[ad_1]
Electronic identification
Federal Filing: Federal Law on Electronic Identification Services
-
Y
575’802
be right -
DO NOT
952’675
be right
- SRG’s extrapolation in the vote on the E-ID Law shows a clear rejection of the E-ID Law.
- According to an extrapolation, 64 percent of the electorate reject the law. The error range is +/- 2 percent.
- The point of discussion in the presentation was the task of individuals with the proposed E-ID solution.
Volage’s opponents managed to consistently attack a weak point in the bill, says Lukas Golder, a gfs.bern political scientist in the SRF voting study. It was about distrust of corporations. “He quickly got the feeling that the template might not work as well,” says Golder.
The template should allow to obtain goods or services more quickly and safely on the Internet with an electronic identity or to deal with administrative tasks. Basically hardly anyone had anything to complain about. However, the division of roles between the state and individuals in the E-ID Act was controversial.
The National Council and the Council of States passed the federal law on electronic identification services in fall 2019 with clear majorities.
Vote by referendum
Against this, the referendum has been called. It was launched by Digital Society and is supported by SP, Greens, Pirate Party, VPOD, Internet Society Switzerland, Association Public Beta, Grundrechte.ch, and senior citizen organizations.
Above all, opponents criticized the role of private companies that supposedly issue the E-ID. Under the law, federal authorities would only have been responsible for identifying one person. According to opponents, an e-ID is only reliable if it is state-owned.
Various control mechanisms
Proponents of the E-ID law, on the other hand, refer to the strict data protection regulations. Parliament has further strengthened data protection. The Federal Public Information and Data Protection Officer (Edöb) also advocated for the proposal, also because its role would have been strengthened by law.
Under the law, a state commission should have been responsible for the recognition of E-ID issuers and should have supervised them. Providers of an electronic identification should not have merged the person and transaction data or used it for other purposes. The transaction data should have been deleted after six months.
