[The Editors' Verdict] Platform Regulation Should Focus on 'Ethics,' Not 'Corporations'

[Asia Economy Reporter Myung Jin-kyu] The word "profiling" was a specialized term several years ago, but now it is one of the most frequently appearing words in popular culture.

The development of profiling from something that only appeared in detective novels into an academic discipline is largely credited to FBI investigator John Douglas, author of "Mind Hunter." John Douglas established the field of profiling based on three elements: lexical analysis, behavioral pattern analysis, and data mining. By analyzing messages left by criminals such as phone calls and letters, and the dialects and terms they use, one can infer their occupation and upbringing. Behavioral pattern analysis identifies the suspect's occupation and age through the crime scene and time of the offense, and determines their range of activity, residence, and main activity areas. Lastly, data mining finds certain patterns among indiscriminately collected evidence to create a pool of suspects.

These three elements are the same as the data collected from consumers by major platform companies, i.e., big tech firms.

Market research firm Statista projected that while individuals generated 1,500 data points per day using digital devices in 2010, this number will increase to over 5,000 by 2025. Big data accumulated 24/7 through PCs, smartphones, and Bluetooth devices captures every move of an individual. As the amount of data increases, big tech companies can analyze each person's big data to predict future behavior more accurately. Artificial intelligence (AI) completes vast data mining tasks instantly. Ultimately, platform companies owning big data create a world where they "know me better than I know myself."

This is why we must consider "ethics" as much as the "innovation" brought by the convenience of platforms. In "System Error," authored by three professors teaching computer science, philosophy, and political science at Stanford University, the authors point out, "Since the beginning of what we now consider the nation-state, governments and citizens have been engaged in a constant tug-of-war over data. The difference now is that we willingly hand over personal information to private companies, allowing them to collect data with almost no restrictions, creating a political-economic situation called 'surveillance capitalism.'"

The same situation has occurred in South Korea. The "Kakao incident" made us realize that we exchange very private information through platform companies' services without much thought. Although the president's remark that "Kakao is effectively the national backbone communication network" may be somewhat exaggerated, it is also somewhat understandable.

In "System Error," the authors note, "(Big tech companies) believe that politicians who know nothing about technology are holding back innovation, so they pour money into lobbying politicians and shaping public opinion." It was revealed during this year's National Assembly audit that Google not only lobbies the legislature to block legislation but also supports civic groups through advertising.

The solution lies with the government. All relevant ministries, including the National Assembly, the Ministry of Science and ICT, the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, the Fair Trade Commission, the Personal Information Protection Commission, and the Financial Supervisory Service, are issuing regulations on Kakao and the platform industry. However, regulatory philosophy must come first. The focus is only on the problems of platform companies, and ethical issues caused by digital technology are rarely addressed. Establishing a regulatory philosophy on how to view and handle the vast amount of big data created by individuals must come first.