Postfinance nezakonito prikuplja podatke o klijentima druge banke pod pritiskom
Savezni upravni sud presudio je da je Postfinance prekršio zakone o zaštiti podataka stvaranjem glasnih otisaka kupaca na temelju snimljenih telefonskih poziva bez dobivanja izričitog pristanka. Sud je utvrdio da je samo obavješćivanje kupaca o snimci i da im se ponudi mogućnost prigovora nedovoljno u skladu sa švicarskim zakonom, koji zahtijeva aktivnu dozvolu za obradu biometrijskih podataka kao što su otisci glasa. Posljedično, Postfinansu je naloženo da traže retroaktivnu suglasnost od pogođenih pojedinaca ili izbrisati prikupljene podatke o glasovnim otiscima do 15. veljače 2027., iako je banka objavila da namjerava izbrisati zapise. Odluka uspostavlja značajan pravni presedan u vezi s korištenjem biometrijskih identifikacijskih oznaka u interakcijama s korisnicima. Ova odluka vrši pritisak na druge financijske institucije u Švicarskoj da preispitaju vlastitu praksu prepoznavanja glasa i osiguraju da su u skladu s strožim zahtjevima za odobrenje.
The Federal Administrative Court has ruled that Swiss bank Postfinance violated data protection laws by creating biometric voiceprints of customers without their explicit consent. The court determined that merely informing callers about audio recording does not constitute valid permission for such sensitive biometric processing. Consequently, the bank faces a deadline of February 15, 2027, to either obtain retroactive approval from affected clients or delete the stored voice data entirely. This landmark decision establishes that active, affirmative consent is required before companies can generate digital codes based on human voices, setting a new legal standard for privacy in customer service interactions. The practice at issue began in autumn 2018. When customers called the Postfinance hotline, they heard an automated announcement stating that the conversation would be recorded for security and identification purposes. The message instructed listeners who did not wish to participate to inform their customer advisor. However, the bank interpreted continued participation during the call as implicit agreement. Under this system, software analyzed hundreds of individual vocal characteristics, including pronunciation, speaking speed, and emphasis, to create a unique digital code known as a voiceprint. This technology allowed the bank to identify returning callers by their voice alone, even if they were hoarse or switched languages, although loud background noise could interfere with accuracy. The Federal Data Protection Commissioner challenged this approach, arguing that voiceprints are biometric identifiers similar to fingerprints or facial scans. Unlike passwords, these traits are intrinsically linked to a person and cannot be changed after a data breach. Furthermore, artificial intelligence can now mimic voices convincingly enough to potentially bypass biometric security systems. Postfinance defended its method, claiming it was secure, efficient, and popular. The bank argued that it saved approximately 720,000 Swiss francs annually compared to other identification methods. It maintained that providing notice and an option to opt out satisfied legal requirements, leading it to contest the regulator’s initial order. The Federal Administrative Court rejected the bank's defense. The judges emphasized that the human voice is a highly personal attribute that reveals information beyond just language, including emotional states, health conditions, and personality traits. Therefore, the right to personality protection carries significant weight. The court held that a passive consent model, where customers must actively object to prevent data collection, is legally insufficient. Only explicit, active consent allows a company to process such biometric data. While acknowledging the economic efficiency of voice recognition, the court prioritized fundamental privacy rights over operational convenience. Postfinance announced it will comply with the ruling by deleting all collected voiceprints by the February 2027 deadline. The bank stated it had already adjusted its procedures in February 2026. It now employs a new speech robot that asks customers for specific permission before identifying them via voice. The judgment remains subject to appeal to the Federal Supreme Court. The ruling extends implications beyond Postfinance to other financial institutions in Switzerland. The Zurich Cantonal Bank, for instance, currently uses a similar procedure. Its website describes a process where a voiceprint is created after any call lasting at least sixty seconds. Customers wishing to have this profile deleted must subsequently contact a customer advisor. Given the administrative burden and legal risks highlighted by the Postfinance case, other banks using comparable automatic voice recognition systems may face increasing pressure to modify their practices. The decision signals a stricter regulatory environment for biometric data collection in customer-facing services across the country.
2 izvještaja
SRF NewsDržavni / javniSredinaČinjenice 95Objektivnost 90prije 21 h
Savezni upravni sud je presudio da telefonske linije ne mogu automatski snimati glasove pozivača bez izričitog pristanka. Ova je odluka donesena kao odgovor na praksu Postfinance, podružnice Swiss Post, koja je od 2018. prikupljala glasovne otiske kako bi prepoznala kupce tijekom budućih poziva. Iako je sud priznao učinkovitost takvih sustava, naglasio je da snimanje nečijeg glasa predstavlja snažno pitanje osobne zaštite. Sud je naveo da snimke glasa ne sadrže samo govor, već mogu otkriti emocije, zdravstveno stanje i osobine. Stoga tvrtke moraju dobiti izričitu suglasnost prije stvaranja glasovnog otiska. Postfinance sada mora dobiti pristanak od pogođenih pojedinaca ili izbrisati postojeće glasovne profile. Presuda naglašava važnost osobnih prava i privatnosti podataka, posebno s obzirom na napredak tehnologije.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): Članak predstavlja pravnu odluku u vezi s privatnošću podataka i osobnim pravima, fokusirajući se na tumačenje zakona, a ne na izražavanje otvorenih političkih mišljenja. U izvješću se pružaju uravnotežene informacije o obrazloženju suda, zabrinutosti koje je izrazio Povjerenik za zaštitu podataka i učinku na
Zašto činjenice (95): The article accurately reflects the core legal ruling by the Federal Administrative Court regarding voiceprint storage at Postfinance. It correctly identifies the timeline (practice started in 2018) and the specific legal issue (lack of active consent vs. passive opt-out). The description of the cou
Zašto objektivnost (90): The tone is professional and journalistic. While it uses phrases like 'sehr zum Missfallen' (to the great displeasure) of the Data Protection Officer, this is attributed to the official rather than being the author's opinion. The framing presents the conflict between business efficiency and privacy
watsonNeovisanSredinaČinjenice 92Objektivnost 85prije 14 h
Savezni upravni sud presudio je da je Postfinance prekršio zakone o zaštiti podataka stvaranjem glasnih otisaka kupaca na temelju snimljenih telefonskih poziva bez dobivanja izričitog pristanka. Sud je utvrdio da je samo obavješćivanje kupaca o snimci i da im se ponudi mogućnost prigovora nedovoljno u skladu sa švicarskim zakonom, koji zahtijeva aktivnu dozvolu za obradu biometrijskih podataka kao što su otisci glasa. Posljedično, Postfinansu je naloženo da traže retroaktivnu suglasnost od pogođenih pojedinaca ili izbrisati prikupljene podatke o glasovnim otiscima do 15. veljače 2027., iako je banka objavila da namjerava izbrisati zapise. Odluka uspostavlja značajan pravni presedan u vezi s korištenjem biometrijskih identifikacijskih oznaka u interakcijama s korisnicima. Ova odluka vrši pritisak na druge financijske institucije u Švicarskoj da preispitaju vlastitu praksu prepoznavanja glasa i osiguraju da su u skladu s strožim zahtjevima za odobrenje.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): Članak izvješćuje o posebnoj pravnoj odluci o propisima o privatnosti podataka. Iako je tema uključuje korporativnu usklađenost i pravno tumačenje, ton je činjenična i objašnjavajući, s naglaskom na tehničkim aspektima glasnih otisaka i posebnim zahtjevima sudskog naloga. Evo ga.
Zašto činjenice (92): The article correctly states the outcome of the court decision and the mechanism of voiceprint identification. However, the headline uses the word 'illegal' (illegale), which is a strong characterization. While the court ruled the practice violated data protection laws, labeling past actions definit
Zašto objektivnost (85): The tone is slightly more sensationalized than Article 0 due to the headline ('sammelte illegal', 'unter Druck'). The inclusion of educational sections ('What is a voiceprint?') adds value but also shifts the focus from pure reporting to explainer content. The framing emphasizes the negative impact
Kako je izvijestila svaka strana
Isti događaj, grupiran prema političkom nagibu medija koji su o njemu izvještavali.
progresivno
sredina
konzervativno
★
Kako je izvijestila svaka strana
Podržite neovisne vijesti svjesne pristranosti i otključajte društveni puls, glasovanje zajednice i sve ostale značajke za podupiratelje.