Again excuses from the SP government councilor in the Zurich data scandal
Fehr didn’t read correctly – or said the wrong thing
SP government councilor Jacqueline Fehr claimed that she had not informed the public about the data scandal earlier because the data protection officer had advised her against it. This contradicted. Fehr is now trying to explain himself.
Jacqueline Fehr made a false statement at her press conference on Tuesday.
Nicholas ImfeldEditor Economics
Jacqueline Fehr (59) could not have chosen a better time for her press conference on the data scandal in the Zurich Department of Justice. The SP government councilor appeared in front of the media for the first time on Tuesday – the day before the Federal Council elections, on the day of the World Cup round of 16 of the Swiss national football team.
Fehr should not have bothered that she currently has to share the attention. Because she doesn’t look good in the hard drive affair that Blick and the “Tages-Anzeiger” uncovered last Thursday.
The attempt at explanation
Fehr tried to explain why she kept the data scandal a secret from the public for two years. She shifted the responsibility to the canton’s data protection officer. They have advised against informing. A false statement, as Blick’s query to the data protection officer Dominika Blonski revealed. “I made no statement about the publication of the final report of the administrative investigation,” she clarified.
So did Fehr lie? The government councilor lets her spokesman Benjamin Tommer answer. “There’s no contradiction,” he says. “The data protection officer informed us in writing that informing the persons affected by the data incident via public notice would not be expedient.” Publication of the final report would have necessarily meant that the data security incident would also have become public knowledge, says Tommer.
Read it wrong – or lied?
The fact is: the data protection officer did not advise Fehr against publishing the administrative investigation. In the said section, which is available in Blick, the data protection officer only opposes the disclosure of the persons affected by the leak. She didn’t say a word about the final report and whether it should be made public because it wasn’t in her area of responsibility. It remains unclear why it should not have been possible to publish at least a summary of the report without naming the persons concerned.
Either Fehr did not interpret the statement of the data protection officer correctly – or she said the wrong thing. Politically, the topic will continue to be discussed. The Zurich SVP is also interested in the question of why the Justice Commission has not informed. She calls for a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (PUK) – the strictest control body in politics. Exponents of other parties also spoke out in favor of a PUK on Monday.