Crypto projects prepare to battle for privacy in Switzerland

Published

2 months ago

April 28, 2025

admin

Crypto projects prepare to battle for privacy in Switzerland

Switzerland has long been seen as a beacon of privacy where companies, organizations and wealthy people put down roots in an effort to avoid the prying eyes of the rest of the world. Joining this cohort are many Web3 projects, which also appreciate the Swiss government’s generally positive stance toward blockchain and digital assets.

The country’s reputation as a privacy haven has resulted in Switzerland becoming a hub for privacy projects establishing their foundations or development entities there, including Nym, Session and Hopr — joining traditional privacy software companies such as Proton and Threema.

Now, a proposed change to a Swiss surveillance ordinance is worrying these same projects, as it would spell a marked increase in the government’s user monitoring requirements. But the decentralized nature of crypto may offer a solution for those wishing to preserve their privacy in a climate of increasing surveillance.

Switzerland is a privacy haven — or maybe not

Switzerland has long been considered by many to have some of the world’s strongest privacy protections. As Proton, the company behind the encrypted Proton Mail email service, argued in a 2014 blog post titled “Why Switzerland?”, the Central European country offers several advantages: Companies are outside of the jurisdiction of the US and EU, the country is politically neutral, there are strong constitutional privacy protections, and there is established infrastructure.

Kee Jeffries, technical co-founder of decentralized private messaging app Session, recently told Cointelegraph’s The Agenda podcast that it was important to establish the foundation “in a country which has a long history of preserving people’s personal privacy and freedom of speech.”

However, all governments must ultimately balance citizen privacy and national security concerns. In Switzerland, surveillance is governed by the Ordinance on the Surveillance of Correspondence by Post and Telecommunications (OSCPT).

In January, the Swiss Federal Council proposed a revision to the OSCPT that would increase user monitoring requirements for telecommunications service providers and widen the definition of who meets these requirements to include services such as VPNs, social networks and messaging apps.

In short, as they are currently written, the changes would require service providers that serve at least 5,000 users to identify all users and willfully decrypt all communications that are not end-to-end encrypted.

Privacy projects fight back against surveillance

The move has been met with widespread backlash from the privacy community. Proton CEO Andy Yen has threatened to fight the government in court and potentially pull the company out of the country. Decentralized VPN provider Nym issued a public call to action for Swiss citizens to contact their representatives and oppose the action.

In a statement, Nym’s chief operating officer, Alexis Roussel, said the ordinance by the Federal Council “is destroying an entire sector,” adding:

“This ordinance directly endangers the people who use these services.”

Sebastian Bürgel, vice president of technology at Gnosis and founder of decentralized mixnet Hopr, echoed the concerns of Yen and Roussel, telling Cointelegraph the move would likely backfire.

“If the intent is to limit the privacy and anonymity that services such as Proton Mail, Proton VPN and Threema are providing, that will not change much because those entities will potentially leave Switzerland if that were to happen,” he said. “But again, the consequences will be borne by everyone out there and everyone who’s actually in Switzerland.”

Meanwhile, Ronald Kogens, a legal partner at Swiss law firm MME who focuses on Web3 and fintech, told Cointelegraph that it’s unclear whether the Swiss Federal Council even has the authority to implement such changes.

“In an ordinance, you cannot include any heavy rights or obligations which have a strong impact on individuals in Switzerland,” he shared, saying that the Federal Council is essentially an executive body and that laws must pass through parliament.

“One question you could ask is, does the Federal Council have the power, based on the laws where it stated that they can enact an ordinance, the power to do this, what they’re doing now?”

Are Swiss crypto projects at risk?

The move by the Swiss Federal Council is damaging Switzerland’s privacy reputation, but decentralized technologies like blockchain networks may offer a lifeline. According to Kogens, truly decentralized projects should be exempt from the new surveillance requirements.

“In my opinion, most Web3 activities are not affected because […] the pure offering of software without running any infrastructure for the whole messaging or communication system is not covered by this,” he told Cointelegraph. “You have to have specific servers or clients that you operate that are an essential part of the communication or messaging service.”

Either way, the more decentralized a project is, the less any government can influence its operations. Take, for example, Tornado Cash, which has continued chugging along for years despite multiple developers being arrested and the US sanctioning its smart contracts at one point.

Nym CEO Harry Halpin told Cointelegraph in March that “in theory, we should be able to get run over with a car, and the network would keep operating.”

“Hopr, as an example of Web3 infrastructure, does not operate infrastructure, right?” said Bürgel. “Hopr Association is involved in software development and research and development, but we are not an operator of a network.”

The fact that the Hopr network is fully decentralized and anonymous means the Hopr Association could not actually give any information about its users to Switzerland, even if it were legally compelled.

“Individual node runners which are participating in it, or other third parties, cannot tell who is using the Hopr network to access any kind of web service. That is the explicit goal of what we are undertaking.”

The future of privacy in Switzerland

The Swiss Federal Council’s proposed changes to the OSCPT are still in the consultation phase, with the public encouraged to offer feedback on the proposal through May 6.

Kogens told Cointelegraph that the council will review the feedback, create a final report, and decide whether to adjust the proposal. “That happens quite a lot,” he said, “because in the end, it’s not in the interest of Switzerland to do something which harms the industry, as long as they still can fulfill their goal, which they have with this surveillance act.”

But even if the changes go through as written, there could be some positive knock-on effects for the crypto space. “It may be that the silver lining is that it will drive users to decentralized and privacy-facilitating solutions instead,” said Bürgel.

“It is clear to everyone that more surveillance is bad,” he added. “Every single individual understands that.”

“Taming the surveillance machinery is a goal of Web3. It’s not just about magic internet money. And yeah, I think we need more people working towards that.”

Magazine: UK’s Orwellian AI murder prediction system, AI will take your job

Document has no content

Politics

Chief rabbi condemns BBC’s ‘mishandled response’ to anti-IDF chanting at Glastonbury – as Bob Vylan issue new statement

Published

20 mins ago

July 1, 2025

admin

Chief rabbi condemns BBC's 'mishandled response' to anti-IDF chanting at Glastonbury - as Bob Vylan issue new statement

The chief rabbi has described the BBC’s response to anti-IDF chanting at Glastonbury as “belated and mishandled” – as the punk-rap duo involved, Bob Vylan, said the UK government needed to talk about its “criminal inaction”.

Sir Ephraim Mirvis said “vile Jew-hatred” had been aired at the Somerset music festival and it was a “time of national shame”.

Confidence in the BBC’s “ability to treat antisemitism seriously” has been brought to a “new low”, he said in a post on X, adding that “outright incitement to violence and hatred” appeared to be acceptable if it was couched as “edgy political commentary”.

Ordinary people had not only failed to see incitement “for what it is” but had cheered it, chanted it, and celebrated it, he said. “Toxic Jew-hatred is a threat to our entire society,” he added.

Bob Vylan, posting a new statement on Instagram on Tuesday, said they were “not for the death of Jews, Arabs or any other race or group of people”.

Rather, they were for the “dismantling of a violent military machine” – the Israel Defence Forces.

Bob Vylan chanted “death to the IDF” at Glastonbury. As many as 95% of the IDF are thought to be Jewish.

In their statement, the group said they were a “distraction from the story” and that whatever “sanctions” they received would also be a distraction.

Their US visas have been revoked and United Talent Agency, their US representatives, have dropped them.

Referring to the war in Gaza, they claimed the UK government does not want them to ask “why they remain silent in the face of this atrocity”, “why they aren’t doing more to stop the killing” and “feed the starving”.

They added: “The more time they talk about Bob Vylan, the less time they spend answering for their criminal inaction.

“We are being targeted for speaking up. We are not the first, we will not be the last, and if you care for the sanctity of human life and freedom of speech, we urge you to speak up, too.”

It has emerged that Tim Davie, the BBC’s director-general, was at Glastonbury when the duo led chants of “Death to the IDF” which were broadcast live.

The prime minister’s spokesman, asked if the PM had confidence in Mr Davie, said Sir Keir Starmer had “confidence in the BBC”, adding: “The position of the director-general is a matter for the BBC’s board.”

Speaking in the Commons, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said “accountability” was important and it was something she had “impressed upon the BBC leadership”.

She added: “When you have one editorial failure, it’s something that must be gripped. When you have several, it becomes a problem of leadership.”

The cabinet minister said she’d called Mr Davie after Bob Vylan’s set had been broadcast to find out why it had aired, and why the feed had not been cut.

“I expect answers to these questions without delay,” she said.

Meanwhile Dame Caroline Dinenage, chair of the culture, media and sport committee, has written to Mr Davie in relation to the corporation’s Glastonbury coverage.

The committee has said the letter asks about editorial and decision-making processes and whether consideration was given to broadcasting with a delay. It also asks about staffing levels at the festival and contingency planning.

Avon and Somerset Police has begun a criminal investigation and is reviewing footage of both Bob Vylan and Kneecap’s performances at Glastonbury.

The force said a senior detective had been appointed – and it had been contacted by people from around the world.

“We… recognise the strength of public feeling,” it said.

During Kneecap’s set, one member suggested starting a “riot” outside his bandmate’s forthcoming court appearance, before clarifying that he meant “support”. Liam Og O hAnnaidh, also known as Mo Chara, is charged with a terror offence.

Bob Vylan had been due to tour the US before their visas were revoked.

US deputy secretary of state Christopher Landau said action had been taken “in light of their hateful tirade at Glastonbury, including leading the crowd in death chants”.

“Foreigners who glorify violence and hatred are not welcome visitors to our country,” he added.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

During Bob Vylan’s set, the duo performed in front of a screen that showed several messages, including one that claimed Israel’s actions in Gaza amounted to “genocide”.

The war in Gaza began after Hamas militants attacked Israel on 7 October 2023 and killed 1,200 people and took about 250 hostage.

Israel’s offensive in Gaza has led to the deaths of more than 56,500 people, according to the Hamas-run health ministry, which does not differentiate between civilians and combatants.

Media watchdog Ofcom has said the BBC “clearly has questions to answer” over the live stream from Glastonbury.

A BBC spokesperson said: “The director-general was informed of the incident after the performance and at that point he was clear it should not feature in any other Glastonbury coverage.”

The broadcaster respects freedom of expression but “stands firmly against incitement to violence”, they said.

They added: “The antisemitic sentiments expressed by Bob Vylan were utterly unacceptable and have no place on our airwaves…

“The team were dealing with a live situation, but with hindsight we should have pulled the stream during the performance. We regret this did not happen.”

Politics

Government accused of ‘stark’ contradiction over position on Gaza genocide allegations

Published

20 mins ago

July 1, 2025

admin

Government accused of 'stark' contradiction over position on Gaza genocide allegations

The government has won a long-running legal challenge about its decision to continue allowing the sale of spare parts for F-35 fighter jets to Israel, while suspending other arms licences over concerns about international humanitarian law in Gaza.

But a key part of its case has highlighted mixed messaging about its position on the risk of genocide in Gaza – and intensified calls for ministers to publish their own assessment on the issue.

PM braced for pivotal vote – politics latest

Lawyers acting for the government told judges “the evidence available does not support a finding of genocide” and “the government assessment was that…there was no serious risk of genocide occurring”.

Therefore, they argued, continuing to supply the F-35 components did not put the UK at risk of breaching the Genocide Convention.

This assessment has never been published or justified by ministers in parliament, despite numerous questions on the issue.

Some MPs argue its very existence contrasts with the position repeatedly expressed by ministers in parliament – that the UK is unable to give a view on allegations of genocide in Gaza, because the question is one for the international courts.

For example, just last week Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner told PMQs “it is a long-standing principle that genocide is determined by competent international courts and not by governments”.

‘The UK cannot sit on our hands’

Green MP Ellie Chowns said: “The government insists only an international court can judge whether genocide is occurring in Gaza, yet have somehow also concluded there is ‘no serious risk of genocide’ in Gaza – and despite my urging, refuse to publish the risk assessments which lead to this decision.

“Full transparency on these risk assessments should not be optional; it is essential for holding the government to account and stopping further atrocity.

“While Labour tie themselves in knots contradicting each other, families are starving, hospitals lie in ruins, and children are dying.

“The UK cannot sit on our hands waiting for an international court verdict when our legal duty under the Genocide Convention compels us to prevent genocide from occurring, not merely seek justice after the fact.”

‘Why are these assessments being made?’

“This contradiction at the heart of the government’s position is stark,” said Zarah Sultana MP, an outspoken critic of Labour’s approach to the conflict in Gaza, who now sits as an independent after losing the party whip last summer.

“Ministers say it’s not for them to determine genocide, that only international courts can do so. Yet internal ‘genocide assessments’ have clearly been made and used to justify continuing arms exports to Israel.

“If they have no view, why are these assessments being made? And if they do, why refuse to share them with parliament? This Labour government, in opposition, demanded the Tories publish their assessments. Now in office, they’ve refused to do the same.”

Judges at the High Court ultimately ruled the case was over such a “sensitive and political issue” it should be a matter for the government, “which is democratically accountable to parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not the court”.

Dearbhla Minogue, a senior lawyer at the Global Legal Action Network, and a solicitor for Al-Haq, the Palestinian human rights group which brought the case, said: “This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the government, but rather a restrained approach to the separation of powers.

“The government’s disgraceful assessment that there is no risk of genocide has therefore evaded scrutiny in the courts, and as far as we know it still stands.”

What is the government’s position?

Government lawyers argued the decision not to ban the export of F-35 parts was due to advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the whole F-35 programme and have a “profound impact on international peace and security”.

The UK supplies F-35 component parts as a member of an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets.

As a customer of that programme, Israel can order from the pool of spare parts.

‘This washing of hands will no longer work’

Labour MP Richard Burgon said the ruling puts the government under pressure to clarify its position.

“This court ruling is very clear: only the government and parliament can decide if F-35 fighter jet parts – that can end up in Israel – should be sold,” he said.

“So the government can no longer pass the buck: it can stop these exports, or it can be complicit in Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

“On many issues they say it’s not for the government to decide, but it’s one for the international courts. This washing of hands will no longer work.”

Israel has consistently rejected any allegations of genocide.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu branded a recent UN report on the issue biased and antisemitic.

“Instead of focusing on the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by the Hamas terrorist organisation… the United Nations once again chooses to attack the state of Israel with false accusations,” he said in a statement.

The UK government has not responded to requests for comment over its contrasting messaging to parliament and the courts over allegations of genocide.

But in response to the judgement, a spokesperson said: “The court has upheld this government’s thorough and lawful decision-making on this matter.

“This shows that the UK operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world. We will continue to keep our defence export licensing under careful and continual review.

“On day one of this Government, the foreign secretary ordered a review into Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL).

“The review concluded that there was a clear risk that UK exports for the IDF (Israel Defence Forces) in the Gaza conflict might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of IHL.

“In contrast to the last government, we took decisive action, stopping exports to the Israeli Defence Forces that might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.”