2024-08-08 02:59:55
“There is a high possibility of violating basic rights, so improvement is necessary”
The ripple effect of a mass inquiry by opposition lawmakers and journalists
As the controversy continues over the prosecution’s en masse search of information on telecommunication users such as opposition party members, aides, and journalists, voices are also rising in earnest within the ruling party saying, “The prosecution’s search of telecommunications should be limited to court warrants.” The view is that the same problem is repeated with only the prosecution and defense changing with each change in government, and that there is a high possibility of violating basic rights, so institutional reform is necessary. Democratic Party members are preparing to propose a bill that would require a court warrant to search telecommunications user information. Telecommunications user information data is different from “telecommunication fact confirmation data” that can be received only with a warrant, as it is subscription information such as name and resident registration number that investigative agencies can receive from telecommunications companies without court permission.
People Power Party lawmaker Kwon Young-se, a five-term veteran and former prosecutor, said in a phone call with this newspaper on the 7th, “There is a tendency for the prosecution and other investigative agencies to excessively search communications under any regime,” and “I think that control by the court and the principle of warrants are necessary in this area.” He emphasized, “It can be seen as an infringement on the right to privacy, so there is nothing we can do when it is necessary for the purpose of an investigation, but some level of restrictions are necessary.” The ruling party has made additional comments about the need for institutional improvement following the previous day’s statement by Supreme Council member Jang Dong-hyeok, a former judge and key member of the pro-North Korea faction (pro-Han Dong-hoon), who said, “I agree with the need for a court warrant (for the prosecution’s communications search).”
The Democratic Party has begun to revise the Telecommunications Business Act to require the prosecution to obtain a court warrant when searching for communication information. Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Seung-won, the floor leader of the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee, said on the same day, “The prosecution is abusing the (communication search) system, so we need to introduce a court warrant system.” In the legal community, there are also voices calling for the law to be revised so that communication information can only be searched if there is a court warrant in order to fundamentally resolve the controversy over communication information.
Kwon Young-se and other ruling party legal professionals say, “Communication search control is necessary”… Opposition party says, “Introduce warrant system”
[무차별 통신조회 파문]
“Personal privacy needs stricter restrictions”
Inquiries last year were 1.48 million… an increase of 170,000
Democratic Party to Revise ‘Court Warrant System’ Law… Opposition Voices Also Saying “It Will Obstruct Speedy Investigation”
The reason why voices are being raised in the passport to limit the prosecution’s communication searches is because the People Power Party also suffered similar damage in 2021 when it was the opposition party. In particular, as heavyweight ruling party lawmakers from the legal profession, such as prosecutors and judges, have added their opinions to this controversy, the need for system improvement is gaining more strength.
Under the current law, investigative agencies such as the prosecution can search for communication information without a court warrant. They do not check call records, but just by searching for communication, they can reveal who they usually talk to. In the case of politicians and journalists, the prosecution can completely grasp their personal networks. Although the prosecution must notify after searching for communication, the purpose of use is often stated only as ‘investigation,’ so there is growing criticism that the parties involved cannot know exactly why their communication was searched, which is a blind spot.
● Even within the ruling party, “need for warrant for communication inquiry”
The People Power Party’s floor leadership is still keeping its distance from the telecommunications inquiry controversy. This is because the controversy arose during the Yoon Seok-yeol administration’s prosecution, and the opposition party is intentionally fanning the flames and using them to “bulletproof former leader Lee Jae-myung.”
However, voices are growing louder among party members saying, “We need to discuss improving the system.” People Power Party lawmaker Kwon Young-se said in a phone call on the 7th, “I think it’s time to control certain parts of the legal provisions related to communication searches, rather than leaving them solely to the prosecution or investigative agencies,” adding, “These days, personal information is becoming more stringent, so there is a need to place more serious restrictions on personal privacy.” Rep. Kwon was also one of the subjects of the communication searches by the Senior Civil Servants’ Corruption Investigation Office (Public Prosecutor’s Office) in 2021. Floor leader Choo Kyung-ho also said on the same day, “I was also subject to communication history searches when I was in the opposition party,” adding, “I understand that (the prosecution) followed the procedure this time, so I will take a look.”
Following pro-Park key lawmaker Jang Dong-hyeok’s statement the previous day that he “100% agrees (with the need for institutional reform),” another pro-Park reelected lawmaker who requested anonymity also said, “Considering how heavily they investigated us during the Moon Jae-in administration three years ago, it’s a bit of a reversal,” and “Since it restricts individual freedom, the warrant system should naturally be the principle. In general terms, it’s unreasonable.”
Kim Sang-wook, a first-term lawmaker and former lawyer, also said in a phone call, “Isn’t there a need for another verification process in court?” Another first-term lawmaker and former lawyer said, “If we receive the warrant formally, we can prevent excessive inquiries during the process.”
However, there are still opposing voices, such as “investigations must be swift and confidential” (a second-term lawmaker with a legal background) and “if a warrant is requested every time a communication inquiry is made, it will ruin a case that is at a critical level” (a first-term lawmaker with a legal background), so it is expected to be difficult to gather opinions within the party.
● “The number of prosecution communication inquiries increased by 170,000 in one year”
The Democratic Party has begun to revise the law so that a court warrant is required to search communications. The party is also considering adopting this as a party policy. Rep. Kim Seung-won, the opposition floor leader of the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee, said, “We will push for a revision of the law so that when the prosecution reports the fact of a communications search, the reason for the search is also reported.”
The Democratic Party, which has completed a full-scale investigation into the party, has launched an all-out offensive against the prosecution, including opening a “Telecommunication Surveillance Victims Reporting Center” to determine the scale of damage suffered by ordinary citizens and considering filing a complaint against the prosecution for election obstruction and violation of the Telecommunications Business Act.
Democratic Party spokesperson Han Min-soo said, “This telecommunications surveillance can be seen as an attempt by the central prosecutors’ office to search for and store information on people critical of the government,” adding, “The fact that the political prosecutors notified the government of the telecommunications surveillance seven months later was also a political judgment considering the general election in April.”
According to Rep. Kim Seung-won’s office, the number of cases in which the prosecution checked telecommunications user information increased by about 170,000, from 1,305,620 in 2022 to 1,479,392 in 2023. Democratic Party spokesperson Hwang Jeong-ah pointed out that “comprehensive telecommunications checks are showing a trend of rapid increase again under the Yoon Seok-yeol administration.”
As the controversy spreads, voices are growing louder in the legal community for the need for legal revision. Yang Hong-seok, a lawyer at Leegong Law Firm, said, “It is an invasion of privacy for investigative agencies to obtain information without the consent of a specific individual, regardless of the severity of the information.” He also pointed out that, “The current post-notification system is designed to allow for a grace period, but there is a high risk of abuse because it is the investigative agency that decides this.” A lawyer who used to be a judge said, “The mere fact that communication information can be easily provided has caused the majority of citizens to worry about invasion of privacy when talking to someone,” and “We need to create a procedure for the court to make a judgment based on the warrant principle.”
However, there are continuing counterarguments that the current system should allow searches without warrants for the sake of investigation efficiency and confidentiality. Professor Lee Chang-hyun of the Law School at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies said, “Providing telecommunications user information is a basic and rudimentary search of investigative data,” and “It is difficult to see it as a violation of human rights since it only verifies subscriber information.”
Reporter Kim Jun-il [email protected]
Reporter Ahn Gyu-young [email protected]
Reporter Koo Min-ki [email protected]
Reporter Kwon Gu-yong [email protected]
2024-08-08 02:59:55