Take-Aways (AI)
  • Revi­sed §17 allo­ws pro­ce­s­sing of spe­cial per­so­nal data by third-par­ty pro­vi­ders if data cen­ters are loca­ted in Switzerland/an ade­qua­te coun­try or if appro­pria­te pro­tec­ti­ve mea­su­res are in place.
  • Aut­ho­ri­ties must take tech­ni­cal, orga­nizatio­nal and con­trac­tu­al mea­su­res to ensu­re that access by for­eign sta­tes is kept to a minimum.
  • Act crea­tes expli­cit legal basis for cloud-based appli­ca­ti­ons in digi­tal work­places of public aut­ho­ri­ties and empha­si­zes legal cer­tain­ty instead of detail­ed tech­no­lo­gi­cal specifications.

The can­ton of Zurich con­duc­ted a con­sul­ta­ti­on on the “Law on Basic Digi­tal Ser­vices” (see here). In addi­ti­on to other points, the ver­si­on of Sec­tion 17 pro­po­sed at the time sti­pu­la­ted that infor­ma­ti­on must always be stored in Switz­er­land or the EU, and that spe­cial per­so­nal data or con­fi­den­ti­al or secret data must be encrypt­ed in such a way that it can­not be acce­s­sed by the cloud pro­vi­der wit­hout the invol­vement of the public body – this would essen­ti­al­ly still have allo­wed hosting services.

This point was met with harsh cri­ti­cism during the con­sul­ta­ti­on pro­cess, which is sum­ma­ri­zed as fol­lows in the Govern­ment Council’s report:

The pro­po­sed regu­la­ti­on on the use of cloud-based appli­ca­ti­ons in the con­text of digi­tal work­places was con­tro­ver­si­al­ly dis­cus­sed in the con­sul­ta­ti­on. The majo­ri­ty of par­ti­ci­pan­ts in the con­sul­ta­ti­on reque­sted a Adjust­ment of the con­di­ti­ons or wai­ver to the pro­vi­si­on. The rela­ti­on­ship to the Act on Infor­ma­ti­on and Data Pro­tec­tion of Febru­ary 12, 2007 (IDG, LS 170.4) and the Act on the Out­sour­cing of IT Ser­vices was occa­sio­nal­ly discussed. […]

The Zurich can­to­nal govern­ment has now – on Sep­tem­ber 18, 2024 – sub­mit­ted to the can­to­nal coun­cil sub­mit­ted an amen­ded ver­si­on of the draft. In the new ver­si­on § 17 reads as follows:

§ 17. 1 The pro­ce­s­sing of Per­so­nal data and spe­cial per­so­nal data in appli­ca­ti­ons of digi­tal work­places of the aut­ho­ri­ties can be trans­fer­red to third par­ties if

a. their data cen­ters are loca­ted in Switz­er­land or in a coun­try with ade­qua­te data pro­tec­tion and

b. on the basis of the tech­ni­cal, orga­nizatio­nal and con­trac­tu­al mea­su­res taken the­re is no rea­son to assu­methat a for­eign sta­te has access to the data will access.

2 In all other respects, the pro­vi­si­ons of the Act on Infor­ma­ti­on and Data Pro­tec­tion of Febru­ary 12, 2007* shall apply.

This essen­ti­al­ly cor­re­sponds to the requi­re­ments of the § 36 at Draft of the revi­sed IDG Zurich. Dis­clo­sure of per­so­nal data abroad is the­r­e­fo­re per­mit­ted – in addi­ti­on to the other requi­re­ments for data pro­ce­s­sing – if

b. ade­qua­te pro­tec­tion for data pro­ce­s­sing is gua­ran­teed in the reci­pi­ent sta­te, or

c. [the public body] has agreed appro­pria­te safe­guards with the recipients.

Fur­ther­mo­re, the requi­re­ments under Art. 17 para. 1 lit. b lit. do not app­ly in addi­ti­on to, but as an alter­na­ti­ve to lit. a, i.e. as an aut­ho­rizati­on requi­re­ment, if the data cen­ters are loca­ted out­side an area with ade­qua­te pro­tec­tion. This should gene­ral­ly requi­re the con­clu­si­on of the Stan­dard Con­trac­tu­al Clau­ses and the imple­men­ta­ti­on of a Trans­fer Impact Assess­ment that asses­ses the­se clau­ses, the other TOMs and the resi­du­al risk of for­eign lawful access.

This chan­ge is good news not only for cloud pro­vi­ders, but abo­ve all for public bodies, which would other­wi­se be effec­tively exclu­ded from the use of all but sto­rage ser­vices (in the appli­ca­ti­ons of digi­tal work­places). It would only have been desi­ra­ble for Sec­tion 17 to refer not only to spe­cial per­so­nal data, but also to spe­cial secrets.

The Govern­ment Council’s report says:

In addi­ti­on to the­se exi­sting regu­la­ti­ons, the Act on Basic Elec­tro­nic Ser­vices is inten­ded to regu­la­te out­sour­cing in the spe­ci­fic use case of cloud-based appli­ca­ti­ons in digi­tal work­places of public aut­ho­ri­ties. This can be assi­gned to the basic ser­vices as a pri­ma­ri­ly inter­nal admi­ni­stra­ti­ve basic ser­vice and is tech­ni­cal­ly spe­ci­fi­ed or can be spe­ci­fi­ed to such an ext­ent that it is acce­s­si­ble to regulation.

Other appli­ca­ti­ons rela­te to the stan­dard level of the regu­la­ti­on. In par­ti­cu­lar, refe­rence is made to legal opi­ni­ons and legal views accor­ding to which legal bases (in the for­mal sen­se) are not requi­red. As far as can be seen, howe­ver, the­se expert opi­ni­ons men­tio­ned in the con­sul­ta­ti­on do not address the que­sti­on of the con­di­ti­ons under which out­sour­cing to a for­eign company’s cloud is per­mis­si­ble at all – from a fun­da­men­tal rights per­spec­ti­ve, i.e. also taking into account the con­sti­tu­tio­nal and inter­na­tio­nal legal framework.

For rea­sons of con­sti­tu­tio­nal law and fun­da­men­tal rights, no pro­vi­si­on has been made. The Legal basis to be crea­ted should con­tri­bu­te to legal cer­tain­ty in an area with legal­ly unre­sol­ved issues such as tech­no­lo­gi­cal and dyna­mic deve­lo­p­ments. In par­ti­cu­lar, the Act on Basic Elec­tro­nic Ser­vices is inten­ded to pro­vi­de the muni­ci­pa­li­ties with a (more pre­cise) legal basis for the use of cloud-based appli­ca­ti­ons in digi­tal work­places of the aut­ho­ri­ties. The pro­vi­si­on was draf­ted in view of the con­cerns expres­sed in the con­sul­ta­ti­on pro­cess. Con­cerns about fea­si­bi­li­ty in prac­ti­ce revi­sed. The requi­re­ments should take appro­pria­te account of the exi­sting working rea­li­ty and lea­ve room for tech­no­lo­gi­cal deve­lo­p­ments as far as pos­si­ble. Data pro­tec­tion and infor­ma­ti­on secu­ri­ty con­cerns must be inclu­ded in a balan­ced rela­ti­on­ship and with a view to the public inte­rest in effi­ci­ent and modern administration.

It can be assu­med that tech­ni­cal mea­su­res that increa­se data and infor­ma­ti­on secu­ri­ty in par­ti­cu­lar will be fur­ther deve­lo­ped and ulti­m­ate­ly depend on the ran­ge of appli­ca­ti­ons offe­red by the sel­ec­ted pro­vi­ders in the digi­tal work­places of the aut­ho­ri­ties. The­r­e­fo­re of the for­mal law alre­a­dy at the level of the for­mal law. spe­ci­fy cer­tain tech­no­lo­gi­cal mea­su­res (encryp­ti­on with key sove­reig­n­ty with the public body). The aut­ho­ri­ty is respon­si­ble for ensu­ring this with tech­ni­cal, orga­nizatio­nal and con­trac­tu­al mea­su­res, that the risk of access to data by a for­eign sta­te is redu­ced to a mini­mum will.

The term “cloud-based” is not used in the legal text, as this term is still (too) unclear. The qua­li­fi­ca­ti­on of “cloud com­pu­ting” is legal­ly decisi­ve as a form Data pro­ce­s­sing by third par­ties. The sub­ject mat­ter of the pro­vi­si­on in the Act on Basic Elec­tro­nic Ser­vices is limi­t­ed to data pro­ce­s­sing. as part of the appli­ca­ti­ons in digi­tal work­places of the authorities.