SPK‑N: Flag on the E‑DSG published

The Flag con­cer­ning the for­mal pro­po­sals of the Natio­nal Council’s Sta­te Poli­cy Com­mit­tee (SPK-N) of Janu­ary 23, 2020 has now been published. Accor­ding to this, the­re are essen­ti­al­ly the fol­lo­wing offi­ci­al appli­ca­ti­ons of the SPK-N to the Natio­nal Council:

  • High-risk pro­fil­ing (Art. 4 lit. f E-FDPA): A mino­ri­ty requests the fol­lo­wing wor­ding with regard to this term: “.Pro­fil­ing, which results in per­so­nal data requi­ring spe­cial pro­tec­tion”. The wor­ding of the pro­po­sal thus devia­tes from the Coun­cil of Sta­tes’ rede­fi­ni­ti­on of the term and rest­ricts it to pro­fil­ing mea­su­res that lead to per­so­nal data requi­ring spe­cial protection.
  • In con­nec­tion with the duty of the con­trol­ler to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on (Art. 17 E-.FDPA), neither infor­ma­ti­on on the rights of the data sub­ject nor the inten­ti­on to use per­so­nal data for the pur­po­se of cre­dit checks shall be cover­ed by the afo­re­men­tio­ned obli­ga­ti­on. Regar­ding the excep­ti­ons to the obli­ga­ti­on to pro­vi­de infor­ma­ti­on (Art. 18 E-FDPA), a mino­ri­ty pro­po­sal sta­tes that, con­tra­ry to the pro­po­sal of the Coun­cil of Sta­tes, a dis­pro­por­tio­na­te effort should make a cor­re­spon­ding obli­ga­ti­on on the part of the respon­si­ble par­ty superfluous.
  • Right to infor­ma­ti­on (Art. 23 E-FDPA): A mino­ri­ty amend­ment requi­res that data sub­jects be allo­wed to request infor­ma­ti­on about the exi­stence of auto­ma­ted indi­vi­du­al decis­i­on-making and about the logic under­ly­ing this pro­ce­du­re if it is asso­cia­ted with a nega­ti­ve legal con­se­quence or impair­ment. Infor­ma­ti­on about pos­si­ble pro­ce­s­sing for the pur­po­se of checking cre­dit­wort­hi­ness is to be deleted.
  • Grounds for justi­fi­ca­ti­on (Art. 27 E-FDPA): the Com­mis­si­on for­mu­la­tes seve­ral requests regar­ding the justi­fi­ca­ti­on of pro­ce­s­sing for cre­dit­wort­hi­ness pur­po­ses: a majo­ri­ty request main­ta­ins the ori­gi­nal pro­po­sal of its Cham­ber and wants to allow them if no par­ti­cu­lar­ly sen­si­ti­ve per­so­nal data are invol­ved (Art. 27(2)(c) E‑CODE).FDPA). Howe­ver, the mino­ri­ty pro­po­sal fol­lows the Coun­cil of Sta­tes and does not want to allow such pro­ce­s­sing if it invol­ves high-risk pro­fil­ing. Fur­ther­mo­re, per­so­nal data may only be dis­c­lo­sed to third par­ties if they are not older than 10 years; the requi­re­ment to expli­ci­t­ly sta­te the prin­ci­ple of pro­por­tio­na­li­ty is to be drop­ped com­pared to the ori­gi­nal pro­po­sal of the Natio­nal Coun­cil (Art. 27 Para. 2 lit. c No. 2 E-FDPA). In addi­ti­on, ano­ther mino­ri­ty, in accordance with the Council’s ori­gi­nal pro­po­sal, requests the dele­ti­on of the pro­vi­si­on accor­ding to which per­so­nal data may only be dis­c­lo­sed to third par­ties if this con­cerns adults (Art. 27 para. 2 lit. c no. 4 E‑IV).FDPA).
  • Group pri­vi­le­ge: Both for the duty to inform (Art. 18 para. 4 E-FDPA) as well as for the right to infor­ma­ti­on (Art. 24 para. 2to E-FDPA) as well as in the grounds for justi­fi­ca­ti­on (Art. 27 para. 2 lit. b E-.FDPA), the pro­po­sed group pri­vi­le­ge is con­firm­ed (cf. also Blog post from 25 Janu­ary 2020).

The pro­po­sals will be dis­cus­sed in the upco­ming spring ses­si­on (March 2 – 20, 2020) in the Natio­nal Coun­cil. It the­r­e­fo­re remains to be seen what the out­co­me of the­se dis­cus­sions will be.

Aut­ho­ri­ty

Area

Topics

Rela­ted articles

Sub­scri­be