6 ms·

They most certainly do need a court order. See Art. 40 and Art. 41. of the NDG.

by href 10y ago

jcfrei 10y ago
That requirement for a court order is greatly diminished by Art. 30: Verfahren bei Dringlichkeit. It establishes that the federal intelligence service can tap wires without court orders in urgent cases. And let's be honest here, if tapping a wire turns up nothing, do you really expect them to follow the protocol and actually inform the agencies (like the federal administrative court)? I don't have that level of trust in the intelligence service.
- href 10y ago
  That's the thing isn't it. If I don't trust my government to follow the law, then it doesn't matter what surveillance law we have. The whole vote was a vote of confidence as a result.
  - tobltobs 10y ago
    He didn't say, that he does not trust the government, he has problems trusting the intelligence service. The Swiss intelligence service did prove often enough that you can't trust him to respect the law or being especially talented to do his job in a appropriate way.
    - href 10y ago
      Sure, still a vote about trust though. My point being that you are asking people if they trust a certain government entity or not. Apparently the trust is there.
  - Annatar 10y ago
    My impression is that it was a vote spurned by desire for security and stability, before anything else.
tobltobs 10y ago
They most certainly do NOT need a court order. Art. 40. and 41. are only relevant if the sender and receiver are located in Switzerland. What a "sender and receiver" exactly means (User, Website, Server, Router, ...) is not defined, imho by intention.
- href 10y ago
  That's not at all how I understand it, though I am not a lawyer. Art. 38 basically says that the Nachrichtendienst can intercept data, unless sender and receiver are Swiss (those are indeed defined broadly). Paragraph 2 of Art. 38 basically excludes all swiss-to-swiss cable-communication for the remainder of the text. Art. 39 then says there needs to be a court order (though there are emergency provisions). It is my understanding of those laws that a Swiss to Swiss sender/receiver connection may never be intercepted, while all other connections may be intercepted by following Art. 40. and 41.

They most certainly do need a court order. See Art. 40 and Art. 41. of the NDG.

by href 10y ago

They most certainly do need a court order. See Art. 40 and Art. 41. of the NDG.

That requirement for a court order is greatly diminished by Art. 30: Verfahren bei Dringlichkeit. It establishes that the federal intelligence service can tap wires without court orders in urgent cases. And let's be honest here, if tapping a wire turns up nothing, do you really expect them to follow the protocol and actually inform the agencies (like the federal administrative court)? I don't have that level of trust in the intelligence service.

href 10y ago
That's the thing isn't it. If I don't trust my government to follow the law, then it doesn't matter what surveillance law we have. The whole vote was a vote of confidence as a result.
- tobltobs 10y ago
  He didn't say, that he does not trust the government, he has problems trusting the intelligence service. The Swiss intelligence service did prove often enough that you can't trust him to respect the law or being especially talented to do his job in a appropriate way.
  - href 10y ago
    Sure, still a vote about trust though. My point being that you are asking people if they trust a certain government entity or not. Apparently the trust is there.
- Annatar 10y ago
  My impression is that it was a vote spurned by desire for security and stability, before anything else.

tobltobs 10y ago

They most certainly do NOT need a court order. Art. 40. and 41. are only relevant if the sender and receiver are located in Switzerland. What a "sender and receiver" exactly means (User, Website, Server, Router, ...) is not defined, imho by intention.

href 10y ago
That's not at all how I understand it, though I am not a lawyer. Art. 38 basically says that the Nachrichtendienst can intercept data, unless sender and receiver are Swiss (those are indeed defined broadly). Paragraph 2 of Art. 38 basically excludes all swiss-to-swiss cable-communication for the remainder of the text. Art. 39 then says there needs to be a court order (though there are emergency provisions). It is my understanding of those laws that a Swiss to Swiss sender/receiver connection may never be intercepted, while all other connections may be intercepted by following Art. 40. and 41.