- The Federal Council recognizes the central importance of a functioning telecommunications monitoring system and has been continuously informed about ISS problems.
- ISS project showed deficits; steering committee decided on September 20, 2013 to switch to an alternative, tried-and-tested system from another provider.
- The alternative system comes from the supplier of the current LIS, has been tried and tested internationally and is considered suitable for Swiss conditions.
- Federal Council chooses a compensation model: providers bear investment costs, receive operating compensation per monitoring that does not cover costs; fee ordinance to follow.
Interpellation Recordon (13.3702): Telecommunications surveillance by law enforcement agencies. For how much longer?
Done (11.12.2013)
Submitted text
The Federal Council is instructed to answer the following questions.
1. the judiciary is in a major dilemma caused by the ISS system (Interception System Switzerland) for telecommunications surveillance by law enforcement agencies. Has the Federal Council recognized its extent and its increasingly far-reaching consequences?
2. is he willing to switch immediately to another system that is proven and fit for purpose?
3. is it prepared to choose a compensation system for telecommunications service providers that is of a reasonable size, is not too burdensome to administer and does not disadvantage the police and law enforcement agencies?
Justification
The persistence and cost of the Swiss system of telecommunications interception by law enforcement agencies is becoming more and more worrying every day. For inexplicable reasons, this system has been preferred to that of its original cheaper competitor. Moreover, it has not been proven by experience abroad and has been tailored “à la carte” to Swiss peculiarities. Moreover, it is complicated in view of the unbelievable demands of invoicing the operations to the judiciary. This system is still not operational after three years of effort, and law enforcement agencies and police may find themselves without an effective tool for intercepting communications in organized crime, especially drug trafficking.
The situation is no longer acceptable in this way. However, simple and efficient solutions exist: the Netherlands, for example, has turned to another software provider whose product can be used to intercept IP on both fixed and mobile networks – much to the satisfaction of the police and the public prosecutor’s office. In addition, the law in this country requires telecommunications service providers to ensure that interception is possible before launching new telephone services or other services. The cost of the interception measures was initially calculated at 25 euros per unit, then – in order to avoid the unnecessary administrative burden this would entail – it was decided to charge a flat rate for the measures and to pay an annual fixed amount based on experience, which is apparently in the order of 10 million euros. This sum is divided among the telecommunications service providers and can be reduced by 10 percent if the services provided were insufficient. It is absurd that the Swiss law enforcement system has to bear comparatively far higher costs, which de facto damage the effectiveness of the fight against crime, especially against black money, which certainly pleases criminal organizations in particular.
Statement of the Federal Council
1 The Federal Council is aware that a functioning IT system is central to ensuring the surveillance of telecommunications and thus to efficient law enforcement. It has been continuously informed about the difficulties in the Interception System Switzerland (ISS) project and the measures taken. The focus recently has been on improvements in the project organization, closer cooperation with the cantons, the law enforcement and police authorities, and the telecommunications service providers, the clarification of the contractual situation with the contractor, as well as the performance of tests, the examination of possible architectural deficiencies, and the evaluation of an alternative system in the event that the project with the current system supplier cannot be successfully completed.
2 Based on the above-mentioned measures and work, the Telecommunications Surveillance Steering Committee, consisting of the FDJP, the public prosecutors’ offices, the police and the telecommunications service providers, decided on 20 September 2013, in agreement with the departmental management, to continue the ISS project with another supplier and to procure the alternative system evaluated in the meantime. This alternative system is manufactured by the supplier of the current system LIS, which is very familiar with Swiss conditions. The system has been tested and is already running in other countries. This was also the conclusion reached by a group of experts with equal representation during a reference visit to one of these countries.
3 The Federal Council, after previously also considering the possibility of abolishing the compensation in favor of the telecommunications service providers without replacement, has decided on a compensation model. It is presented in the dispatch on the total revision of Büpf, which was submitted to parliament on February 27, 2013, and largely corresponds to the current fee and compensation model. The telecommunications service providers must bear the investment costs (infrastructure and systems) themselves. For the operating costs, on the other hand, they receive compensation per monitoring. However, this compensation does not cover the costs. The ordering authority, which has issued the monitoring order, pays the fees incurred for the monitoring. These monitoring fees, like the other legal costs, can in principle be imposed on the accused person if he is convicted. The actual amount of the fees and compensation shall be determined by the Federal Council in an ordinance.