개인정보보호위치추적의견서프라이버시

In the era of COVID-19, is S.Korea’s ‘new normal’ a digital surveillance state?

By 2020/05/26 6월 15th, 2020 No Comments

In the era of COVID-19, is S.Korea’s ‘new normal’ a digital surveillance state? Immediately withdraw the plan to introduce electronic entry register system! 

Korean Statement: https://act.jinbo.net/wp/42955/

 

On May 25, Central Disaster and Safety Countermeasures Headquarters (CDSCHQ) announced that it plans to introduce ‘electronic entry register system (QR code)’ for facilities deemed to be high-risk of spreading COVID-19, including entertainment facilities. It means it would be electronically recorded who entered what facilities. Currently, facilities such as karaoke bars and clubs have recorded a list of visitors and their identities by hand. But, the record was often inaccurate, which was the reason for the introduction of new electronic entry register system. Korean government said that the system will keep separate identification and facility access records to protect privacy, but the matter is that the state can track individuals whenever it needs them. On the contrary, people will be placed in a state where the state can monitor them at any time. We are concerned about that the government is trying to establish a more complete surveillance and control system in the name of epidemic prevention. 

Those who are required to leave entry records at the facility are neither patient nor suspect of infectious diseases. While the purpose of the system is to respond to possible collective infections, if every single step of individuals is collected mandatorily for just a contingency without concrete grounds, that is the way to enter the surveillance state. The right to privacy and informational self-determination is a fundamental right stipulated in the Constitution of Korea and international norms. The Secretary-General of the UN also warned in the <UN Policy Brief on COVID-19 and Human RIghts> on April 23, that “what is justified during an emergency now may become normalized once the crisis has passed”. Also, he said that “all measures must incorporate meaningful data protection safeguards, be lawful, necessary, and proportionate, time-bound and justified by legitimate public health objectives”. Although  fundamental rights may be constrained to some extent for public health purposes, it should be the minimum necessary and proportionate for the purpose. But keeping everyone’s access records to facilities goes far beyond the principle of proportionality. If the epidemic prevention in S.Korea is based on the premise of restriction of fundamental rights, and control and punishment of people, it is tantamount to achieving results at the sacrifice of democracy and human rights.

Moreover, there is no legal basis for mandatory storage of facility access records, let alone the electronic entry register system. This is why the government is citing user’s “consent” as the basis for collecting access records. True consent, however, should be freely given without any detriment for the data subject even when she or he don’t consent. Consent means nothing if we are not allowed to enter a facility without consent. People only have ‘freedom of choice’ not to leave facility access records electronically. 

S.Korea was able to succeed in epidemic prevention because it conducted active inspections based on tracking of whereabouts of confirmed patient. However, it should not be forgotten that behind the scenes are an electronic monitoring system that allows every move of us to be tracked in less than 10 minutes at any time, including real-name mobile phone registration system, routinized use of credit card and real-name transportation cards, and CCTVs installed everywhere. Successful epidemic prevention is important, but it is also necessary to check whether our society keeps important values and principles during the response to COVID-19. However, it is worrisome that Korean government may be  intoxicated with praise for its successful handling of COVID-19 and is preoccupied with strengthening control measures for more complete epidemic prevention. We can see this in the introduction of electronic wrist band despite the controversy over human rights violations, the electronic entry register system which seek to implement an off-line real-name system beyond a online one, and the measures to prohibit people from using public transportation without wearing masks. 

In the era of COVID-19, is S.Korea’s ‘New normal’ a digital surveillance state? Immediately withdraw the plan to introduce electronic entry register system! 

2020.05.26

Network of Human Rights Organizations in response to COVID-19

 

(공익인권변호사모임 희망을 만드는 법, 공익인권법재단 공감, 광주인권지기활짝, 다산인권센터, 민주사회를 위한 변호사 모임, 빈곤과 차별에 저항하는 인권운동연대, 서울인권영화제, 성적소수문화인권연대 연분홍치마, 건강과 대안, 언론개혁시민연대, 인권운동공간 활, 인권운동네트워크 바람, 인권운동사랑방, 인권중심사람, 장애여성공감, 전국장애인차별철폐연대, 전북평화와인권연대, 진보네트워크센터, 한국게이인권운동단체 친구사이, 행동하는성소수자인권연대, HIV/AIDS인권활동가네트워크)