Inter­pel­la­ti­on Mar­ti (19.3659): Swis­s­com laun­ches data octo­pus Beem: How is this com­pa­ti­ble with the Confederation’s owner­ship strategy?

Inter­pel­la­ti­on Mar­ti (19.3659): Swis­s­com laun­ches data octo­pus Beem: How is this com­pa­ti­ble with the Confederation’s owner­ship strategy?

Sub­mit­ted text

In recent weeks, the public has been infor­med about exten­si­ve tech­no­lo­gi­cal chan­ges in the adver­ti­sing mar­ket. Swis­s­com intends to use Beem “make clas­sic adver­ti­sing cam­paigns inter­ac­ti­ve and smart­phone-enab­led,” as com­mu­ni­ca­ted in a media release. Simi­lar­ly, “Aymo“Amyo is an APG ser­vice that uses high-fre­quen­cy audio signals to dis­play user-spe­ci­fic adver­ti­se­ments depen­ding on the con­tent con­su­med by the cor­re­spon­ding app (20 Minu­ten, Wat­son, Blue­win). While the launch of Beem was delay­ed by a num­ber of com­plaints, Amyo is alre­a­dy in use today and, among other things, records the loca­ti­on of users if this has been released in the cor­re­spon­ding apps. Alt­hough APG insists that they would not have access to IP address, cell pho­ne num­ber, name and mail address, they say they crea­te tar­get group profiles.

I would ask the Fede­ral Coun­cil to ans­wer the fol­lo­wing questions:

1. why has Beem not yet been audi­ted by the FDPIC?

2) Does the Con­fe­de­ra­ti­on, as owner of Swis­s­com, sup­port cor­re­spon­ding busi­ness stra­te­gies? Why/why not?

3) How many other com­pa­ra­ble offers via Blue­tooth or GPS are the­re in Switzerland?

4. to what ext­ent is it ensu­red that the­se offers are actual­ly only sent to the cell pho­ne and not ans­we­red by the cell phone?

5. to what ext­ent can pro­vi­ders be obli­ged to actively opt-in/­opt-out (even in the case of recur­ring use)?

6) How does the Fede­ral Coun­cil view the fact that Beem’s data pro­tec­tion pro­vi­si­ons do not expli­ci­t­ly exclude fur­ther use by third par­ties and place all respon­si­bi­li­ty on the users?

7 What hap­pens if cor­re­spon­ding data coll­ec­tions are super­im­po­sed (loca­ti­on with e.g. club mem­ber­ships or similar)?

8. how many peo­p­le and/or ani­mals find ultra­so­nic sounds disturbing?

9. should such ultra­so­nic sounds be broad­cast on public television?

10. to what ext­ent does the Fede­ral Coun­cil plan to allo­ca­te rese­arch funds to con­su­mer cyber­se­cu­ri­ty (instead of only aut­ho­ri­ties and companies)?

State­ment of the Fede­ral Coun­cil from 14.8.19

1 In order to impro­ve data pro­tec­tion and data secu­ri­ty, the manu­fac­tu­r­ers of data pro­ce­s­sing systems or pro­grams and pri­va­te indi­vi­du­als or fede­ral bodies that pro­cess per­so­nal data may sub­ject their systems, pro­ce­du­res and orga­nizati­on to an assess­ment by reco­gnized inde­pen­dent cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on bodies. The Fede­ral Data Pro­tec­tion and Infor­ma­ti­on Com­mis­sio­ner (FDPIC) its­elf can­not con­duct audits in the sen­se of cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­ons of data pro­ce­s­sing systems.

Howe­ver, the FDPIC advi­ses and super­vi­ses pri­va­te indi­vi­du­als and fede­ral bodies with regard to com­pli­ance with the legal data pro­tec­tion pro­vi­si­ons. This means that, on the one hand, the FDPIC helps to rai­se awa­re­ness of aspects of data pro­tec­tion among tho­se who pro­cess per­so­nal data (i.e. the owners of data coll­ec­tions), but also among tho­se about whom data are pro­ce­s­sed (i.e. the data sub­jects), and to inform them.

On the other hand, the com­mis­sio­ner can then inter­ve­ne if the owners of data coll­ec­tions do not com­ply with the prin­ci­ples of data pro­tec­tion. With regard to Beem, the FDPIC is the­r­e­fo­re also clo­se­ly moni­to­ring the situa­ti­on and reser­ves the right to take appro­pria­te mea­su­res if the­re are incre­a­sing indi­ca­ti­ons that the per­so­nal rights of the data sub­jects are being unlawful­ly vio­la­ted with Beem.

2. The Fede­ral Coun­cil mana­ges Swis­s­com by set­ting stra­te­gic goals. In doing so, it expects Swis­s­com to be mana­ged in a busi­ness-ori­en­ted, com­pe­ti­ti­ve and cus­to­mer-focu­sed man­ner.. Like­wi­se, that it suc­cessful­ly offers net­work infras­truc­tures and ser­vices based on them in the con­ver­ging mar­kets of tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons, infor­ma­ti­on tech­no­lo­gy, broad­ca­sting, media and enter­tain­ment, thus con­tri­bu­ting to the digi­tizati­on of all regi­ons in Switz­er­land. By con­trast, the Fede­ral Coun­cil has no influence on the ope­ra­tio­nal business.

3. with Blue­tooth, signals are trans­mit­ted direct­ly bet­ween the poster and the cell pho­ne. The GPS coor­di­na­tes are pro­ce­s­sed within the cell pho­ne. Both are the­r­e­fo­re car­ri­ed out wit­hout the inter­ven­ti­on of tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons ser­vice pro­vi­ders, which are sub­ject to OFCOM super­vi­si­on under the Tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons Act (TCA; SR 784.10), and wit­hout the inter­ven­ti­on of other com­pa­nies which are sub­ject to spe­ci­fic offi­ci­al super­vi­si­on. The Fede­ral Coun­cil the­r­e­fo­re has no infor­ma­ti­on on how many com­pa­ra­ble offe­rings the­re are in Switzerland.

4 Sin­ce this is not elec­tro­ma­gne­tic trans­mis­si­on as defi­ned by the TCA, which would be sub­ject to OFCOM super­vi­si­on, but sound trans­mis­si­on, the Fede­ral Coun­cil has no infor­ma­ti­on on this issue.

5. The adver­ti­sing appearing through the Blue­tooth signals on the cor­re­spon­ding apps is likely to con­sti­tu­te mass adver­ti­sing within the mea­ning of Art. 3 para. 1 let. o UWG. The adver­ti­ser must the­r­e­fo­re dis­c­lo­se his iden­ti­ty and obtain the recipient’s con­sent befo­re broad­ca­sting the adver­ti­se­ment (Opt-In). Fur­ther­mo­re, in the case of recur­ring adver­ti­sing, it must be ensu­red that it con­ta­ins a simp­le and free rejec­tion opti­on which allo­ws the reci­pi­ent to stop the adver­ti­sing again (opt-out). In this respect, pro­vi­ders are alre­a­dy obli­ged to actively opt-in and opt-out.

Fur­ther­mo­re, the prin­ci­ple of cla­ri­ty and truth in com­pe­ti­ti­on should dic­ta­te that it be dis­c­lo­sed to the user that the adver­ti­sing is user-spe­ci­fic.

6. the pro­vi­si­ons of data pro­tec­tion must be com­plied with in the event of dis­clo­sure of per­so­nal data to third par­ties and its fur­ther use. Dis­clo­sure can be justi­fi­ed, for exam­p­le, by the con­sent of the per­sons con­cer­ned. Accor­ding to the infor­ma­ti­on pro­vi­ded by Swis­s­com, the data would only be pas­sed on with the expli­cit con­sent of the cus­to­mer. And this only if the cli­ente­le agrees to the adver­ti­sers’ data pro­tec­tion guidelines.

7 In prin­ci­ple, every data owner has the obli­ga­ti­on to keep the dif­fe­rent data coll­ec­tions cle­ar­ly sepa­ra­ted from each other and to ensu­re data secu­ri­ty by means of sui­ta­ble tech­ni­cal and orga­nizatio­nal mea­su­res. From a data pro­tec­tion per­spec­ti­ve, lin­king or com­bi­ning data from dif­fe­rent sources usual­ly vio­la­tes the pri­va­cy of data sub­jects. Accor­ding to the prin­ci­ple of pur­po­se, per­so­nal data may only be pro­ce­s­sed for the pur­po­se that was sta­ted when it was obtai­ned, is evi­dent from the cir­cum­stances or is pro­vi­ded for by law. Data sub­jects must the­r­e­fo­re be infor­med in detail about fur­ther data pro­ce­s­sing befo­re it is lin­ked to other data, and must be able to give their con­sent to it. Wit­hout such con­sent, such com­bi­na­ti­ons are pos­si­ble only if a law so pro­vi­des or if the­re are over­ri­ding pri­va­te or public inte­rests.

8. as alre­a­dy men­tio­ned in que­sti­on time on Beem (19.5370 Mass­hardt), the distur­ban­ce per­cep­ti­on of humans and ani­mals stron­gly depends on the fre­quen­cy and loud­ness of such sounds. The thres­holds of per­cep­ti­bi­li­ty and signi­fi­cant distur­ban­ce are clo­se tog­e­ther for the­se sounds. Thus, if such a sound is audi­ble, it is usual­ly alre­a­dy distur­bing. Such high-fre­quen­cy signals can also be distur­bing or frigh­tening for ani­mals, which is the case, for exam­p­le, with cat and mar­ten sca­ring devices.

Whe­ther such annoy­ing or harmful inter­fe­rence can occur with the new adver­ti­sing tech­no­lo­gy is curr­ent­ly being cla­ri­fi­ed by the respon­si­ble fede­ral offices in DETEC. The cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­ons include not only an assess­ment of the tech­ni­cal design of the adver­ti­sing tech­no­lo­gy, but also mea­su­re­ments of the sounds from spe­ci­fic devices. The results should be available in the cour­se of this year and will be published on the web­sites of the FOEN and OFCOM.

9 The Fede­ral Coun­cil is not awa­re of any spe­ci­fic pro­jects to also broad­cast the sounds for the inter­ac­ti­ve adver­ti­sing cam­paigns via the SRG TV channels.

10. accor­ding to the “Natio­nal Stra­tegy for the Pro­tec­tion of Switz­er­land against Cyber Risks 2018 – 2022″, no spe­ci­fic rese­arch fun­ding on cyber secu­ri­ty is pro­vi­ded for aut­ho­ri­ties and com­pa­nies so far. Rese­arch funds are made available via the exi­sting ves­sels and pro­ce­s­ses (e.g. via the Natio­nal Fund). The­se are available for appli­ca­ti­ons from all are­as, i.e. also for pro­jects rela­ted to the cyber secu­ri­ty of consumers.

Aut­ho­ri­ty

Area

Topics

Rela­ted articles

Sub­scri­be