Online Censorship, Part 3   2008-07-27 01:52

If there is any such thing as Lee Myung-Bak's Nemesis, the Internet is likely to be one. A great majority of the young people who use the Internet daily are at least moderately progressive. Also, while the success of Lee's regime seems to depend on a careful control over the flow of information, the Internet is a tad bit unruly regarding that issue. Not only that, but the Internet allows a fair amount of anonymity if used carefully, so it's rather difficult to track down the dissenter/troublemaker. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that curbing the flow of dissenting/troublemaking voices on the Internet is a top priority for Lee's government.

This article is a follow-up to "Web Portals Compromised" (June 6) and "Online Censorship, Part 2" (June 19). Related stories can also be found in "Oppression Continues" (June 21: see section on 82cook.com), "Calm before the Storm" (June 28: see section on Daum Agora and Chosun Ilbo), and a few other places. I wrote those articles just over a month ago, when the government's attempt to control the Internet took place still largely through the back door -- for example, by inviting CEO's of Internet portals to the Presidential house and courtiously asking (i.e. pressuring) them to filter out certain content. Recently, however, the government is acting a lot more straightforwardly, even to the extent of possible unconstitutionality.

Now, see if you can watch the following video from YouTube. It's a recording of a Korean news report, so English speakers probably won't get anything out of it; but click "Play" anyway.

If YouTube says that the video is not available for viewing in your country, you are probably located in Korea. Why? Because the National Police Agency (NPA) told Google (which runs YouTube) to stop hosting that video, and Google partially complied by making it unavailable to anyone whose IP address is located in Korea. (You can get around that by using a foreign proxy server, but many proxy servers are already being blocked. Otherwise South Koreans will be able to view North Korean content, and our government doesn't like it!) No, there wasn't a court order or anything. And we don't have that nasty DMCA in Korea. You might suspect that the news agency whose reports had been uploaded to YouTube must have filed a copyright infringement complaint, but that's not the case here. NPA made a phone call to Google Korea, and that was it.

Okay, you're probably curious what that video was all about. If the government is seriously trying to censor it, there must be something really important in there! Sorry to disappoint you, but the news report in question deals with nothing more than a prostitution scandal involving a brother of the Head of NPA. The Head of NPA is the notorious Uh Chung-Soo (or Eo Cheong-Soo) who has been orchestrating the violent crackdown upon protesters. His brother owns a large chunk of some hotel, and that hotel allegedly makes money by supplying its customers with prostitutes. We've all heard those dirty stories before. What's so special about this case? Nothing, except that the Head of NPA feels like saving his brother's butt. Luck is on his side, as he's got the entire police forces under his belt; hopefully not too many people saw the original news report on TV (because it was aired in May when everyone was preoccupied with another issue); domestic video sharing sites are already under control; and it only takes one more phone call to silence Google/YouTube as well. Pretty convenient, eh?

All of that, just because of a brother's sex scandal. (See this Hankyoreh article for more on this. Apparently, Google Headquarters told Google Korea not to listen to the government, but Google Korea ignored the Headquarters' decision. Maybe they had no other choice.) Now, if you read that article carefully, you'll notice that the censorship was put in place 8 weeks ago. Koreans, in other words, have been unaware of this case of censorship for 8 weeks now. It was revealed after all that time only because somebody living abroad noticed that his friends back in Korea couldn't view the video he told them about. How many other videos, articles, etc. are being censored? We have no idea. But if a mere phone call from NPA can make Google censor its video sharing site, (I repeat, there was no court order!) I shudder to think what even more powerful individuals could have done. In some sense, the censorship worked. It worked in the sense that nobody was even aware of its existence. It's time to go back to what we think we know, and to ask: is any piece of truth being deliberately held back from us? I don't really care about a sex scandal involving a government official's brother; but if more is being censored (as is likely), that's a serious problem.

And there's proof that more is being censored. And the government plans to censor even more.

On July 22, the Korean government announced a number of regulations that would change the nation's online landscape for years to come. The proposed legislation contains a number of long-awaited protections against leaks of personal information, which unfortulately take place too often. For example, many web sites currently collect its members' resident registration numbers. That's a really bad thing, because in Korea, once you have somebody else's resident registration number, it's not too difficult to impersonate the other person. The proposed legislation is meant to stop the collection of this vital piece of information. Also, many web sites have Terms of Service which allow them to share their users' personal information with obscure third parties, and that's also very bad. The new measures are expected to put a curb on this practice.

I can't believe I'm posting a link to a Chosun Ilbo article here, but the bulk of that story actually makes sense. Please take the time to read it; you are likely to agree with most of what it says. The problem is with the last sentence, which I'm afraid sums up really well one of the not-so-hidden intentions behind the set of new measures. The internet, "playground of social agitators"? Who are those agitators? North Korean spies and sympathizers? Or does Chosun Ilbo, an unabashedly pro-government newspaper, mean something like "anyone who disagrees with President Lee's policies"?

Now to the dark side of the proposed legislation. Despite the ban on collecting resident registration numbers, more web sites are now required to comfirm the true identity of its users before allowing them to post a message. (In Korea, there are several officially recognized ways to confirm your identity online without typing your resident registration number.) Every web site with more than 100,000 visitors a day will be required to be able to tell exactly who a particular user is. That means every web site that gets a fair number of visitors, including all web portals and blog sites. Unlike with resident registration numbers where you can get away with somebody else's number, under the new system you have no way but to allow the government to know exactly where to find you in case there's a "problem" with a post of yours. Good bye, anonymous dissent!

The government is also going to have the power to shut off any web site that doesn't immediately respond to copyright infringement complaints. No court order is involved here. Just a complaint from a copyright owner, and the fiber-optic cables will be unplugged. It doesn't matter if the complaint is valid or not. It is upon the web site owner to prove that his or her site doesn't violate copyright law, and the web site will have to remain offline while the case goes through the legal system. Isn't something seriously backwards here? It should be the copyright owner's job to prove that his or her rights are being violated, and there should be a legal mechanism to thoroughly investigate the validity of each side's claims! Innocent until proven guilty! If anyone can have other people's web sites shut off simply by making a complaint, we're getting dangerously close to the darkest side of America's DMCA. (No, seriously, not even DMCA allows something like this.)

The real problem, of course, is that there will be virtually no Internet to speak of if every web site were taken down at a mere complaint. The government obviously doesn't want this to happen, as it would hurt the economy at the very least! What does the new law mean, then? You've got it: selective enforcement. Obviously, not every complaint will result in a shutdown. Somebody's got to decide which web sites to apply the law against. Which web site do you think is more likely to get unplugged, a web site full of pro-government opinions or a site full of dissenting voices?

Which brings us to the worst part of the proposed legislation: there will be a new crime called "cyber insult". I just don't get it. There'a already a crime called libel. Why does the law need to talk about another crime when an existing crime covers it all? But if you look at the content of what's being proposed, it's clear what's at stake. Web portals and other webmasters must immediately remove any content which a third party claims violates insults him or her. There's no need for a case to be filed with a court. Again, a complaint from a third party is all it takes for a web site owner to be required to remove content, and anyone who fails to comply can be unplugged. And here's that dreadful word again: selective enforcement. I'm pretty sure that Lee Myung-Bak's government has a pile of complaints to fire off as soon as the proposed law comes into effect; several government officials have already sued bloggers and reporters for libel. Considering the fact that the ruling party controls nearly two-thirds of the legislature, it's only a matter of time before the proposed law becomes reality. Now the government will be able to (1) accurately track down whoever posts an anti-government opinion on the Internet, and (2) have that opinion removed immediately. Good bye, freedom of expression.

There are three powers in a democratic state. The legislature makes law; the executive carries out the law; and the judiciary handles conflicts. These three powers are supposed to provide checks and balances against each other, such that nobody can get away with a gross violation of democracy's fundamental principles. Now, President Lee's Hannara Party controls both the legislature and the executive. A lot of People, therefore, have been looking upon the courts to put a curb on his crazy policies. The courts had done the job remarkably well when Roh Moo-Hyun was President; some of his worst policies were struck down as unconstitutional, but unsubstantiated attacks against him were also struck down. Even now, the courts maintain some level of objectivity. Judges have warned police officers and prosecuters not to make arbitrary arrests and detainments, and a lot of eyes are watching the trial of Mr. Choi who was arrested for initiating the death theory. But the proposed legislation is meant to bypass the courts altogether when it comes to the Internet. The excuse, of course, is that legal processes take too long compared to the pace at which the Internet moves. Still, when the national government is allowed to take drastic measures (such as blocking access to web sites) at a mere complaint, I have no choice but to suspect that there is no such thing as rule of law in Lee Myung-Bak's dictionary. Ironically, rule of law has been the government's No. 1 excuse for arresting demonstrators so far! Oh well, we already know that the law is immensely flexible for those in power.

According to Chosun Ilbo's editorial (Sorry, that editorial is covered all over with rather unrelated references to the mad-cow issue), opposition to these new measures amounts to "protecting the right to lie". Moral philosophers and theologians may debate whether or not there is a right to lie, but that's irrelevant here The real question is: Regardless of whether or not there's no right to lie, who decides whether or not somebody is lying? The short answer is that, for all practical purposes, the courts should be responsible for figuring out the truth. For a government to claim that it knows the truth and that anyone who disagrees can be silenced without ever going through the judiciary, is nothing but hypocrisy.

Here's a follow-up to last week's article where I reported on Amnesty International's recent investigation of the situation in Korea. Guess what: the National Police Agency is threatening to sue the Korean branch of Amnesty International. Ridiculous! And it's not just Amnesty International; the Asian Forum for Human Rights Development (FORUM-ASIA) has also begun to investigate police violence and censorship in Korea. (See this news report.) Let the government sue them too! At least when you sue somebody, your case goes through the legal system.

It's Saturday again. Thousands of citizens participated in protests as usual, demanding a reconsideration of a number of highly controversial policies as well as the release of others arrested for protesting. A significant number among the demonstrators identified themselves as active members of the discussion site Daum Agora. Despite all the censorship, Agora remains the most popular site for talking about demonstration venues and tactics. But how long will this continue? Can Daum Agora survive in such a hostile environment? Daum, after all, is a commercial enterprise. It needs to stay profitable, and it's difficult to do so in Korea unless you have the government's (cursed) blessing.

» Comments are Closed.