[…] Thus, […] the SPK-SR pro­po­ses to its Coun­cil to devia­te from the reso­lu­ti­ons of the Natio­nal Coun­cil in seve­ral points; this in par­ti­cu­lar whe­re the ver­si­on adopted by the lar­ge cham­ber repres­ents a step back­wards from the appli­ca­ble law or would offer less pro­tec­tion than EU law.

The SPK-SR has unani­mously deci­ded to Data on uni­on views or acti­vi­ties back into the list of per­so­nal data requi­ring spe­cial pro­tec­tion (Art. 4 let. c no. 1 E‑DSG) and thus avo­id a dif­fe­rence to EU law.

The SPK-SR also unani­mously deci­ded, to remo­ve the exemp­ti­on from the obli­ga­ti­on to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on in the case of dis­pro­por­tio­na­te effort (Art. 18 para. 1 let. e E‑DSG), which had been intro­du­ced by the Natio­nal Council.

Also unani­mously the Com­mis­si­on refrains from intro­du­cing an exhaus­ti­ve list of the infor­ma­ti­on to be pro­vi­ded when exer­cis­ing the right of access (Art. 23 para. 2 E‑DSG), as requi­red by the Natio­nal Council.

As far as cri­mi­nal sanc­tions are con­cer­ned, the SPK-SR pro­po­ses by 6 votes to 0 with 2 abst­en­ti­ons that – as pro­po­sed by the Fede­ral Coun­cil – the inten­tio­nal Non-com­pli­ance with data secu­ri­ty requi­re­ments pena­li­zed will.

[…] In addi­ti­on to the afo­re­men­tio­ned points, which are cru­cial for the reco­gni­ti­on of the equi­va­lence of Swiss data pro­tec­tion law by the EU, the SPK-SR has also devia­ted from the reso­lu­ti­ons of the Natio­nal Coun­cil in the fol­lo­wing points in order to increa­se the level of protection.

One of the cen­tral points of the law is the Pro­fil­ing. Alre­a­dy in the deba­te of the first Coun­cil it was reco­gnized that the regu­la­ti­on of this type of data pro­ce­s­sing accor­ding to the Natio­nal Coun­cil vari­ant con­ta­ins gaps and requi­res revi­si­on. This posi­ti­on was shared by the SPK-SR and, fol­lo­wing a more in-depth dis­cus­sion of this issue, it agreed by 8 votes to 2 with 1 abst­en­ti­on. advo­ca­ted a com­pro­mi­se solu­ti­on, which is the Inclu­des term “high-risk pro­fil­ing” in data pro­tec­tion law and a increa­sed pro­tec­tion if the data pro­ce­s­sing falls under this cate­go­ry. The mino­ri­ty wants to stick to the ori­gi­nal ver­si­on of the Fede­ral Coun­cil, which pro­vi­des for increa­sed pro­tec­tion in the case of data pro­ce­s­sing for pro­fil­ing pur­po­ses and refrains from dif­fe­ren­tia­ting in the risk defi­ni­ti­on in the law.

The SPK-SR is also of the opi­ni­on that the rights of tho­se per­sons who are sub­ject to a Cre­dit check must be streng­the­ned. With this in mind, it has, among other things, unani­mously rest­ric­ted the pro­ce­s­sing of data that is are older than five years or minors concern.

In order to address con­cerns on the part of media com­pa­nies that the new law could make jour­na­li­stic work more dif­fi­cult, the SPK-SR is reque­st­ing a cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­on, which will now also allow the Jour­na­li­stic rese­arch cover­ed by the justi­fi­ca­ti­on ground will be. This means that media can justi­fy data pro­ce­s­sing that vio­la­tes per­so­nal rights even if this data was coll­ec­ted and stored with a view to publi­ca­ti­on, even if the publi­ca­ti­on is not published.

With regard to the faci­li­ta­ti­ons from which com­pa­nies that appoint data pro­tec­tion advi­sors can bene­fit, the SPK-SR fol­lo­wed the Natio­nal Coun­cil by 7 votes to 4. In the eyes of the com­mis­si­on, this can streng­then self-regu­la­ti­on and the com­pa­nies’ sen­se of respon­si­bi­li­ty. The mino­ri­ty requests the dele­ti­on of the­se faci­li­ta­ti­ons, as com­pa­nies do not need incen­ti­ves for the appoint­ment of such advisors.