Take-Aways (AI)
  • The Fede­ral Coun­cil rejects a spe­cial cri­mi­nal lia­bi­li­ty for the publi­ca­ti­on of unlawful­ly obtai­ned data (data theft); exi­sting law is gene­ral­ly sufficient.
  • The FADP and SCC alre­a­dy cover the pro­tec­tion of par­ti­cu­lar­ly sen­si­ti­ve per­so­nal data; new cri­mi­nal offen­ses (e.g. iden­ti­ty misu­se) address cri­mi­nal fur­ther use.
  • The per­mis­si­bi­li­ty of publi­shing ille­gal­ly obtai­ned infor­ma­ti­on requi­res a case-by-case balan­cing of inte­rests bet­ween the public inte­rest and the pro­tec­tion of privacy.

Postu­la­te WAK-SR (23.4322): Hand­ling the fur­ther use of ille­gal­ly acqui­red data

Sub­mit­ted text

The Fede­ral Coun­cil is reque­sted to show in a report how the Legal pro­tec­tion of sen­si­ti­ve per­so­nal data befo­re publi­ca­ti­ons of this data by social and pri­va­te media can be impro­ved and at the same time a legi­ti­ma­te public inte­rest in cla­ri­fy­ing syste­ma­tic vio­la­ti­ons of the law can be taken into account. It should be exami­ned whe­ther the publi­ca­ti­on of unlawful­ly coll­ec­ted data should be made a cri­mi­nal offen­se (simi­lar to a ban on data theft).

In par­ti­cu­lar, it must be exami­ned whe­ther the Cri­mi­nal lia­bi­li­ty for the publi­ca­ti­on of per­so­nal or other sen­si­ti­ve data once obtai­ned or acqui­red unlawful­ly should be intro­du­ced and what the advan­ta­ges and dis­ad­van­ta­ges of such a regu­la­ti­on would be. Such a regu­la­ti­on should con­ti­n­ue to enable the work of the pro­se­cu­ti­on aut­ho­ri­ties, but it should also pro­tect the per­sons to be pro­tec­ted from pre­jud­ge­ment by the public and gene­ral­ly pro­tect their per­so­nal rights.

It is also to be exami­ned in which cases ille­gal­ly obtai­ned infor­ma­ti­on of all kinds may be published at all, or in which cir­cum­stances this is not per­mit­ted. public inte­rest over pri­va­te inte­rest, that the ille­gal­ly obtai­ned data may not be published and in which cases cri­mi­nal lia­bi­li­ty could be waived.

Justi­fi­ca­ti­on

In prin­ci­ple, per­so­nal data should gene­ral­ly remain pro­tec­ted, even if it has been acqui­red ille­gal­ly at a preli­mi­na­ry stage and publi­ca­ti­on is pre­ce­ded by a vio­la­ti­on of the law. This can be the case with a phy­si­cal theft or through cyber attacks which take pre­ce­dence over publi­ca­ti­on in a social or pri­va­te medium.

If a com­pa­ny syste­ma­ti­cal­ly vio­la­tes the law (e.g. vio­la­ti­on of the ban on cor­rup­ti­on or a syste­ma­tic vio­la­ti­on of money laun­de­ring legis­la­ti­on), the­re is a public inte­rest in having gene­ral know­ledge of this, but not a public inte­rest in the ille­gal­ly acqui­red per­so­nal data. This data can be made available to the cri­mi­nal pro­se­cu­ti­on aut­ho­ri­ties in order to initia­te pro­ce­e­dings in accordance with the rule of law.

Sen­si­ti­ve infor­ma­ti­on and per­so­nal data are incre­a­sing­ly coming into the pos­ses­si­on of third par­ties through upstream ille­gal acti­vi­ties (theft by employees or cyber attacks, etc.). In the­se cases, it should con­ti­n­ue to be ensu­red that pro­ce­e­dings are con­duc­ted in accordance with the rule of law against vio­la­ti­ons of the law, but that public pre­jud­ge­ment can be pre­ven­ted in the future.

Opi­ni­on of the Fede­ral Coun­cil of 29.11.2023

The intro­duc­tion of cri­mi­nal lia­bi­li­ty for the fur­ther use of unlawful­ly obtai­ned or acqui­red data was alre­a­dy the sub­ject of the Moti­on 22.4325 Hur­ni“It is important to punish the theft of digi­tal data”. In its state­ment of 15.2.2023 on this mat­ter, the Fede­ral Coun­cil sta­ted that the appli­ca­ble sub­stan­ti­ve legal situa­ti­on is in prin­ci­ple suf­fi­ci­ent to record any fur­ther use of ille­gal­ly acqui­red data. It is also con­vin­ced today that the con­cept of recei­ving sto­len goods in accordance with Artic­le 160 of the Swiss Cri­mi­nal Code (SCC, SR 311.0) rela­tes to pro­per­ty and pro­tects the right to resto­ra­ti­on of the lawful owner­ship. This con­cept, which is cha­rac­te­ri­zed by pro­per­ty law, can­not be trans­fer­red unque­stio­nin­gly to the logic of any fur­ther use of data. The­re are diver­gent pro­tec­tion requi­re­ments for pro­per­ty on the one hand and for data and infor­ma­ti­on on the other. The Fede­ral Coun­cil has the­r­e­fo­re alre­a­dy ans­we­red the que­sti­on of whe­ther the publi­ca­ti­on of ille­gal­ly coll­ec­ted data should be spe­ci­fi­cal­ly cri­mi­na­li­zed (simi­lar to a ban on data theft) in the negative.
The Swiss Cri­mi­nal Code and the Fede­ral Act on Data Pro­tec­tion (FADP, SR 235.1) also alre­a­dy cover con­stel­la­ti­ons in which the publi­ca­ti­on of cer­tain data (by social or pri­va­te media, but also in gene­ral) is pro­hi­bi­ted. Spe­ci­fic important cate­go­ries of data are the­r­e­fo­re alre­a­dy pro­tec­ted by law. For exam­p­le, any pro­ce­s­sing and the­r­e­fo­re also the trans­mis­si­on or dis­clo­sure of per­so­nal data (Art. 2 FADP) is regu­la­ted by law. In addi­ti­on, the unaut­ho­ri­zed pro­cu­re­ment of per­so­nal data is also cover­ed by core cri­mi­nal law in Artic­le 179novies StGB. This pro­tec­tion covers all par­ti­cu­lar­ly sen­si­ti­ve per­so­nal data, which in prin­ci­ple also inclu­des sen­si­ti­ve per­so­nal data such as health data (Art. 5 lit. c no. 2 FADP). As part of the revi­si­on of the FADP, a new cri­mi­nal offen­se against iden­ti­ty misu­se and theft of a cor­re­spon­ding iden­ti­ty (Art. 179decies StGB) was also intro­du­ced on 1.9.2023, which covers the cri­mi­nal fur­ther use of data. Con­se­quent­ly, cri­mi­nal lia­bi­li­ty with regard to the publi­ca­ti­on and use of data is alre­a­dy pos­si­ble today and depends pri­ma­ri­ly on which data and which pro­tec­tion inte­rests are affec­ted in a spe­ci­fic case.

The que­sti­on of in which cases ille­gal­ly obtai­ned infor­ma­ti­on of all kinds may be published, or in which cir­cum­stances the public inte­rest out­weighs the pri­va­te inte­rest in not publi­shing the ille­gal­ly obtai­ned data, can­not be ans­we­red in a gene­ra­li­zed and abstract man­ner. Within the frame­work of a spe­ci­fic pro­ce­du­re, the appli­ca­ble law alre­a­dy allo­ws the inte­rests of the public inte­rest in publi­ca­ti­on to be weig­hed up against the pri­va­te inte­rest of the per­son con­cer­ned in con­fi­den­tia­li­ty, which is wort­hy of pro­tec­tion. The legal assess­ment of the inte­rests in que­sti­on depends lar­ge­ly on the indi­vi­du­al case. In addi­ti­on, exi­sting spe­cial or can­to­nal legal pro­vi­si­ons or, for exam­p­le, sta­tu­to­ry con­fi­den­tia­li­ty or sec­re­cy obli­ga­ti­ons such as pro­fes­sio­nal sec­re­cy (Art. 321 StGB, Art. 321bis StGB), postal and tele­com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons sec­re­cy (Art. 321ter StGB), busi­ness and manu­fac­tu­ring sec­re­cy (Art. 162 StGB) or ban­king sec­re­cy (Art. 47 Ban­king Act, SR 952.0) may be rele­vant for weig­hing up inte­rests. Over­all, the que­sti­on of the per­mis­si­bi­li­ty of publi­ca­ti­on must the­r­e­fo­re be ans­we­red in each case against the back­ground of the spe­ci­fic cir­cum­stances and by the com­pe­tent authorities.
In view of the exi­sting legal situa­ti­on descri­bed abo­ve, the Fede­ral Coun­cil does not see any signi­fi­cant added value in report­ing on the issues of cri­mi­na­li­zing the use of ille­gal­ly obtai­ned data and the per­mis­si­bi­li­ty of publi­ca­ti­on for over­ri­ding inte­rests. It con­ti­nues to fol­low inter­na­tio­nal deve­lo­p­ments in this area clo­se­ly, par­ti­cu­lar­ly in the con­text of the ongo­ing nego­tia­ti­ons with Switz­er­land on a UN con­ven­ti­on on cybercrime.