Moti­on Bart­hassat (10.4134): Tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons ser­vices. More secu­ri­ty thanks to bet­ter mastery of the technology

Moti­on Bart­hassat (10.4134): Tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons ser­vices. More secu­ri­ty thanks to bet­ter mastery of the technology
Rejec­ted (13.12.2012)

Sub­mit­ted text

The Fede­ral Coun­cil is ins­truc­ted to prepa­re a draft decree to obli­ge the natio­nal­ly acti­ve tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons ser­vice pro­vi­ders to offer systems that enable the visua­lizati­on of data trans­mit­ted in par­ti­cu­lar via the Inter­net for each new pro­to­col even befo­re it goes into operation.

Justi­fi­ca­ti­on

The fight against crime in Switz­er­land requi­res that the tech­ni­cal aspects be maste­red, espe­ci­al­ly in the case of tele­pho­ne surveillance.

The pro­po­sed mea­su­re is inten­ded to faci­li­ta­te the work of inve­sti­ga­tors and thus the ana­ly­sis of the data flow trans­mit­ted by tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons ser­vice pro­vi­ders. The lat­ter are to be obli­ged to pro­vi­de tech­ni­cal sup­port to the law enforce­ment aut­ho­ri­ties. Licen­sed com­pa­nies may well be requi­red to con­tri­bu­te a tech­ni­cal solu­ti­on when a new com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons system is put into ope­ra­ti­on in order to be able to moni­tor data trans­mit­ted using their systems in a cost-effec­ti­ve man­ner. The pro­vi­ders, who rea­li­ze con­sidera­ble pro­fits from the licen­ses, have a duty to pro­mo­te mastery of the tech­no­lo­gy they use and make available to citizens.

This solu­ti­on would ser­ve all law enforce­ment agen­ci­es and at the same time increa­se the secu­ri­ty of citi­zens. Nowhe­re are the costs of poli­ce tele­pho­ne sur­veil­lan­ce as high as in Switz­er­land. It is also pos­si­ble, albeit very com­pli­ca­ted and expen­si­ve, to moni­tor tele­pho­ne calls trans­mit­ted over the Inter­net (e.g., in systems that allow chat­ting). The costs invol­ved mean that many inve­sti­ga­ting jud­ges and public pro­se­cu­tors refrain from such sur­veil­lan­ce as part of their inve­sti­ga­ti­ons, making it more dif­fi­cult or doo­ming it to failure.

State­ment of the Fede­ral Council

The mover of the moti­on demands that tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons ser­vice pro­vi­ders (TSPs) must alre­a­dy pro­vi­de visua­lizati­on systems for the data to be trans­mit­ted when new tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons ser­vices are intro­du­ced. Among other things, this is inten­ded to redu­ce moni­to­ring costs.

For the types of sur­veil­lan­ce regu­la­ted in the Ordi­nan­ce of 31 Octo­ber 2001 on the Sur­veil­lan­ce of Postal and Tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons Traf­fic (VÜPF, SR 780.11), the TSPs have the obli­ga­ti­on to imple­ment the tech­ni­cal gui­de­lines laid down by the Postal and Tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons Traf­fic Sur­veil­lan­ce Ser­vice (ÜPF) and to deli­ver tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons data accor­din­gly as a copy to the ÜPF ser­vice. For sur­veil­lan­ce mea­su­res orde­red and appro­ved by the com­pe­tent com­pul­so­ry mea­su­res court con­cer­ning new tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons ser­vices not yet spe­ci­fi­cal­ly regu­la­ted, the ÜPF ser­vice deter­mi­nes the tech­ni­cal imple­men­ta­ti­on in the indi­vi­du­al case (so-cal­led spe­cial sur­veil­lan­ce mea­su­re). In prac­ti­ce, it uses its own moni­to­ring tech­no­lo­gies for this pur­po­se. Pur­su­ant to Artic­le 15 of the Fede­ral Act of 6 Octo­ber 2000 on the Inter­cep­ti­on of Postal and Tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons Traf­fic (BÜPF, SR 780.1) and Artic­les 18 and 26 VÜPF, the TSP is alre­a­dy obli­ged to coope­ra­te and must be in a posi­ti­on to car­ry out sur­veil­lan­ce, i.e. to trans­mit cor­re­spon­ding data, as soon as a new tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons ser­vice com­men­ces cus­to­mer ope­ra­ti­ons. Rece­ipt and pro­ce­s­sing is car­ri­ed out by the ÜPF service.

The visua­lizati­on systems neces­sa­ry to ana­ly­ze the data pro­vi­ded by the FDA must be imple­men­ted on the pro­ce­s­sing system ope­ra­ted by the ser­vice OBPF. The ana­ly­sis of the data pro­vi­ded by the FDA should not be done by the pri­va­te FDA, becau­se it is an extre­me­ly sen­si­ti­ve law enforce­ment task. The sta­te would lose too much con­trol over the coll­ec­ted data, as it would have to be stored and inten­si­ve­ly pro­ce­s­sed by the FDA for visua­lizati­on. This would not be justi­fia­ble, espe­ci­al­ly for data pro­tec­tion rea­sons. The preli­mi­na­ry draft for the revi­si­on of the BÜPF also pro­vi­des for an obli­ga­ti­on on the part of the TSP to pro­vi­de the ÜPF ser­vice with detail­ed infor­ma­ti­on on new tech­no­lo­gies and tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons ser­vices at any time upon request. This ser­ves to ensu­re the abili­ty to moni­tor and is suf­fi­ci­ent from today’s per­spec­ti­ve. If all 700 to 800 pro­vi­ders were requi­red to crea­te their own visua­lizati­on systems, this would lead to an unma­na­geable num­ber of dif­fe­rent visua­lizati­on systems. This would be unsui­ta­ble for the law enforce­ment aut­ho­ri­ties and the ÜPF service.

Making the com­mer­cial appr­oval of new tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons ser­vices depen­dent on the suc­cessful imple­men­ta­ti­on and test­ing of FDA-spe­ci­fic visua­lizati­on systems would signi­fi­cant­ly slow down inno­va­ti­on. This is becau­se the cor­re­spon­ding detail­ed tech­ni­cal regu­la­ti­ons would first have to be drawn up and tested at rela­tively high expen­se. Moreo­ver, the pro­vi­si­on of tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons ser­vices is not sub­ject to licen­sing. Howe­ver, licen­ces are requi­red for the uni­ver­sal ser­vice (Art. 14 – 19b of the Tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons Act of 30 April 1997, TCA, SR 784.10, and Art. 12 – 26 of the Ordi­nan­ce of 9 March 2007 on Tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons Ser­vices, OTS, SR 784.101.1) and for the use of the radio fre­quen­cy spec­trum (Art. 22 – 27 TCA, Art. 15 – 48 of the Ordi­nan­ce of 9 March 2007 on Fre­quen­cy Manage­ment and Radio Licen­ces, OTS, SR 784.102.1). The rest­ric­tion to TSPs sub­ject to licen­sing is not justi­fi­ed from the point of view of monitoring.

In gene­ral, it must be noted with regard to moni­to­ring costs that TSPs in Switz­er­land are obli­ged to pro­cu­re and imple­ment the equip­ment neces­sa­ry for moni­to­ring at their own expen­se. In return, they are com­pen­sa­ted for the spe­ci­fic moni­to­ring mea­su­res. On the other hand, a distinc­tion must be made here bet­ween stan­dard moni­to­ring and spe­cial moni­to­ring mea­su­res. The more moni­to­ring that is car­ri­ed out as stan­dard cases, the grea­ter the chan­ce that the asso­cia­ted savings tar­gets can be rea­li­zed. Here, it is plan­ned to regu­la­te new tech­no­lo­gies such as the Inter­net and chat as stan­dard mea­su­res, thus enab­ling a uni­form and eco­no­mic­al deri­va­ti­on of data from moni­to­ring measures.

Con­clu­si­on: The FDAs must deli­ver the moni­to­ring data to the ser­vice ÜPF and remo­ve any encryp­ti­on they have atta­ched. The equip­ment neces­sa­ry for data deli­very must be acqui­red and imple­men­ted by the TSPs them­sel­ves at their own expen­se. The ÜPF ser­vice ope­ra­tes a pro­ce­s­sing system and per­forms the visua­lizati­on of the data to be deli­ver­ed. Trans­fer­ring this duty to the FDA would remo­ve con­trol over the coll­ec­ted data from the sta­te, which is not justi­fia­ble for data pro­tec­tion reasons.

Natio­nal Coun­cil Win­ter Ses­si­on 2012, 13.12.12

Aut­ho­ri­ty

Area

Topics

Rela­ted articles

Sub­scri­be