Controversy Over 'Private Censorship' Surrounding n-Ban Room Prevention Law... Industry Concerns Persist Despite Government Efforts

[Asia Economy Reporter Joselgina] As controversies over private censorship surrounding the so-called ‘n-beonbang Prevention Act’ (Amendments to the Telecommunications Business Act and the Information and Communications Network Act) spread mainly in the internet industry, the Korea Communications Commission (KCC) has stepped in to ease concerns. However, despite the KCC’s clarification that private conversations such as KakaoTalk are not subject to the law, worries continue. Critics argue that many points remain ambiguous and that the regulation could instead hinder domestic companies.

According to related industries on the 16th, the n-beonbang Prevention Act, which passed the National Assembly’s Science, Technology, Information and Communications Committee on the 7th, is now only awaiting review by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee and final approval in the plenary session next week.

While the existing bill only held service providers responsible for the distribution of illegal filmed materials, the revised bill focuses on service providers managing all digital sex crime materials, including child and adolescent sexual exploitation content. Internet service providers are obligated to block distribution by deleting illegal filmed materials and restricting access. The bill also includes provisions requiring the designation of a distribution prevention officer who must submit related reports to the KCC annually.

◆Concerns over private censorship…KCC: "Private conversations not included"=The IT industry, including the Internet Enterprise Association, immediately opposed the bill, arguing that since service providers must review all user posts and content, privacy and communication secrecy could be violated. They explained that the process of deleting illegal obscene materials and blocking access could increase the possibility of prior and private censorship of SNS, private blogs, and the like. There were even concerns that this could be transformed into a method of civilian surveillance.

In response, the KCC held a briefing on the 15th and clearly drew a line, stating that there is no concern that internet service providers would infringe on users’ privacy and communication secrecy. The obligation to prevent the distribution of digital sex crime materials applies only to information distributed publicly and does not include private conversations such as KakaoTalk or email.

The KCC explained, "The obligation for internet service providers to prevent the distribution of illegal filmed materials applies only to 'information distributed publicly,' so text services exchanged between individuals are not subject to this." The KCC also added that service providers have no independent monitoring obligations.

◆Ambiguity in ‘technical and administrative measures’ within the amendment…Industry: "Will increase uncertainty"=However, there are continuous criticisms that the exact meaning of technical and administrative measures is not included in the legal amendment, resulting in significant uncertainty about the system. There are concerns that this will ultimately lead to more regulations. Issues of reverse discrimination between domestic internet service providers and overseas providers such as Telegram have also been raised.

However, the KCC draws a line against industry concerns that technical and administrative measures would force private censorship on private companies. They explained that these measures would include functions allowing users to report illegal filmed materials to service providers, restrictions on users searching for or transmitting illegal filmed materials, and sending warning messages. Furthermore, the KCC added that these measures would only be implemented when there is a report from users or a request from institutions or organizations according to presidential decrees, not through providers’ independent monitoring.

The technical and administrative measures are scheduled to be implemented one year after the bill passes the National Assembly, following consultations with service providers. The KCC also plans to gather opinions from providers in the future to devise ways to minimize concerns. Regarding the issue of reverse discrimination against domestic internet providers, the KCC emphasized that it will expand international cooperation with overseas related agencies to apply the law without discrimination to foreign providers as well.

In response, an industry insider expressed continued concern, saying, "Most of the specific details are left to enforcement ordinances and other regulations," and "Uncertainty increases during the process of setting ambiguous standards, which could only increase regulations." The internet industry also criticized that proper discussions were not held during the passage of the amendment, as formal and procedural requirements such as the legislative notice period of more than 10 days under the National Assembly Act were not observed.