18 ms·

This law change died in the "Vernehmlassung" which is early in the process. It's dead with opposition from all sides of the political spectrum. It had no chance

This law change died in the "Vernehmlassung" which is early in the process. It's dead with opposition from all sides of the political spectrum. It had no chance. https://www.inside-it.ch/vupf-revision-faellt-in-der-vernehmlassung-komplett-durch-20250507 https://www.inside-it.ch/vupf-revision-faellt-in-der-vernehm...

j45 1y ago
It’s odd people don’t push for laws to prevent for these kinds of laws to keep bubbling up every few years.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - zugi 1y ago
    Thanks, I LOLed!
- bdangubic 1y ago
  every law is temporal, until it gets re-written or killed outright
- edent 1y ago
  The law can't bind future lawmakers. That's a common feature of every legal system. Any legal system can pass a law saying "we revoke this previous law".
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    This is what constitutions are for. When you have the support, you install a constitutional protection that says the government can't do this. Repealing the protection requires the same super-majority needed to pass it, so changing the law isn't just a matter of the tyrants needing to get back to 51% from 49%, they have to get from 33% to 67%. Then you layer these protections against multiple levels of government so they'd all have to be repealed together by separate legislatures before the government is allowed to do it, discouraging the attempt.
    - brnt 1y ago
      Constitutions are amended all the time. The French even have a proces for reboots of the Republic. These are goods things.
      - puzzledobserver 1y ago
        The Indian Supreme Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine in 1970, allowing the judiciary to overrule constitutional amendments if they are found to contradict the "basic structure" of the constitution. It's original purpose, if I understand correctly, was to guarantee that fundamental rights were an essential part of the constitution and couldn't be amended away. Wikipedia says that multiple countries appear to have adopted the principle: Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Uganda.
      - landl0rd 1y ago
        No it's not. Constitutions are the bones of a republic. They are the framework that gives the government power and that checks that power. Letting it mess with that too much or too often is bad. Constitutions should be simple. They should delegate very little power to governments and focus mostly on constraining those governments. They should be changed very rarely. Adaptable government with changing scopes belongs at lower levels of governance (mostly very local) or nowhere.
        maigret 1y ago
        France disagrees. They iterated 5 times on it and it fixed big flaws each time. What keeps a country in check is not a constitution but a politically informed and active population. The US shows us right now that the constitution is just a piece of paper.
        landl0rd 1y ago
        France had a vastly bloodier path to that constitution as you know. And france’s constitution today is pretty bad. It fails to protect basic freedoms like speech and arms. It moves too much responsibility to the feds. Etc.
  - j45 1y ago
    An existing law can be different to change, than where non exists and its greenfield for something half baked to roll in.
  - beeflet 1y ago
    In the USA we have amendments to the constitution, which take considerable political effort to change. These amendments can restrict the types of laws that may be passed. This system works because the changes are not just recorded in the paper of some lawbook, but in the minds of the people.
  - Hard_Space 1y ago
    This was my understanding, which is why I was so surprised to read of Trump's edict preventing state-level AI laws for ten years.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - _Algernon_ 1y ago
    This is not true in practice. Inertia and international law / agreements bind future lawmakers. If one government joins the EU, the next still has to follow EU law even if EU law changes.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  Either the people living in the country at the time rule (directly or through representatives), or its not a democracy, but (if they are ruled by the people, or their representatives, of the past) a thanatocracy.
- tempodox 1y ago
  That prevention is called the Constitution. It regulates what kinds of law can or cannot be made.
- hulitu 1y ago
  > It’s odd people don’t push for laws to prevent for these kinds of laws to keep bubbling up every few years. People don't have a lot of money and a revolving door with the government, like the lobby industry has. As long as corruption is legalized, in the form of lobby, regular people will find it very hard to influence the government.
KennyBlanken 1y ago
Proton being about as brave as putting an apple on one's head and a blindfold on....in front of an infant with the parts of a Glock in front of them and no ammunition What a bunch of performative nonsense on their behalf.
Aeyxen 1y ago
Even if the revision is 'dead' now, the precedent is set: the Swiss government’s willingness to consider gutting core privacy protections rewrites the risk calculation for every privacy-focused provider headquartered there. If you architect your infrastructure around non-retention, even a temporarily defeated law signals it’s time to future-proof elsewhere.
- Anamon 1y ago
  There is no precedent here. There are politicians advocating for this kind of stuff everywhere, that doesn't indicate the likelihood of a law like this passing. Anyone can suggest a law. The stage this one failed in is explicitly meant to gauge if there would be any reasonable support to get it passed. The answer was a resounding No. Even if it proceeded, it would have quite likely lead to a popular referendum due to Switzerland's system of direct democracy. I'd say not many places in the world have as strong defenses against laws like this as Switzerland. Of course, it doesn't mean that it's not important to highlight when such ideas do crop up, and especially naming and shaming who/where they come from. I'm glad Proton et al. spoke out.
  - Aeyxen 1y ago
    Yeah, I hope that as well.
  - m_mueller 1y ago
    I will say that the last few people’s votes on this didn’t go our way, e.g. “Vorratsdatenspeicherung”, storing telecommunications data for the case of an injunction. It’s always easy to use FUD to get people to give up some rights they think aren’t important.
Tika2234 1y ago
Th government will just try and try again with "softer" version of the law until they get what they want even if it is 10-20 years from now. I am not surprise government justify it something along the line of "think of the children".

j45 1y ago

It’s odd people don’t push for laws to prevent for these kinds of laws to keep bubbling up every few years.

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
[flagged]
- zugi 1y ago
  Thanks, I LOLed!
bdangubic 1y ago
every law is temporal, until it gets re-written or killed outright
edent 1y ago
The law can't bind future lawmakers. That's a common feature of every legal system. Any legal system can pass a law saying "we revoke this previous law".
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  This is what constitutions are for. When you have the support, you install a constitutional protection that says the government can't do this. Repealing the protection requires the same super-majority needed to pass it, so changing the law isn't just a matter of the tyrants needing to get back to 51% from 49%, they have to get from 33% to 67%. Then you layer these protections against multiple levels of government so they'd all have to be repealed together by separate legislatures before the government is allowed to do it, discouraging the attempt.
  - brnt 1y ago
    Constitutions are amended all the time. The French even have a proces for reboots of the Republic. These are goods things.
    - puzzledobserver 1y ago
      The Indian Supreme Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine in 1970, allowing the judiciary to overrule constitutional amendments if they are found to contradict the "basic structure" of the constitution. It's original purpose, if I understand correctly, was to guarantee that fundamental rights were an essential part of the constitution and couldn't be amended away. Wikipedia says that multiple countries appear to have adopted the principle: Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Uganda.
    - landl0rd 1y ago
      No it's not. Constitutions are the bones of a republic. They are the framework that gives the government power and that checks that power. Letting it mess with that too much or too often is bad. Constitutions should be simple. They should delegate very little power to governments and focus mostly on constraining those governments. They should be changed very rarely. Adaptable government with changing scopes belongs at lower levels of governance (mostly very local) or nowhere.
      - maigret 1y ago
        France disagrees. They iterated 5 times on it and it fixed big flaws each time. What keeps a country in check is not a constitution but a politically informed and active population. The US shows us right now that the constitution is just a piece of paper.
        landl0rd 1y ago
        France had a vastly bloodier path to that constitution as you know. And france’s constitution today is pretty bad. It fails to protect basic freedoms like speech and arms. It moves too much responsibility to the feds. Etc.
- j45 1y ago
  An existing law can be different to change, than where non exists and its greenfield for something half baked to roll in.
- beeflet 1y ago
  In the USA we have amendments to the constitution, which take considerable political effort to change. These amendments can restrict the types of laws that may be passed. This system works because the changes are not just recorded in the paper of some lawbook, but in the minds of the people.
- Hard_Space 1y ago
  This was my understanding, which is why I was so surprised to read of Trump's edict preventing state-level AI laws for ten years.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- _Algernon_ 1y ago
  This is not true in practice. Inertia and international law / agreements bind future lawmakers. If one government joins the EU, the next still has to follow EU law even if EU law changes.
dragonwriter 1y ago
Either the people living in the country at the time rule (directly or through representatives), or its not a democracy, but (if they are ruled by the people, or their representatives, of the past) a thanatocracy.
tempodox 1y ago
That prevention is called the Constitution. It regulates what kinds of law can or cannot be made.
hulitu 1y ago
> It’s odd people don’t push for laws to prevent for these kinds of laws to keep bubbling up every few years. People don't have a lot of money and a revolving door with the government, like the lobby industry has. As long as corruption is legalized, in the form of lobby, regular people will find it very hard to influence the government.

KennyBlanken 1y ago

Proton being about as brave as putting an apple on one's head and a blindfold on....in front of an infant with the parts of a Glock in front of them and no ammunition What a bunch of performative nonsense on their behalf.

Aeyxen 1y ago

Even if the revision is 'dead' now, the precedent is set: the Swiss government’s willingness to consider gutting core privacy protections rewrites the risk calculation for every privacy-focused provider headquartered there. If you architect your infrastructure around non-retention, even a temporarily defeated law signals it’s time to future-proof elsewhere.

Anamon 1y ago
There is no precedent here. There are politicians advocating for this kind of stuff everywhere, that doesn't indicate the likelihood of a law like this passing. Anyone can suggest a law. The stage this one failed in is explicitly meant to gauge if there would be any reasonable support to get it passed. The answer was a resounding No. Even if it proceeded, it would have quite likely lead to a popular referendum due to Switzerland's system of direct democracy. I'd say not many places in the world have as strong defenses against laws like this as Switzerland. Of course, it doesn't mean that it's not important to highlight when such ideas do crop up, and especially naming and shaming who/where they come from. I'm glad Proton et al. spoke out.
- Aeyxen 1y ago
  Yeah, I hope that as well.
- m_mueller 1y ago
  I will say that the last few people’s votes on this didn’t go our way, e.g. “Vorratsdatenspeicherung”, storing telecommunications data for the case of an injunction. It’s always easy to use FUD to get people to give up some rights they think aren’t important.

Tika2234 1y ago

Th government will just try and try again with "softer" version of the law until they get what they want even if it is 10-20 years from now. I am not surprise government justify it something along the line of "think of the children".