Moti­on Lev­rat (16.4082): Making it easier for law enforce­ment aut­ho­ri­ties to access data from social networks

Moti­on Lev­rat (16.4082): Making it easier for law enforce­ment aut­ho­ri­ties to access data from social networks

Sub­mit­ted text

The Fede­ral Coun­cil is ins­truc­ted to draft an amend­ment to the Fede­ral Act on Data Pro­tec­tion, the Tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons Act or ano­ther sui­ta­ble law with the fol­lo­wing cla­im: Social net­works that tar­get Swiss con­su­mers with their ser­vices and pro­cess per­so­nal data in the pro­cess should have a repre­sen­ta­ti­ve in Switz­er­land that can direct­ly trans­mit the data requi­red for the pro­ce­e­dings to the Swiss law enforce­ment aut­ho­ri­ties wit­hout the aut­ho­ri­ty con­cer­ned having to app­ly for inter­na­tio­nal mutu­al legal assi­stance in cri­mi­nal matters.

Justi­fi­ca­ti­on

In its report in respon­se to the postu­la­te 11.3912 the Fede­ral Coun­cil com­men­ted on social net­works as fol­lows: “Based on pre­vious expe­ri­ence, no major regu­la­to­ry gaps jump to mind in cur­rent Swiss law.” Unfort­u­n­a­te­ly, recent case law shows that the situa­ti­on has chan­ged. In the Fede­ral Court decis­i­on 1B_185/2016, 1B_186/2016 and 1B_188/2016 of Novem­ber 16, 2016, the Fede­ral Court ruled in favor of Face­book Switz­er­land to the detri­ment of the Vau­dois public prosecutor’s office, which had deman­ded the sur­ren­der of users’ per­so­nal data in the con­text of cri­mi­nal pro­ce­e­dings. In fact, Face­book Switz­er­land is only respon­si­ble for mar­ke­ting issues, does not have any data and does not have access to it. The public prosecutor’s office must the­r­e­fo­re cont­act Face­book Ire­land by means of an inter­na­tio­nal request for legal assi­stance (Face­book Ire­land holds the data of Swiss users). This is a leng­thy and tedious pro­cess with an uncer­tain outcome.

This situa­ti­on is unsa­tis­fac­to­ry. Social net­works like Face­book, which offer their ser­vices to Swiss con­su­mers, are acti­ve in Switz­er­land wit­hout having a branch here. They must the­r­e­fo­re be able to be held accoun­ta­ble or coope­ra­te with the judi­cia­ry just like any other natu­ral or legal person.

The case that Bel­gi­um brought against Yahoo Inc. and won (cf. judgment of the Bel­gi­an Court of Cas­sa­ti­on of Decem­ber 1, 2015) shows that it is enti­re­ly pos­si­ble to obli­ge pro­vi­ders of Inter­net ser­vices to coope­ra­te with the natio­nal judi­cia­ry, even in sta­tes whe­re they have no repre­sen­ta­ti­on, or – as in the case of Face­book Switz­er­land against the Vau­dois public prosecutor’s office – even if the repre­sen­ta­ti­on does not have access to the users’ data.

State­ment of the Fede­ral Coun­cil of 15.2.2018

The moti­on requi­res that inter­na­tio­nal­ly acti­ve social media com­pa­nies must have a repre­sen­ta­ti­ve office in Switz­er­landif they offer ser­vices to Swiss con­su­mers and pro­cess their per­so­nal data. This repre­sen­ta­ti­on should be able to pro­vi­de data to the Swiss aut­ho­ri­ties in cri­mi­nal pro­ce­e­dings wit­hout the need for a request for mutu­al legal assi­stance to ano­ther state.

As far as can be seen, the­re are no models in other count­ries for a model such as the one pro­po­sed in the moti­on.. The Bel­gi­an case men­tio­ned in the moti­on is not trans­fera­ble to the request of the moti­on: The request was in fact sent by the Bel­gi­an law enforce­ment aut­ho­ri­ties direct­ly to Yahoo! Inc. (USA), as the com­pa­ny had no repre­sen­ta­ti­on in Bel­gi­um. In ano­ther case, Micro­soft Cor­po­ra­ti­on (USA) could not be requi­red by the Ame­ri­can aut­ho­ri­ties to hand over emails stored in Ire­land becau­se of the ter­ri­to­ri­a­li­ty of the laws. Howe­ver, the same court decis­i­on notes that this situa­ti­on is unsatisfactory.

The Fede­ral Coun­cil also con­siders the cur­rent situa­ti­on unsa­tis­fac­to­ry and is loo­king for prac­ti­ca­ble and justi­cia­ble solu­ti­ons. Howe­ver, it does not con­sider the path pro­po­sed by the moti­on to be pro­mi­singThe obli­ga­ti­on that a com­pa­ny who­se social media offe­ring can also be used from Switz­er­land would have to estab­lish a repre­sen­ta­ti­ve office in our coun­try could hard­ly be enforced. In addi­ti­on, a social media com­pa­ny with a repre­sen­ta­ti­ve office in Switz­er­land could be obli­ged to hand over data if neces­sa­ry. Howe­ver, if the data were stored abroad, such an obli­ga­ti­on could not be enforced direct­ly by public aut­ho­ri­ties.. In this case, too, the data would have to be reque­sted by means of mutu­al legal assistance.

In line with the cross-bor­der ori­en­ta­ti­on of social media, solu­ti­ons must be sought pri­ma­ri­ly within the frame­work of inter­na­tio­nal coope­ra­ti­on. The aim is not to cir­cum­vent mutu­al legal assi­stance uni­la­te­ral­ly, but to impro­ve and acce­le­ra­te coope­ra­ti­on. Efforts to this end are under­way at the inter­na­tio­nal level. The Cyber­crime Com­mit­tee of the Coun­cil of Euro­pe, to which count­ries such as the USA, Japan, Cana­da and Austra­lia also belong, is working on pro­po­sals to enable law enforce­ment aut­ho­ri­ties to obtain elec­tro­nic bor­der or traf­fic data abroad within a rea­sonable peri­od of time. Switz­er­land, tog­e­ther with other signa­to­ry sta­tes, is working hard to achie­ve a prac­ti­cal solu­ti­on within the frame­work of the Cyber­crime Convention.

The Fede­ral Coun­cil is thus alre­a­dy in the pro­cess of exami­ning mea­su­res for faster data han­do­ver in an open-ended man­ner, careful­ly taking into account the prin­ci­ples of sta­te sove­reig­n­ty and ter­ri­to­ri­a­li­ty as well as mutu­al legal assi­stance in cri­mi­nal mat­ters and data protection.

Aut­ho­ri­ty

Area

Topics

Rela­ted articles

Sub­scri­be