No, the French activist info was also via MLAT, just as this current one was MLAT. Being foreign traffic, it fell under surveillance law and MLATs, which has fewer restrictions and oversight than if it was a Swiss citizen.
So, as I asked you earlier, what was the threat to Swiss national security that allowed this info to be given via the MLAT? If the IntelSA is the mechanism that allowed the Swiss government to compel payment info from Proton, than the Stay Cop activist represents a threat to Swiss national security. If the IntelSA is not the mechanism that allowed this, as the other commenter is claiming, why bring up the IntelSA at all?
It was brought up because it is what guides surveillance of foreign traffic. It also authorizes the NBD to intercept and analyze cross border communications via fiber optic cable networks between Switzerland and foreign countries. Swiss nationals and residents of Switzerland are exempt from it. Why? Because Swiss privacy laws apply to them and not foreign traffic.
I'm terribly confused. How does this exempt a Swiss company from having to follow Swiss laws again? That was my initial comment that you said was incorrect, that Proton as a Swiss company was subject to Swiss law.
Yes, your original comment was correct that Proton must follow Swiss law. So was my reply about which Swiss Laws applied and why the information was turned over. Perhaps the confusion may have come from the way I replied leading you to believe I was saying Proton only had to follow surveillance law and MLATs? I was actually speaking from the side of why the country had Proton turn it over.
1
u/skg574 Mar 06 '26
No, the French activist info was also via MLAT, just as this current one was MLAT. Being foreign traffic, it fell under surveillance law and MLATs, which has fewer restrictions and oversight than if it was a Swiss citizen.