English 
Français DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE: WHY SWITZERLAND’S TRUST IS AT STAKE
Billions in losses, tens of thousands of jobs at risk, and tech companies potentially leaving Switzerland en masse: this is the scenario feared by industry players in the face of the revision of supervisory laws. A look at a silent threat that could prove very costly for the country.
Years ago, Switzerland was a country where the state didn’t stick its nose into your affairs for no reason. Here, we were respected for our anonymity and the privacy of our property, our money and our data.
It was in our DNA, it was part of our upbringing!!For 40 years, I built my businesses on that trust. And I could look my international partners in the eye and tell them: “Switzerland is confidential; our data and our assets are protected.”
Today, I can no longer say that...
These revisions to surveillance laws, these discussions about access to encrypted data, this ‘we’ll keep everything just in case’ mentality… all of this fills me with dread and deeply disgusts me.
I see my country of birth sinking into an inquisitorial model, where nothing will truly be confidential anymore. Where the state gives itself the means to know everything, to open everything up, to listen in on everything.
But the worst thing isn’t just this decline. The worst thing is what I see when I travel, when I work with entrepreneurs from all over the world:
More and more countries have become far safer than Switzerland for honest people. Countries which, without boasting, offer genuine digital protection, genuine neutrality, without double standards.
And I, a native of Geneva, ask myself a question:
Why stay in a country that is no longer what it promised to be? That is no longer in tune with our values?If Switzerland continues to trade its heritage of privacy for crumbs of institutional and state surveillance, it will become openly repressive. And at that point, honest entrepreneurs – those who have nothing to fear – will seek security elsewhere, where they are not treated as guilty by default.
In conclusion, who would want to stay in such a country?
Not me, nor my many friends who are entrepreneurs and private individuals!
Alain Farrugia
The Swiss paradox: a safe… with a key for the state?
Switzerland has long marketed itself to the world as a perfectly balanced mechanism: politically neutral, institutionally stable, legally predictable. For decades, its comparative advantage rested on a simple asymmetry: the Confederation was perceived as a sanctuary for capital.
But the global economic centre of gravity has shifted.
Value no longer circulates primarily in the form of money. It now circulates in the form of data: industrial data, medical data, intellectual property, algorithms, technological secrets, artificial intelligence. In other words, modern wealth no longer lies solely in safes, but in servers.
Today, this model is being put to the test by something infinitely more structural: data governance.
The ongoing revision of the Ordinance on the Surveillance of Postal and Telecommunications Communications (OSCPT) and the Telecommunications Surveillance Act (LSCPT) would oblige a large number of operators and tech companies based in Switzerland to identify their customers and retain the metadata of their communications, so that the authorities can more easily obtain information for police and judicial purposes.
But this legitimate desire to combat terrorism, crime and cyberattacks could well have the opposite effect: a massive loss of trust that would cost the Swiss economy billions.
An alarmist study? The figures speak for themselves
A report commissioned by the Geneva Foundation for Technological Innovation paints a grim picture: billions in economic losses, tens of thousands of jobs disappearing, and cutting-edge tech companies leaving Switzerland en masse. Far from being a mere academic hypothesis, this study highlights a silent but formidable mechanism.
“We must not create a surveillance society,” said Councillor of the States Johanna Gapany (PLR/FR) in December 2025 ahead of a debate in Bern.
Even the federal government has recognised the scale of the problem. Faced with criticism following the first consultation, the Federal Department of Justice and Police commissioned an external firm to carry out a regulatory impact assessment. The Federal Council has also announced that it will revise its draft and submit a new version for consultation. But has the damage already been done?
Why international companies are concerned
For an international company, the problem is never simply “what the law allows today”. The problem is what the law might allow tomorrow. And in the digital economy, this uncertainty is a slow-acting poison.
Criticism from the tech sector is not solely about legal technicalities. It touches on a much deeper issue: the predictability of the system. As Marc Loebekken, Head of Legal at Proton Mail, explains: “The real problem is the widespread retention of data, on the assumption that it might be needed one day.” An approach which, in his view, constitutes a violation of the principle of proportionality, which is fundamental in criminal law and in matters of surveillance.
Companies no longer ask themselves: “Will the state access our data?”. They now ask: “Will there be a mechanism that could one day allow it?”.
And this nuance changes everything.
The domino effect: how a digital economy is quietly being drained
The most dangerous scenario does not resemble a financial crisis with a crash and high-profile bankruptcies. It is far more insidious. Economists speak of a slow but cumulative erosion, in five phases:
Phase 1 – doubt: companies begin to diversify their storage jurisdictions. They aren’t closing anything down in Switzerland, but they are no longer putting all their eggs in one basket.
Phase 2 – arbitrage: sensitive data gradually leaves local infrastructure to be hosted elsewhere.
Phase 3 – strategic relocation: as the data leaves, technical teams eventually follow suit – R&D centres, cybersecurity engineers, artificial intelligence specialists.
Phase 4 – Disengagement: companies remain ‘present’ in Switzerland, but cease to be critical to the digital ecosystem.
Phase 5 – Loss of centrality: Switzerland becomes an administrative hub… but no longer a strategic digital centre.
Parliamentarians have clearly understood this scenario. In December 2025, the Council of States adopted a motion calling on the Federal Council to thoroughly review the revision of the ordinances. But time is running out.
The flaw in the model: what Switzerland really risks
Switzerland’s unique situation is a harsh reality: unlike the major powers, it cannot compensate for a loss of digital appeal with a massive domestic market. It thrives on a fragile balance: trust + neutrality + expertise = global appeal. If just one of these pillars cracks, the equation changes dramatically.
The first warning signs are already visible. The extension of the scope of surveillance would now include, in addition to traditional telecom operators, messaging services, VPNs, cloud solutions and email. Players such as Proton Mail and Threema are denouncing an excessive expansion of the system and pointing to ‘mass surveillance’.
The Federal Council itself has listed the criticisms raised by providers: “Threat to fundamental rights and the rule of law, exceeding its powers, massive expansion of surveillance, disproportionate nature, economic damage to Switzerland, risks to communications security, high costs and international competitiveness”. A litany of grievances that speaks volumes about the extent of the unease
ARCAN : when digital sovereignty ceases to be a mere slogan
In the face of these fears, a technological approach now offers a radical and definitive solution: ARCAN. Born of the realisation that political environments have become volatile and unpredictable, ARCAN is based on a founding principle: data security must not depend on any external trust, whether in a state, a law or a company.
ARCAN is not just another piece of cybersecurity software. It is an architecture of absolute digital sovereignty, entirely offline, designed to be of the highest military-grade security. Its philosophy is based on fundamental principles:
- No backdoor exists, nor can one be introduced;
- No master key is held by anyone;
- No universal unlocking mechanism is provided;
- No third party, including its own designers, can access the protected data.
In this context, security ceases to be a marketing promise or a declaration of intent. It becomes a structural impossibility of access. And this difference is immense, for it is absolute.
Where other systems always leave a backdoor—whether technical, legal or human—ARCAN eliminates it permanently. Its architecture is designed so that, regardless of regulatory changes, regardless of governments, regardless of geopolitical pressures, the data remains inaccessible.
In a world where states are expanding their legal or technical capacity to access data, ARCAN represents the only viable counter-model: not a response to ordinary cybercrime, but a response to the loss of the digital realm’s structural neutrality.
For businesses, institutions and states seeking an absolute digital sanctuary, there is currently no known alternative offering this level of assurance.
Trust cannot be imposed
In the 21st-century economy, trust is non-negotiable. It is binary. You either trust it, or you do not. And once eroded, it cannot be rebuilt by decree.
The danger, therefore, is not surveillance itself. The danger is what it silently destroys: structural trust in the country’s digital stability. Capital does not flee from taxes; it flees from systemic uncertainties.
Companies do not protest. Investors do not demonstrate. Infrastructure does not go on strike. It arbitrates. Then relocates. Then rebuilds elsewhere. And when a country realises it has lost its digital centrality, it usually discovers a brutal truth: destroyed trust costs infinitely more than surveillance has ever yielded.
Switzerland is currently gambling with its most precious asset. And in a data-driven economy, that asset could well vanish… in silence. Unless it chooses to rely on architectures that are both sovereign and inaccessible – the only ones capable of restoring absolute digital trust.
SOURCES:
