Re: End to end encryption is not enough
As usual, it depends on your exact definition, that of „end-to-end“ in this case.
This definition has been muddled in the past, mostly by marketing concerns pushing a specific solution. That is even more the case for „zero trust“ which I posit to have lost any meaning whatsoever.
I guess privatim’s idea is that the citizen is one end of the transaction, the other being the public office. Mind that privatim’s members are all lawyers, their technical lingo may not be fully up to snuff.
(Actually paragraph 2 of the resolution („too little transparency“) would be a strike against any closed-source software, regardless of where it runs.)
Finally, if Switzerland works somewhat like my country, the data protection offices are political leightweights. They may offer advice, words of warning, wagging of fingers … but if a few thousand Francs could perhaps, maybe be saved by moving to the cloud, this would trump any concern, every time.