public spaces

Sub­mit­ted text

The EU Com­mis­si­on pre­sen­ted pro­po­sals for the regu­la­ti­on of arti­fi­ci­al intel­li­gence on April 21, 2021. Accor­ding to the­se, the bio­me­tric iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on from a distance in public spaces in real time also be pro­hi­bi­ted with regard to law enforce­ment, but the use of facial reco­gni­ti­on remain per­mit­ted under cer­tain cir­cum­stances. In Switz­er­land, the revi­sed Data Pro­tec­tion Act will come into force on Janu­ary 1, 2022. It qua­li­fi­es “bio­me­tric data that uni­que­ly iden­ti­fi­es a natu­ral per­son” as “par­ti­cu­lar­ly wort­hy of protection.

1. is the Fede­ral Coun­cil of the opi­ni­on that Facial reco­gni­ti­on systems in any case bio­me­tric data which fall under Artic­le 5 lite­ra c num­ber 4 revDSG and thus have to be con­side­red “par­ti­cu­lar­ly wort­hy of pro­tec­tion”? Does face reco­gni­ti­on thus in any case con­sti­tu­te a serious inter­fe­rence with the right to infor­ma­tio­nal self-deter­mi­na­ti­on under Artic­le 13(2) of the Fede­ral Constitution?

2. to what ext­ent does the In the view of the Fede­ral Coun­cil, the revi­sed Data Pro­tec­tion Act pro­vi­des suf­fi­ci­ent pro­tec­tion of pri­va­cy. how con­fi­dent are you about the intro­duc­tion of facial reco­gni­ti­on systems, par­ti­cu­lar­ly by can­to­nal poli­ce forces and pri­va­te third par­ties? In the view of the Fede­ral Coun­cil, how much lee­way do the can­tons have if they want to lega­li­ze the use of facial reco­gni­ti­on systems by the can­to­nal poli­ce or car­ry out pilot pro­jects by means of spe­cial legal decrees LB.

3. in the light of deve­lo­p­ments in the EU, does the Fede­ral Coun­cil also see a need for action in this regard? Expli­ci­t­ly regu­la­te the use of facial reco­gni­ti­on systems at the fede­ral level? Does this also include a fun­da­men­tal ban on facial reco­gni­ti­on in public spaces or at least a mora­to­ri­um until a public/political deba­te on the issue has taken place?

4. how does the Legal situa­ti­on regar­ding facial reco­gni­ti­on in the can­tons? Are the­re can­tons in par­ti­cu­lar that impo­se stric­ter requi­re­ments on the use of facial reco­gni­ti­on systems than tho­se to be deri­ved from the revi­sed Data Pro­tec­tion Act?

State­ment of the Fede­ral Coun­cil of 11.8.21

In the new Fede­ral Data Pro­tec­tion Act of Sep­tem­ber 25, 2020 (BBl 2020 7639), which is sche­du­led to enter into force in 2022, bio­me­tric data “that uni­que­ly iden­ti­fi­es a natu­ral per­son” (Art. 5(c)(4)) will qua­li­fy as per­so­nal data requi­ring spe­cial pro­tec­tion. This imple­ments the Pro­to­col (ETS No. 223) amen­ding the Con­ven­ti­on for the Pro­tec­tion of Indi­vi­du­als with regard to Auto­ma­tic Pro­ce­s­sing of Per­so­nal Data (Con­ven­ti­on 108+), which per­mits the pro­ce­s­sing of such data only if appro­pria­te safe­guards are pro­vi­ded. In addi­ti­on, it also takes into account the gui­de­lines of the Advi­so­ry Com­mit­tee of this Con­ven­ti­on on facial reco­gni­ti­on of Janu­ary 28, 2021. Under “bio­me­tric dataThe term “digi­tal data” inclu­des, for exam­p­le, digi­tal fin­ger­prints, facial images, iris images or voice recor­dings. The­se data must neces­s­a­ri­ly be stored on a spe­ci­fic tech­ni­cal pro­ce­du­re that allo­ws the uni­que iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on or authen­ti­ca­ti­on of a natu­ral per­son.. An ordi­na­ry pho­to­graph does not meet the­se requi­re­ments (BBl 2017 7020).

1. if the facial reco­gni­ti­on system enables the per­son to be unam­bi­guous­ly iden­ti­fi­ed, this is pro­ce­s­sing of data requi­ring spe­cial pro­tec­tion within the mea­ning of Artic­le 5 let­ter c num­ber 4 nDSG. Sin­ce for the pro­ce­s­sing of such data pur­su­ant to Artic­le 34 para­graph 2 let­ter a nDSG a Basis in a law in the for­mal sen­se is requi­red, the fede­ral legis­la­tu­re has seen this as a serious encroach­ment on the right to infor­ma­tio­nal self-deter­mi­na­ti­on under Artic­le 13(2) BV.

2. The Fede­ral Coun­cil is of the opi­ni­on that the new FADP ensu­res suf­fi­ci­ent pro­tec­tion for the pro­ce­s­sing of data by means of facial reco­gni­ti­on by fede­ral aut­ho­ri­ties and pri­va­te par­ties. Howe­ver, the FADP does not app­ly to data pro­ce­s­sing by can­to­nal bodies. The can­to­nal aut­ho­ri­ties have some lee­way in the use of facial reco­gni­ti­on, but they must com­ply with Artic­les 13 and 36 of the Fede­ral Con­sti­tu­ti­on and, in the future, with the requi­re­ments of Con­ven­ti­on 108+, which Switz­er­land will soon rati­fy. In the decis­i­on BGE 146 I 11 put the Fede­ral Court held that the coll­ec­tion of iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on data by the can­to­nal aut­ho­ri­ties on the basis of licen­se pla­tes as part of a traf­fic moni­to­ring system and the lin­king of this data with other data­ba­ses within a few seconds con­sti­tu­ted an inter­fe­rence with fun­da­men­tal rights under Artic­le 13(2) BV. The Fede­ral Supre­me Court found that in the case in que­sti­on the legal basis was not suf­fi­ci­ent. The requi­re­ments set by the Fede­ral Supre­me Court would app­ly a for­tio­ri if the can­to­nal aut­ho­ri­ties were to resort to a sur­veil­lan­ce and iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on system with facial reco­gni­ti­on.

As can be seen from the abo­ve con­side­ra­ti­ons, the fede­ral and can­to­nal aut­ho­ri­ties may only use facial reco­gni­ti­on for iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on pur­po­ses in public spaces if the­re is a suf­fi­ci­ent legal basis for doing so. Fur­ther­mo­re, the inter­fe­rence with fun­da­men­tal rights must be justi­fi­ed by a suf­fi­ci­ent public inte­rest, must be pro­por­tio­na­te and must not affect the core con­tent of fun­da­men­tal rights (Art. 36 BV). An abso­lu­te ban or mora­to­ri­um at the fede­ral level is not on the agen­daThe Fede­ral Coun­cil is not awa­re of any fur­ther-rea­ching can­to­nal regulations.

Aut­ho­ri­ty

Area

Topics

Rela­ted articles

Sub­scri­be