[Asia Exclusive] Hansanghyuk "N번방 Prevention Law, Censorship of 'Private Conversations' Is Absolutely Unacceptable"

Monitoring Group Chats Impossible...Beyond Legal Violation, It Undermines Constitutional Values
Secret Chat Rooms to Be Monitored Through Voluntary Reporting Reward System
Strengthening Enforcement Against Overseas Operators Like Telegram
5G Illegal Subsidy Sanctions to Consider Public Convenience
Strict Review of General Programming Reauthorization to Align with Policy Goals

Chairman Sang-Hyuk Han of the Korea Communications Commission. / Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

[Interview = Asia Economy Lee Jeong-il, Head of the 4th Industrial Department; Summary = Reporter Koo Chae-eun] Regarding the controversy over personal surveillance following the passage of the 'n-bang Prevention Act' in the National Assembly, Han Sang-hyuk, Chairman of the Korea Communications Commission (photo), firmly stated, "It is not about peeking into private conversations such as KakaoTalk." He explained that the purpose of this law is to block the distribution of sexual exploitation materials on public services, such as Naver, Daum, Google sites, or social networking services (SNS), rather than private chat rooms like KakaoTalk.

The n-bang Prevention Act (an amendment to the Telecommunications Business Act), which imposes obligations on internet service providers to prevent the distribution of sexual exploitation materials, passed the plenary session of the National Assembly on the 20th. On the following day (the 21st), Han Sang-hyuk, Chairman of the Korea Communications Commission, whom we met at the government Gwacheon office, explained that the n-bang Prevention Act is a policy that can be effective without private censorship. However, the law will selectively apply to service providers considering their scale and other factors.

Regarding the 'free-riding on network fees' issue raised by Netflix's abuse of power controversy, he said, "Although it is a private contract between businesses, there are issues of domestic and international reverse discrimination, so guidelines were created." On the sanctions for illegal 5G subsidies, he suggested a stance that prioritizes public convenience over sanctions by saying, "We will carefully examine factors such as the impact of COVID-19 on the market."

- There is controversy over personal surveillance regarding the 'n-bang Prevention Act.'

▲ It is a misunderstanding. It is absolutely impossible and not intended to look into private conversations such as group chats or messengers. The Communications Privacy Protection Act clearly exists. Peeking into (private conversations) without a warrant or legal procedures is not only illegal but also violates constitutional values. Neither companies nor the government can view private conversation spaces. To detect such content, there must be mechanical and technical means that do not cause misunderstandings. Currently, such means do not exist. Therefore, we plan to operate a reward system for voluntary reporting by someone in the chat room. The criticism that it is contradictory to increase effectiveness without private censorship mixes two completely different issues (privacy protection and securing policy effectiveness), which causes misunderstanding.

- Does this mean that enforcement targets sexual exploitation materials spreading not in private chat rooms but in public online spaces?

▲ Yes. The 'n-bang Prevention Act' is a law created to prevent the distribution of sexual exploitation materials on the internet. In other words, it aims to block secondary transmission when sexual exploitation materials from private chat rooms spread to public places. Internet service providers, as members of the community, must bear obligations on this issue, which has strong social consensus. Distribution of sexual exploitation materials is clearly illegal and destroys individuals' lives. To reiterate, the purpose of this law is to require internet business operators who generate profits through their services to make efforts to filter out sexual exploitation materials.

- Most of the details were delegated to presidential decrees. Which service providers will be subject to the law?

▲ It targets internet service providers capable of blocking the distribution of sexual exploitation materials in line with the law's purpose. The scale of the service will also be considered. It is not appropriate to apply the law to all providers offering the service. It is difficult to regulate this unilaterally. Economic conditions and other factors will also be taken into account.

- Interpretation of the law is the court's role, not the administrative agency's. Even if providers take measures, cases may arise where they are judged to have failed to fulfill their obligations.

▲ There is a strong public consensus that incidents like the n-bang case must be prevented. It is a minimum obligation that providers must bear. If it was absolutely impossible, sentencing considerations will be properly made.

- There is criticism that Telegram is not subject to the n-bang Prevention Act.

▲ Discussions on international judicial cooperation are ongoing. Concerns about strengthening enforcement on overseas providers will continue. A general extraterritorial provision has been established. Through the agent designation system, a foundation has been laid to request data submission and demand corrections. Of course, this is not sufficient. We will create and supplement systems one by one. The Telegram issue is the same for any country. Telegram itself must show compliance with local laws. If problems persist, it will be rejected by the market.

Hansanghyuk, Chairman of the Korea Communications Commission. / Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

- Korea Communications Commission's stance on Netflix's network usage fee controversy

▲ Network usage fees are a private matter. The Commission made a 'financial' suggestion to induce agreement between parties, but Netflix said it would prefer a court ruling over the Commission's judgment. (From Netflix's perspective) this is a guaranteed system. The Commission plans to submit opinions to the court.

- Although domestic OTTs have launched, concerns remain about market encroachment by foreign platforms.

▲ The core issue is the dominance gap between domestic OTTs and foreign OTTs. Foreign OTTs are not just encroaching but monopolizing the market. Ultimately, content competitiveness is crucial. Also, the domestic OTT market, limited to 50 million (the population of South Korea), is insufficient. To make Southeast Asia and the entire Asian region a market, a coalition OTT that can include content from those countries is needed. (This is something operators should do,) but from our standpoint, we will spare no effort to support this.

- How far has the fact-checking activation against fake news, emphasized as a key goal upon inauguration, progressed?

▲ I believe it should be done in the private sector. Even during the COVID-19 situation, there was internet fake news. Fake news gains power through transmission and spread. I think it is necessary for credible media to correct it immediately. The initial idea was to support this at the private level, and it is currently underway. We are preparing an open platform, content monitoring, and a system where experts and citizens participate to check whether information is true or false.

- There are calls for moderation in sanctions on illegal 5G subsidies.

▲ I am cautious about speaking directly on this issue. However, we must consider the adverse effects sanctions may have on the market. The COVID-19 situation is exceptional, so we will take that into account. Sanctions are not the goal themselves. The goal is to minimize difficulties for the public. The focus is not on penalizing providers but on enhancing the convenience of the public and users. We are currently contemplating this.

- There was a difference in opinion with the Ministry of Science and ICT regarding the paid broadcasting combined regulation applied only to KT.

▲ The combined regulation was originally a temporary law. The situation where regulation could be based on the 'size' of market dominance has already passed. Instead, we will consider three major principles: user protection, competition among providers, and diversity. The idea is to shift from regulating market dominance size to regulating to ensure these principles are upheld. We are coordinating with the Ministry of Science and ICT.

- There are criticisms that excessive 'conditions' were imposed on general programming channel re-approval and that the review was 'too lenient.'

▲ Approved and licensed operators are granted special business rights by the government, which sets policy goals. The government has the responsibility to manage, supervise, and monitor to ensure operation aligns with those goals. In extreme cases, approval can be denied or licenses revoked, but until that stage, the task is to guide operators to meet the public's expectations and policy goals. The re-approval system includes all these aspects. (I understand there is criticism that the system itself does not design for expulsion.) That is not true. If the majority of the public truly finds it unacceptable, (license revocation) should be considered.

Interview = Lee Jeong-il, Head of the 4th Industrial Department

Summary = Reporter Koo Chae-eun