Clap Keller-Sutter

class=”sc-3778e872-0 cKDKQr”>

The Bundesrat is consistent when it comes to violations of official secrecy: if confidential information ends up in the media, it has shown no mercy since the leak of Corona and has filed a complaint.

When it comes to grievances at your own department, at least Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter (59) is less strict. The fact that employees of the Federal Office for Information Technology and Telecommunications (BIT) gave Special Investigator Peter Marti (72) the entire mailbox of Peter Lauener (52), former spokesman for Federal Councilor Alain Berset (51), should not have legal consequences .

Federal prosecutor wants permission

But now the Federal Prosecutor’s Office (BA) is throwing a spanner in the works. When asked, she states that she has “initiated a preliminary investigation” due to the possible violation of professional secrecy by BIT employees. Probably also because Lauener filed a report against unknown persons in the BIT because of the impermissibly large mail delivery.

The BA carries out such a preliminary investigation if, in the case of a report against unknown persons, it must become clear which officers could have committed the reported crime. This is the only way the Justice Department can authorize law enforcement agencies to take action against these agents.

The crypto affair resulted in corona leaks

Marti, who was investigating the breach of professional secrecy in the crypto affair, had requested Lauener’s email traffic from October 7 to November 15, 2020 at the BIT. However, the FITT provided him with the entire contents of the mailbox – emails for many years. In it, Marti came across emails from Marc Walder (57), the CEO of Ringier Verlag, which also publishes Blick. These emails from the Corona period are intended to show that Lauener wanted to influence the federal government’s Corona policy with Walder.

And so it is: media company Ringier, publisher of Blick, would have received information in advance about the corona measures from the Federal Council. Berset got good press for that. The articles so pressured the entire Federal Council that it had to do as Berset wanted.

Suspicion was not enough

Explosive: Special Investigator Marti had written to the BIT head of “Legal Services” in a letter that the BIT had provided him with far more data than requested. He promised to handle it with care.

However, Marti showed no particular restraint: early in the morning on May 17, 2022, the police rang Lauener’s doorstep in the city of Bern. He was provisionally arrested and spent four days behind bars. Then Marti had to let him go. The suspicion against him was too weak.

violated personal rights

However, the publication of the mail had an aftermath. Keller-Sutter, now Treasury Secretary, had the data supply investigated internally. Result: “With its publishing practice, the BIT has violated data protection rules and thus the personal rights of those involved,” the finance department (EFD) recently told Radio SRF.

But the consequences of this mistake remain manageable. The FDF ordered organizational changes. In the future, only requested emails should be released – that’s all. While it’s likely a breach of official secrecy at her store that led to Lauener’s arrest, Keller-Sutter has not filed a complaint.

“Since the BIT was first notified by the law enforcement authorities, there has been no complaint,” the FDF says. And: “We would like to point out that the publication of the entire mailbox corresponded to a constant practice of the BIT.” This was also done in the same way in other cases studied.

BIT remains silent over “privacy protection”

According to the FDF, it is up to the BIT to decide whether additional disciplinary measures should be taken against employees. The BIT is silent about any measures because of “privacy protection”. The BIT apparently attaches more value to the personal rights of its own employees than to those of Lauener. In return, the FDF asked Blick unsolicited to protect the personal rights of BIT employees when reporting.

When the Federal Council reports confidentiality violations as a result of leaks to the media, the investigations usually come to naught. The leaks are barely detectable. In the BIT case, however, it must be clear who is responsible.

Source:Blick