w00p<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@LukaszOlejnik" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>LukaszOlejnik</span></a></span> <br>Part of the proposed changes relates to how orgs are classified and governed under the existing surveillance law.<br>In the proposed revision, smaller Digital Service Providers such as Threema and Proton would be subjected to similar surveillance rules (and deadlines) as the bigger ISPs today.</p><p>They are against it, fearing (rightly) that it would impose significant costs on them, to handle authorities' requests and develop/deploy/maintain a surveillance infrastructure comparable to that already in place at bigger companies and ISPs such as Swisscom, Salt, etc.</p><p>The other change of the proposition, is the access of (near) real time metadata. </p><p>On the positive side, e2ee and message contents are explicitly excluded from the surveillance.</p><p>I'm curious to see what the final proposition will look like regarding the SMEs.</p><p><a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/switzerland" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>switzerland</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/e2ee" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>e2ee</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/surveillance" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>surveillance</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/threema" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>threema</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/proton" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>proton</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/law" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>law</span></a></p>