The extent of the data leak can only be estimated once the criminal investigation has been completed, Fehr told the cantonal council. If he does not agree with your answers, there is a risk that a PUK will be used.
The processing of the data leak in the Zurich Department of Justice has now reached the cantonal council.
Like every politician, Jacqueline Fehr (SP) also likes public appearances, especially when elections are due a few weeks later. But the government councilor would have gladly waived the stage that she was offered on Monday in the Zurich cantonal parliament.
The government councilor had to comment on the data scandal in her justice department. Disused IT devices with sensitive data had not been properly disposed of for years. Instead of the shredder, they ended up in Zurich’s sex and drug milieu. Jacqueline Fehr had nothing directly to do with the disposal of the devices. When she took office in 2015, the improper destruction of the data was years ago.
But Fehr made sure that the action remained under cover. When she found out about this in November 2020, she launched an investigation, but initially she did not present the relevant report to her government colleagues or to parliament, and certainly not to the public. Only a request from the SVP cantonal council and lawyer Valentin Landmann last fall brought the events to light.
On December 6, Fehr answered questions about the incident at a media conference and also published what had been confidential until then investigation report. She also said at the time that the disposal should not have happened like this and that today’s processes comply with data protection regulations.
Shortly after Landmann’s request, there was another one in the cantonal council urgent interpellation followed up on the same subject, signed by more than half of the Council members. The answer to this interpellation was on Monday in the cantonal council.
Succinct answers from the government
Jacqueline Fehr answered the eleven questions of the urgent interpellation very briefly. In her verbal presentation, she repeatedly referred to the ongoing criminal investigation, the findings of which must be awaited.
Only one major piece of news emerged from the replies. Until now, the Department of Justice has dated the improper data disposal to roughly between 2006 and 2012. From 2013, the data carriers were destroyed in accordance with the regulations.
On Monday, Fehr explained to the council that the certificates for a major recycling campaign from 2010 were now available. At that time, 1,300 computers were disposed of according to regulations. Overall, however, the beginning and end of the improper disposal cannot be precisely defined at the moment, this is part of the criminal investigation.
Fehr also commented on the fact that paper files were destroyed in her directorate in 2019, which could now make it more difficult to process the data leak. Because this action, in contrast to the data scandal with the hard drives, falls within the term of office of the current director of justice, she must bear responsibility for it.
Fehr emphasized that there was no initial suspicion that there was a criminally relevant intention behind this second data destruction. «A former IT expert wanted to clean up and declutter. The old paper should go,” she said. This is most likely a very gross administrative error that is unforgivable, but certainly not criminal. But she is also interested in dealing with the events since 2015.
The extent of the data scandal remains open
For the rest, the answers confirmed what was already known. Accordingly, on December 2, 2020, shortly after she found out about the data leak, Jacqueline Fehr commissioned an administrative investigation. The final report was received on March 30, 2021. As early as March 1, 2021, the Cantonal Council’s Audit Committee was informed of the objectives and procedure of the investigation and the status of the findings at the time. However, Fehr did not inform the GPK about the final report – the judiciary described this as a mistake on Monday in the cantonal council
The final report was sent to the government council on December 6, 2022, i.e. after the media reports on the data leak. Two weeks later, the Department of Justice informed the executive comprehensively. Persons affected by the data leak will be informed as part of the criminal investigation.
Fehr stated again on Monday that the public prosecutor’s office had immediately initiated a criminal investigation in 2020. The results of an administrative inquiry should not be made public if doing so would impede the criminal investigation. That was the case, but became obsolete when the media widely reported the data leak a month ago.
When asked how large the extent of the data loss was, Fehr replied that it could only be estimated once the criminal investigation had been completed. Until then, the danger emanating from the data leak for those affected and the judiciary cannot be assessed.
Finally, Fehr also addressed the current situation in dealing with data in the Department of Justice and in the entire cantonal administration. The data is as secure as protected data could be. «Data security is also a major concern for me personally. Data is valuable,” she said. The accusation of insufficient data security in the canton is unjustified.
Renewed demands for a PUK
It will be interesting to see how the parliamentary groups react to Fehr’s statements after Monday’s debate and what other demands they make. The SVP, the FDP, the middle and the GLP already had in December announcedthat they are thinking about setting up a PUK, i.e. a parliamentary commission of inquiry.
This sharpest tool in the cantonal council’s arsenal is only rarely used. The last time was more than ten years ago and concerned a case of corruption at a cantonal pension fund.
On Monday in the cantonal council, the idea of a PUK was brought up again. Andrea Gisler (GLP, Gossau), for example, said that if the Council takes its supervisory duty seriously, there is a lot to be said for seriously examining a PUK. The final report of the administrative investigation reads like a “textbook for amateurish work”.
Nina Fehr Düsel (SVP, Küsnacht) was even more specific: It is now necessary to use a PUK, she said. Jean-Philippe Pinto (centre, Volketswil) described a PUK as the ultima ratio. The council left, on the other hand, described calls for a PUK as an election campaign.
A specific application for a PUK was not yet submitted to the cantonal council on Monday. The parliamentary groups will wait for another political investigation, that of the Business Audit Commission (GPK), possibly also the result of the criminal investigation.
By February 12, the day of the Zurich cantonal elections, none of these investigative bodies are likely to have presented their results. Several years passed before the last PUK presented its results.
