Take-Aways (AI)
  • The DETEC’s Ser­vice for Spe­cial Tasks (DTA) is an admi­ni­stra­ti­ve and tech­ni­cal inter­me­dia­ry for postal and tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons sur­veil­lan­ce mea­su­res and is not bound by directives.
  • The DBA exami­nes appli­ca­ti­ons, com­mis­si­ons pro­vi­ders, main­ta­ins dos­siers and moni­tors cor­rect, time­ly exe­cu­ti­on; the results are eva­lua­ted by the law enforce­ment authorities.
  • Natio­nal struc­tures are crea­ted to coor­di­na­te the fight against cyber­crime; DBA coope­ra­tes with can­tons, poli­ce and working groups; direct FDJP con­nec­tions are not required.

Inter­pel­la­ti­on Pol­la (01.3779): Com­ba­ting cyber­crime. Role of DETEC’s Spe­cial Tasks Service.
9.12.2003: The pro­po­sal is writ­ten off, as the aut­hor has left the Council.

Sub­mit­ted text

I refer to the mea­su­res against cyber­crime envi­sa­ged by the Fede­ral Coun­cil in the report on the 1999 – 2003 legis­la­ti­ve plan­ning and ask the Fede­ral Coun­cil to com­ment on the fol­lo­wing questions:

1. what role does DETEC’s Spe­cial Tasks Ser­vice play in com­ba­ting cybercrime?

2. how its work is eva­lua­ted and con­trol­led, espe­ci­al­ly in terms of taking into account the needs of the can­to­nal inve­sti­ga­ting judges?

3. what are the links and rela­ti­on­ships bet­ween the DETEC Spe­cial Tasks Ser­vice and the can­to­nal judi­cial and poli­ce authorities?

4. what are the links in the fight against cyber­crime bet­ween DETEC’s Spe­cial Tasks Ser­vice and the FDJP?

Justi­fi­ca­ti­on

Com­ba­ting cyber­crime is one of the Fede­ral Council’s sta­ted prio­ri­ties in its 1999 – 2003 legis­la­ti­ve plan­ning. This Fede­ral Coun­cil objec­ti­ve is par­ti­cu­lar­ly important today for a num­ber of rea­sons. Com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons net­works and IT systems ope­ra­te across sta­tes. As a result, the dif­fi­cul­ties alre­a­dy encoun­te­red by judi­cial and law enforce­ment aut­ho­ri­ties within Switz­er­land in pro­se­cu­ting per­sons who com­mit offen­ses in the area of infor­ma­ti­on tech­no­lo­gy are con­sider­a­b­ly increased.

New inve­sti­ga­ti­ve tools are con­stant­ly nee­ded to com­bat crime in vir­tu­al space. For exam­p­le, all G‑8 count­ries have crea­ted struc­tures to com­bat high-tech crime. In the­se count­ries, natio­nal poli­ce forces and the various judi­cial bodies coope­ra­te par­ti­cu­lar­ly inten­si­ve­ly and effi­ci­ent­ly in the fight against IT crime. Such coope­ra­ti­on is cer­tain­ly fun­da­men­tal, and trans­pa­ren­cy in the acti­vi­ties of the various instances is essen­ti­al for effec­tively com­ba­ting cyber­crime. To address this chall­enge, spe­cial coor­di­na­ti­on mea­su­res are nee­ded in our fede­ral­ly orga­ni­zed coun­try. The dis­tri­bu­ti­on of com­pe­ten­ci­es among dif­fe­rent depart­ments appears pro­ble­ma­tic in this con­text, espe­ci­al­ly becau­se insuf­fi­ci­ent infor­ma­ti­on is pro­vi­ded today about the rea­sons for and objec­ti­ves of such a dis­tri­bu­ti­on, as well as about its effectiveness.

Offi­ci­al­ly, the DETEC Spe­cial Tasks Ser­vice was crea­ted to sim­pli­fy the inve­sti­ga­ti­ve acti­vi­ties of the pro­se­cu­ting aut­ho­ri­ties. In prac­ti­ce, howe­ver, it is some­ti­mes dif­fi­cult for inve­sti­ga­ting jud­ges to obtain cer­tain infor­ma­ti­on within a useful peri­od of time, i.e. very quick­ly. For exam­p­le, it is not easy to obtain a list of all con­nec­tions that have been made via a cer­tain tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons anten­na or to obtain the cor­re­spon­ding log files from the Inter­net pro­vi­ders on the basis of known IP addres­ses. With my inter­pel­la­ti­on, I would like to obtain detail­ed infor­ma­ti­on on the exact func­tion and ope­ra­ti­on of the DETEC Spe­cial Tasks Ser­vice, its effec­ti­ve­ness and trans­pa­ren­cy, as well as its coope­ra­ti­on with the FDJP, the courts and the can­to­nal poli­ce aut­ho­ri­ties in the fight against cybercrime.

State­ment of the Fede­ral Council

The Fede­ral Coun­cil is awa­re of the spe­cial need for coor­di­na­ti­on to com­bat cyber­crime effi­ci­ent­ly. It the­r­e­fo­re intends to crea­te a natio­nal coor­di­na­ti­on office tog­e­ther with the can­tons as of Janu­ary 1, 2003. With this office, Inter­net moni­to­ring will be resu­med in the Fede­ral Office of Poli­ce and a new clea­ring office will be intro­du­ced. This will crea­te a sin­gle point of cont­act for for­eign count­ries. The rea­lizati­on of the coor­di­na­ti­on office is also a pre­re­qui­si­te for the appli­ca­ti­on of the Coun­cil of Europe’s Cyber­crime Con­ven­ti­on in Switz­er­land and makes it pos­si­ble to join the G‑8 net­work pro­mo­ted by the EU.

The DETEC’s Spe­cial Tasks Ser­vice (DTA) is respon­si­ble for moni­to­ring postal and tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons traf­fic and, in this func­tion, is the admi­ni­stra­ti­ve and tech­ni­cal liai­son and coor­di­na­ti­on point bet­ween the can­to­nal or fede­ral law enforce­ment aut­ho­ri­ties on the one hand and tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons ser­vice pro­vi­ders on the other.

The DTA is admi­ni­stra­tively assi­gned to DETEC and ful­fills its task wit­hout being bound by ins­truc­tions. In the fight against crime, it has no inde­pen­dent role inso­far as it only beco­mes acti­ve at the request of the can­to­nal or fede­ral pro­se­cu­ti­on aut­ho­ri­ties. Its acti­vi­ties are based on the Fede­ral Act on the Sur­veil­lan­ce of Postal and Tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons Traf­fic of 6 Octo­ber 2000 (BÜPF; SR 780.1) and the asso­cia­ted ordi­nan­ce of 31 Octo­ber 2001 (VÜPF; SR 780.11), both in force sin­ce 1 Janu­ary 2002.

(1) In the area of com­ba­ting cyber­crime, the DTA has the same tasks and com­pe­ten­ces as in the other are­as of com­ba­ting crime. It recei­ves appli­ca­ti­ons for the inter­cep­ti­on of tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons, checks whe­ther the for­mal requi­re­ments are met, iden­ti­fi­es the pro­vi­der who must imple­ment the inter­cep­ti­on mea­su­re and gives the pro­vi­der the cor­re­spon­ding order. It for­wards the data coll­ec­ted from the pro­vi­der to the aut­ho­ri­ty that reque­sted the inter­cep­ti­on measure.

(2) For each sur­veil­lan­ce mea­su­re, the DTA shall keep a dos­sier con­tai­ning the essen­ti­al data of the sur­veil­lan­ce appli­ca­ti­on. In par­ti­cu­lar, this also con­ta­ins the reque­st­ing aut­ho­ri­ty, the appro­ving aut­ho­ri­ty, the time of the order pla­ce­ment and the order com­ple­ti­on. In this respect, the DBA is respon­si­ble for super­vi­sing the cor­rect and time­ly exe­cu­ti­on of the order.

The eva­lua­ti­on of the work, i.e. the eva­lua­ti­on of the results of a par­ti­cu­lar sur­veil­lan­ce mea­su­re, is not car­ri­ed out by the DBA, but by tho­se law enforce­ment agen­ci­es that issued the order.

3. the DBA is a ser­vice com­pa­ny that ful­fills the orders of the can­to­nal and fede­ral law enforce­ment aut­ho­ri­ties. Within this frame­work, it is available to the law enforce­ment aut­ho­ri­ties in an advi­so­ry capa­ci­ty for all que­sti­ons rela­ting to sur­veil­lan­ce mea­su­res (infor­ma­ti­on on tech­ni­cal pos­si­bi­li­ties, expec­ted costs, etc.). Fur­ther­mo­re, upon invi­ta­ti­on, the DTA is invol­ved in the various com­mit­tees and mee­tings of the law enforce­ment aut­ho­ri­ties; the­re is a working group con­si­sting of repre­sen­ta­ti­ves of the law enforce­ment aut­ho­ri­ties, the DBA and the GS DETEC, which regu­lar­ly dis­cus­ses issues rela­ted to the inter­cep­ti­on of telecommunications.

4. the­re is a working group bet­ween the Con­fe­de­ra­ti­on and the can­tons, led by the Fede­ral Office of Poli­ce, in which cyber­crime issues are dis­cus­sed (AG Bemik, Working Group on Com­ba­ting the Misu­se of Infor­ma­ti­on and Com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on Tech­no­lo­gy). The DBA has been invi­ted to par­ti­ci­pa­te in the working group mee­tings and uses them as an infor­ma­ti­on plat­form for its acti­vi­ties. The­re are no fur­ther links bet­ween the FDJP and the DTA with regard to com­ba­ting cyber­crime, nor is the­re any need for them in view of the func­tion of the DTA descri­bed above.