Joint Press Statement

From MINBYUN-Lawyers for a Democratic Society, Jinbonet-Korean Progressive Network, Catholic Human Rights Committee

10 March 2011

Korea’s Enactment of the Act on Protection of Privacy Information and the Responsibilities of the Privacy Information Committee

On 9 March 2011, the National Assembly performed an evaluation of two main bills concerning personal information. The revised bill of the Residents Registration Act for the electronic identification card, which has been evaluated by the Public Administration and Security Committee’s department of bill-screening, is to be judged in April. The bill for the Protection of Privacy Information, that the legislation and judiciary committees had been examining, has been passed. The Act on Protection of Privacy Information has been waiting for the decision by the general meeting and the regular session of the legislative and judiciary committees. Unless any sudden change in the status quo occurs, it seems that the current enactment of the Act on Protection of Privacy Information faces no obstacles.

The enactment of the Act on Protection of Privacy Information has been a long-cherished wish of many human rights organizations since the controversy over the electronic identification card began in 1996. The main point in this issue is the establishment of an independent data protection authority named the Privacy Information Committee. The Privacy Information Committee, which could be considered as independent, seems to have been created, despite an obstacle of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security to further its own interests. In this process, the Privacy Information Committee has received invaluable contributions from many specialists, human rights organizations, and the opposition party.

Originally, a bill by the Ministry of Public Administration and Security placed the Privacy Information Committee under the prime minister. Furthermore, the President appoints all the committee members without the assistance of the secretariat and the standing members of the committee. In September 2010, however it was agreed by the Public Administration and Security Committee that those who were in the Privacy Information Committee be promoted to the president’s department, and that the National Assembly and the Court could appoint a third of the needed secretariat and standing members.

But, this alternative also included some exceptions to public institutions and enforcement ordinance. Moreover, it had its limits, as there was no means to control the Ministry of Public Administration and Security’s influence on the Privacy Information Committee. At that time, the President had appointed the chairman and standing members of the Privacy Information Committee, which meant that among those 15 members, the majority were from the ruling party. It is easy to see why this kind of appointment made it difficult for the Privacy Information Committee to truly act as an independent organ, capable of checking or supervising policies that were pushed by the government.

Reducing the numbers of enforcement ordinances, disproving the Ministry of Public Administration and Security’s false remarks that there were no antecedents, and preventing public officials from taking committee positions are great accomplishments. There are, however, some limits as there are many exceptions to public institutions that still exist, and no one can accurately predict when the Privacy Information Committee will ultimately achieve complete independence.

Concerning the alternative, the Ministry of Public Administration has proclaimed that it fits into the international standard and heard the same opinion from the former EU deputy director. However, whether the Privacy Information Committee has enough independence or not would be seen through the work. There still exist some controversial issues such as the possibility of electronic identification card’s violating human rights or the problem caused by CCTV control as the number CCTVs has been increasing in jails. Specifically, pursuant to the recommendation from the National Human Rights Commission of Korea in 2007, the Labor Regulation Act, apart from the Privacy Protection Act, should be quickly passed to improve the circumstances of laborers who have been suffering from the state-of-the-art watching device.

It is really regrettable that the Korean press has not been effectively performing the monitoring work until the enactment of the Act on Protection of Privacy Information. Some media have even repeated the Ministry of Public Administration and security’s groundless claims, misleading public opinion. The press should strive to create a proper Privacy information protection system and to reject suggestive reports about Privacy information leaking.

We are to keep watching, reporting and taking action for continuing improvement of the Act on Protection of Privacy Information.