The referendum is not a rejection of digitalization, but a battle for its soul

On September 28, 2025, the Swiss electorate will decide the fate of the Federal Act on Electronic Identity Credentials. This legislation proposes the introduction of a state-issued electronic identity, a centralized digital credential designed to streamline access to public and private services alike. While the Federal Council and Parliament advocate for its adoption, a coalition of civic organizations has successfully triggered a referendum, ensuring the final arbiter will be the citizenry. The shadow of the 2021 vote, where a similar proposal was resoundingly defeated, looms large over the debate.

Proponents frame the E-ID as an indispensable cornerstone of Switzerland’s digital infrastructure. They contend that a state-controlled system, bound by strict legal and security frameworks, offers a superior alternative to the current patchwork of private commercial logins, thereby fostering greater public trust. The government assures that the E-ID will remain voluntary and free of charge, positing it as a tool of inclusion rather than compulsion. The practical advantages are presented as self-evident: a seamless, paperless conduit for administrative tasks, financial operations, and civic duties, promising unparalleled efficiency. Economically, it is envisioned as a catalyst for innovation and a bolster to the nation’s competitive standing. The broad, cross-spectrum political endorsement is cited as testament to the proposal’s balance and robust design. 

However, a closer look reveals significant misgivings.

The current proposal is best understood as a hybrid model—not fully open-source, though not entirely a black-box system either. Detractors issue a sobering warning against the creation of a monolithic data repository, arguing that such a concentration of sensitive personal information presents an irresistible target for malicious actors, notwithstanding any promised safeguards. They challenge the very premises of the proposal, suggesting the E-ID is likely to be neither entirely secure, truly free, nor meaningfully voluntary in the long term. History offers a clear pattern of such tools evolving from conveniences into necessities—much as the credit card or mobile number became de facto requisites for participation in modern life. The potential for a similar trajectory here effectively nullifies the principle of voluntary use. 

A critical technical objection lies in the system’s architecture not being fully open source. This opacity, critics argue, inherently slows the identification and remediation of security vulnerabilities. In such a model, the relentless search for flaws is ceded to adversaries, while the community of independent researchers and developers is sidelined. This creates a fertile ground for “zero-day exploits” and ensures that when a breach occurs—a scenario treated as inevitable—its impact will be maximized.

Additional misgivings include the risks of enrollment fraud and the implications of a centralized—rather than decentralized—digital identity model. Critical questions about data minimization and the exclusion of vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, remain largely unanswered.

For opponents, a rejection of this proposal is not a rejection of digital progress itself. Rather, it is a battle for its soul. It’s about being for good and ethical digital progress: decentralized, open-source, and free. It is the affirmation that Switzerland can, and should, aspire to a more sophisticated model: one that is inherently privacy-respecting, decentralized, voluntary and truly worthy of public trust.

The referendum presents a fundamental choice: is the E-ID a key to a more efficient and secure future, responsibly stewarded by the state? Or is it a step toward heightened surveillance and systemic vulnerability? On September 28, voters will weigh these competing visions and shape Switzerland’s digital destiny.

Marianthe Stavridou

PS. The Internet Society has championed  for all these values since the Internet’s early days and has weathered many turning points when the perceived urgency to “catch up” with rapid developments proved destructive. Preserving different options truly available, including non-digital choice, is essential if Swiss society is to defend itself against addiction, cyberattacks, and disasters. Taking slow, careful steps is a Swiss tradition; in this case prioritizing safety and resilience is more important than ever.

The post The referendum is not a rejection of digitalization, but a battle for its soul appeared first on ISOC Switzerland Chapter.