earticle

영어

In the European Union, there was an important judgment made by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) concerning the right to be forgotten on 13 May 2014. A Spanish citizen, Mario Costeja González, sued Google for libel through the ECJ. Specifically, he wanted a newspaper article about his insolvency to be “forgotten” by Google and no longer be listed on the search engine. The content of the judgment is as follows: a) Even if the physical server of a company processing data is located outside Europe, EU rules apply to search engine operators if they have a branch or a subsidiary in a Member State which promotes the selling of advertising space offered by the search engine. b) Search engines are controllers of personal data. Google can therefore not escape its responsibilities before European law when handling personal data by saying it is a search engine. EU data protection law applies and so does the right to be forgotten. c) Individuals have the right - under certain conditions - to ask search engines to remove links with personal information about them. This applies where the information is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive for the purposes of the data processing. The 1995 Data Protection Directive (Article 12: Right of access) already includes the right to be forgotten. In South Korea, the Korea Communications Commission (KCC) announced guidelines, namely “Exclusion Request Access Rights of Internet Self-Posts” for the right to be forgotten on 24 March 2016. According to the guidelines, when it is impossible to delete their internet posts, the writer of an internet message may ask the administrator and operator of the internet board or search service provider to delete the message or exclude it from search listings. However, there are concerns regarding the impact on the right to freedom of expression and to privacy. To put it concretely, there are some legal problems as follows. First, there is no legal basis for guidelines. Second, internet messages posted by others do not apply to the right to be forgotten and it is unclear whether digital information is inherited or not. Third, internet messages such as pictures and videos (that do not contain text messages or comments) posted by foreign internet service providers do not apply to the right to be forgotten. Fourth, the administrator and operator of the internet board or search service provider are liable to civil responsibility in the case that there are differences between the judiciary results and the exclusion of approach results. Fifth, there are concerns about the practicality of establishing a “right to be forgotten” as well as its impact on private censorship and the right to freedom of expression. Sixth, it is uncertain how the concept of public figure and the corresponding limits of a public figure apply. Seventh, the guidelines have positions that are in direct opposition to the PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION ACT. To solve these legal problems, first we have to enact a law for the right to be forgotten. Second, we have to expand the object and the other party of the right to be forgotten so that internet messages posted by others and internet messages such as pictures and videos (that do not contain text messages or comments) posted by foreign internet service providers can be applied. Third, there needs to be more clarity regarding digital information from deader to delegated person and heir. Fourth, legislation must compensate the administrators and operators of the internet board or search service provider after the guidelines are carried out. Fifth, to protect the human rights of internet users and internet service providers, there need to be measures to increase self-regulation on the internet. Sixth, the concept of a public figure needs to be defined and the limits of a public figure need to be clarified. Seventh, the guidelines need to be reformed in accordance with the personal information protection act or alternatively, there need to be improvements made to the personal information protection act for the right to be forgotten.

한국어

방송통신위원회의 인터넷 자기게시물 접근배제요청권 가이드라인에 따르면 접근배제 요청인은 게시판 관리․운영 또는 검색서비스 제공 사업자를 상대로 해당 인터넷 게시물을 직접 작성하였음을 소명하고 해당 인터넷 게시물의 접근배제 및 검색목록 배제를 요청할 수 있어 인터넷 게시물 작성자 본인의 권리를 보호할 수 있지만 인터넷 게시물 작성자 이외의 인터넷 이용자의 알권리, 게시판 관리․운영 또는 검색서비스 제공 사업자의 표현의 자유 및 직업 수행의 자유 등 기본권을 침해될 우려가 있다. 이에 본 논문에서는 가이드라인의 제정 배경, 잊힐 권리 행사 요건, 잊힐 권리 논의의 계기가 된 유럽사법재판소의 Mario Costeja González 사건 개요, 주요 판결 내용, 방송통신위원회의 잊힐 권리와 공통점과 차이점, 유사제도 등에 대해 살펴보면서, “법적 근거가 불명확한 점, 잊힐 권리 행사 객체가 협소한 점, 사자(死者)가 생전에 위임한 지정인이 사자(死者)를 위해 잊힐 권리를 행사할 수 있는지 불명확한 점, 상속 가능한 디지털 정보가 명확하지 않은 점, 잊힐 권리 상대방이 협소한 점, 사법부에 의해 잊힐 권리 인정 여부가 번복되면서 부담하는 법적 책임이 가중한 점, 사적기관에 의한 검열 우려가 있는 점, 잊힐 권리 적용배제 대상인 공인의 정의 및 그 범위가 불명확한 점, 공익과 상당한 관련성이 있는 경우를 판단하기 어려운 점, 개인정보 보호법에 반하는 내용이 있는 점” 등과 같은 가이드라인의 법률적 문제점 및 그 개선 방안을 제시하였다.