Filtering & Wiretapping Criminal Law and the New Federal Wiretapping Law Filtering & Wiretapping Criminal Law and the New Federal Wiretapping Law SWINOG Meeting, 25 September 2002, Bern Christian Schwarzenegger © Prof. Dr. Ch. Schwarzenegger, Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut, Universität Zürich, Wilfriedstr. 6, 8032 Zürich,

Some Cases Defamation against Christoph Blocher the index of a search engine lists a link to a webpage containing defamatory information on Christoph Blocher, his lawyer asks the provider to remove this link Front14.org Web-server located in the US, hosting many neo- nazi websites, including many in German language Kinder des Holocaust asks three major access providers to block access to their customers © Prof. Dr. Ch. Schwarzenegger, Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut, Universität Zürich,

Some Cases Swiss gambling casino committee On 1 November 2000 more than 200 providers receive a letter from the committee asking them to block access to over 700 Internet gambling sites (the list is copied from Yahoo.com). Incest.ch In 2001 Switch is ordered by the public prosecutor‘s office, Geneva, to deactivate incest.ch from it‘s Domain Name registry. The owner of this domain is residing in Finland, the content is stored on a webserver in the U.S. © Prof. Dr. Ch. Schwarzenegger, Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut, Universität Zürich,

The international dimension – Jurisdiction – Do the Swiss criminal justice authorities have jurisdiction over cases, in which the “criminal” acts abroad? (see front14.org, incest.ch & gambling cases) Principle of territoriality Art. 3 and Art. 7 Swiss Penal Code was carried outeffect of the crime Switerland can take action, if the criminal action was carried out in Switzerland or if the effect of the crime was felt in Switzerland. © Prof. Dr. Ch. Schwarzenegger, Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut, Universität Zürich,

The international dimension – Jurisdiction – It remains questionnable, whether all crimes do have an effect Aiding and abetting or instigation are regarded to be committed, where the main criminal has acted (Swiss Federal Court) aiding (helping) Consequently, if the Host-Provider or Access- Provider are aiding (helping) someone abroad, the Swiss authorities have no jurisdiction. © Prof. Dr. Ch. Schwarzenegger, Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut, Universität Zürich,

The international dimension – Jurisdiction – There are other principles legitimising local jurisdiction (see Art. 4-6 bis Swiss Penal Code) Because many cybercrimes are committed abroad, in Switzerland the focus of law enforcement has shifted from the main responsible to the auxiliaries in the communication process: Host-Provider Access-Provider Hyperlinks © Prof. Dr. Ch. Schwarzenegger, Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut, Universität Zürich,

Criminal responsibility of Internet-Service-Providers The Content-Provider is primarily responsible, but often he or she is difficult to catch In some cases a Host-Provider is conspiring with the content provider (see front14.org). In such cases, the Host-Provider is held fully responsible for the crime: NewsgroupGuestbook Expl.: Monitored Newsgroup or Guestbook In most cases, however, the content is up-loaded on the webserver without knowlege of the Host- Provider (direct web-publishing) © Prof. Dr. Ch. Schwarzenegger, Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut, Universität Zürich,

Criminal responsibility of Internet-Service-Providers Under the current criminal law, the criminal responsibility of Host- and also Access-Providers is unclear! Criminal responsibility for media publication (Art. 27, Art. 322 bis Swiss Penal Code)? Criminal responsibility according to the general rules of the Penal Code (Art. 25, aiding & abetting)? Can the Access-Provider be defined as assisting the criminal? © Prof. Dr. Ch. Schwarzenegger, Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut, Universität Zürich,

Criminal responsibility for media publications on the Internet? The author is primarily responsible, if he/she cannot be caught, the head editor or person in charge of the publication is punishable under Art. 322 bis Swiss Penal Code The Host-Provider and the Access-Provider are nor- mally not involved in the publication process, there- fore, they are not responsible in the sense of Art. 27 and Art. 322 bis Swiss Penal Code (Exception: News- papers, TV or other media maintaining a website) Contrary opinion: Contrary opinion: Ministry of Justice & Federal Police Office, Dec © Prof. Dr. Ch. Schwarzenegger, Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut, Universität Zürich,

Criminal responsibility for aiding & abetting? Because the Host-Provider enables a criminal to make his content publicly accessible, his/her behaviour can be interpreted as aiding to a crime (Art. 25 Swiss Penal Code), if he/she does not immediately block access to such content The same can even be said of Access-Providers, who make the criminal content accessible to Internet users This is the opinion expressed by This is the opinion expressed by the Ministry of Justice & Federal Police Office, Dec © Prof. Dr. Ch. Schwarzenegger, Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut, Universität Zürich,

Criminal responsibility for aiding & abetting? The majority The majority of criminal scholars oppose this idea. They say that such services must be regarded as socially adequate behaviour No criminal prosecutions yet. A clarification of the criminal law is in preparation: Expert committee on network crimes (parliamentary motion by Th. Pfisterer) A model similar to the EC E-Commerce-Guideline is proposed (Art ) © Prof. Dr. Ch. Schwarzenegger, Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut, Universität Zürich,

Criminal responsibility of Internet-Service-Providers Access-Provider cannot be held criminally reliable for content Proxy-Caching is regarded as Access-Providing = European standard Host-Provider do not have to pro-actively search for illegal content on their webservers. If they get to know about such illegal content, they have to block access to it immediately. = European standard © Prof. Dr. Ch. Schwarzenegger, Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut, Universität Zürich,

Private law and preventive measures According to Civil Procedure Law (privacy, infrin- gements of copyrights, trade marks etc.) a judge can order a Host- or Access-Provider to make a webpage inaccessible For crime prevention purposes, the cantonal police might issue blockade orders; however, under the current administrative law, it is questionnable, whether there is a legal basis for such actions If a criminal procedure is launched, the public prosecutor can order the illegal webcontent to be removed © Prof. Dr. Ch. Schwarzenegger, Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut, Universität Zürich,

The new wiretapping law (BÜPF) © Prof. Dr. Ch. Schwarzenegger, Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut, Universität Zürich, Criminal Procedure starts (federal, cantonal) Public Prosecutor in Charge orders interception of TC with explanation Deciding Authority (expl. President of the Cantonal High Court) approves, if the following conditions are met: strong suspicion crime contained in the list of Art. 3 Sec. 2 BÜPF Proportionality of the interception Subsidiarity Non approval

The new wiretapping law (BÜPF) © Prof. Dr. Ch. Schwarzenegger, Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut, Universität Zürich, Interception Service („Dienst“) Summary assessment of the order start of interception, if correct Telecommunication Provider installation of interception against Suspect Third parties Persons under personal secrecy No interception (clear fault)

The new wiretapping law (BÜPF) © Prof. Dr. Ch. Schwarzenegger, Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut, Universität Zürich, Interception Service („Dienst“) Triage of relevant information Public prosecutor Use of the information in criminal procedure (special problem: accidental evidence)

Weitere Informationen auf meiner Webpage © Prof. Dr. Ch. Schwarzenegger, Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut, Universität Zürich,