Welcome to BASE21

The network linked all over the world can be described as a spider's web. But the Korean government is trying to cut the web by censorship. Under the name of protecting personal information and the settlement of a sound system on the network, the freedom of the Internet is being threatened.

"Don't throw the baby out with the bath water." This proverb means that clinging to a trifle can cause the spoiling of more important things. When people talk about the "Act on Promotion of the Utilization of Information Systems (APUIS)" they often use this proverb. But the government seems to want to spoil more important things. As they spoil more important things, they can acquire more power.
The Ministry of Information and Communication (MIC) held a public hearing to revise the APUIS on July 20, 2000. There was a previous notice for the law on September 23. The MIC announced that the government revised the law to protect personal information and keep adolescents from harmful information on the network, and to settle a sound system on the network. But many people objected to the law and they insisted on abrogating the law, because it may suppress freedom on the network.

According to MIC publications there weren't any laws protecting personal information on the network in the past and existing acts such as the "Telecommunications Business Act (TBA)" does not regulate PC and voice communications but is concerned with technology such as the telephone. These acts have limits regulating illegal things on the Internet. So the government needs a new act that applies to the Internet. The APUIS has a positive aspect. It is a law about protecting individual's information on the network. By legalizing this act, individuals can protect their information from being utilized for illegal purposes. However, this act can't protect personal information completely. Contained in the 27th act, it points out that when an Internet Service Provider (ISP) entrusts different people with collecting, or controlling personal information, the ISP should notify the fact to users. Also the 28th act explains, "A person who successes the rights and duties about services from the ISP should notify the fact to users." Following these acts, a person who is entrusted by the ISP and successes the rights and duties of the ISP only notifies the facts to users without the users' agreement. ISPs may use personal information making money by entrusting and transferring such information to other people. For example, advertisements can be sent via email to a certain person and they can become a member of a certain company.
This isn't the heart of the matter. The act has more serious consequences. First, the MIC made the APUIS without reflecting any public opinion by the contents of the act. Although a public hearing was held on July 20, 2000, the MIC announced it on July 19, 2000. When the public hearing was held, participants representing civil groups objected to the APUIS. The MIC said that they would take into account their objections and correct the problems, but the MIC announced the next announcement for the APUIS without fixing the problems. And the MIC didn't notify the correct people and civil organizations concerning the enactment of the law. They noted that seven organizations attended the enactment of the APUIS. However, these organizations did not support this announcement. For example, the Korea Sexual Violence Relief Center (KSVRC) asked the MIC for an apology for announcing that the KSVRC participated in making the act. The KSVRC pointed out that they didn't and objected to the act. The MIC made a false representation to avoid criticism.
Second, if the APUIS is executed, it isn't compatible with international trends and has practical consequences on everyone related to it. In the 16th and 17th acts, it states that the minister of the MIC supervises the address of the Internet such as domain names, protocol addresses and controls problems with domain names.
The ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) has been carrying out administration of internet addresses and controls disputes over domain names in the world. It is operated freely by a non-government organization. If the MIC takes over jurisdiction, it will cause confusion to ISP, Information Providers (IP), and users of the internet. Even if the APUIS is enforced, the MIC can control only Korean domain names such as ".kr", they can't control international domains such as ".com", ".net", and ".org". People will comply with the APUIS in the national internet address and act on the principles made by for ICANN for international internet addresses. And if the MIC controls internet addresses, conflicts over domain name will cause a lot of expenses. These expenses will come from taxes that citizens pay to the government. Above all, this act can be used as a means of censoring and controlling the network. The government can give disadvantages to organizations that criticize the government. "The MIC tries to cut off the voice of objection to the government in networks by establishing the APUIS," said Cho Hyoung-jin, Vice Director in the Department of Information and Communication of the Democratic Labor Party of South Korea.
Third, there is the matter of Improper Communications. The acts of Improper Communication are in the Telecommunications Business Act. Originally, the APUIS had acts of Illegal Information. As for following these acts, the minister of the MIC can decide what is Illegal Information in order to not treat Illegal Information to the ISP. However, civil groups criticized these acts, because the concept of Illegal Information is vague and the minister of the MIC is able to judge it of his own will. So the MIC announced that they would eliminate the acts concerning Illegal Information and replace it with the acts about Improper Communication.
As per the 53rd act of the TBA, the minister of the MIC can decide that electronic communication businessmen should not deal with Improper Communications as decided by the MIC minister. Then, what is the concept of Improper Communication? The 16th act of the TBA explains the concepts of Improper Communication. They are electronic communications that conduct criminal acts and incite a person to commit a crime, those that conduct a harmful act to the nation, and have an improper influence on society. But these concepts are vague and can be used for the government's own purposes.
Fourth, the APUIS has provisions rating information on the network. The 43rd act indicates that the minister of the MIC can induce the Internet Rating System (IRS) to the ISP with definite criteria and the Committee for Ethics on the Network should decide the criteria for the IRS and announce it. As for the 45th act, a person who provides harmful information to juveniles should that it is harmful to juveniles. The 46th act says that the minister of the MIC can demand the installation of PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selection) in public libraries and schools that juveniles use. PICS is a software program which remembers the IRS and selects whether a web site is adequate to be linked or not. The acts point out that ISPs can rate their information freely and installing PICS isn't enforced. But the Committee for Ethics on the Network decides criteria for the IRS. These acts can cause withering effects to ISPs. They cannot but keep these acts, because they are afraid of receiving disadvantages from the government. And if an ISP decides that there is a wrong rating of their information, what does the MIC conduct to the ISP? The IRS will disappear unless the government punishes the ISP. Therefore, the free IRS is disabled from being archived.
The 45th act has other concerns. What is information harmful to juveniles? The "Act for Protecting Juveniles" defines it as information that promotes a sense of lewdness and improper sexual curiosity to juvenile. This concept is vague. That is to say, the Committee for the Ethics in the Network can decide what harmful information there is to juveniles of their own free will. Freedom of expression on the network can be threatened. "The purpose of this act is to censor and control the network under the name of protecting juveniles," said Chang Yeo-kyung, Policy Director for the Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet. And many people are doubtful about whether this act can protect juveniles. They point out that the necessary education for juveniles is to develop the capacity to judge the value of information and receive it for themselves. The EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) indicates, "Blocking up the linking of useful information will erase the educational effects of the Internet."
PICS has some other problems too. PICS can't recognize the meaning from the context. If a web site counsels about sexual violence, PICS decides that the web site can't be accessed. And PICS blocks up not only juvenile sites but also adult sites. Public facilities such as public libraries are also used by adults. Blocking sites to adults is a violation of one's right to know about something. Developing and installing PICS will cost about 1.5 billon won. The taxes that citizens pay to the government will be used for this.
The MIC has more power than before through the APUIS. The Committee for Settlement Conflict between Individuals was established and the Committee for Ethics on the Network has great power. The Committee for Settlement Conflict between Individuals can ask data concerning conflict to ISPs, they must show the data to the Committee for Settlement Conflict between Individuals. Settlements decided by it have an equal effect with that of those comprising elements of a trial. The Committee for Ethics in the Network has a right to rate the web sites and to regulate Improper Communications. These committees have the same right that the Judiciary has. It means that authorities of the Judiciary and Executive are concentrated in the MIC. "Concentration of power is always wrong, it becomes the obstacle which blocks the development of society," criticized Kim Ki-jung, a lawyer for the Committee of Lawyers for a Democratic Society.

Today, the Internet has great influence all over the world. Through the Internet, people can acquire much information, knowledge and communicate with people in other locations. Many people believe that the Internet is a means to develop democracy and pluralistic thoughts. The Internet is different from television, radio, newspapers, or magazines. In the print and broadcasting media there is only one way that information and knowledge flows. A few elite groups monopolize information and select whether or not they will provide certain information. As the Internet spread gradually, average people became aware of secret information and provided the information to other people. As everyone has access to equal information, democracy develops and they share that information. "Information dominates the world today. Quantity of information decides the quantity of power," said Alvin Tofler, the futurology scholar. Citizens reveal their thoughts through the Internet through plain and vivid expressions. They developed their personality and originality, giving their thoughts to others and receiving their thoughts. Cho Hyoung-jin said, "Television, newspapers, and magazines can be edited. However, the Internet is different from these. The voices of common people appear on the Internet without being filtered. They express their personality and originality without hesitation."
However, the government wants to try to control these phenomena through censorship. The government is afraid of the general public having too much information, their revealing of personality and originality, and their expression of free thoughts. They are afraid because, it means that the power of the government grows weak. But these phenomena of government power growing weak are an international trend. The government of the USA made the "Communication Decency Act (CDA)" aimed at protecting minors by criminalizing indecency on the internet in 1996. Many civil groups challenged the CDA, insisting that it restricts freedom on the internet. Finally, the Supreme Court decided in 1997 that the CDA was an unconstitutional law, because it can restrict freedom of expression. In 1998, the Congress again, made the "Child Online Protection Act (COPA)" similar to the CDA. But the court struck down the COPA, too.
Although the government wants to control it, people don't remain indifferent. They think that censorship shouldn't be used as a way to control society. And they are taking positive actions to remove censorship. Twenty-seven civil groups have published a publication objecting to the APUIS. They are holding a demonstration once in two weeks and protesting on the website of the MIC by writing articles objecting to the censorship. "The government wants to control communication on the network by making the APUIS. This act should be abolished to make an equal and fair communication society on the network regardless of location, status, and social class," says Lee Jun-hee, Team Chief of the Citizen's Coalition for Democratic Media Internet Journalism. The government and the MIC cannot ignore citizens' objections to the act. They are no longer the people who were suppressed and exploited of the past.