Slashdot Mirror


South Korea Censors Its Own Censor

decora writes "The EFF reports on an internet censorship case in South Korea. The blog of Professor K.S. Park was recently brought up for consideration by the Korean Communication Standards Commission, which presides over South Korea's online censorship scheme, blocking about 10,000 URLs per month. The unusual thing about this case is that Park himself is a member of the commission; he was appointed to it by the opposition party as a well known free-speech advocate. The other members of the committee allowed him to make changes to his blog for now, but have vowed to 'take action' against it in the future."

56 comments

  1. pot kettle black!! by trinity93 · · Score: 1, Funny

    thats all one can really say in such matters

    --
    We substituted the coffee Slashdot normally drinks with "Sandoz Crystals", Lets see if they notice the difference
    1. Re:pot kettle black!! by Fluffeh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I believe that a better saying would be:

      The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing...

      The guy who advocates free speech probably joined the censors to "fight the good fight" from the inside, but of course he will make enemies in there. Who is to say that people on the commission who don't like him or his views don't simply keep dropping his URL into the "super secret box for enemy of the state URLs to verify and block"...

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    2. Re:pot kettle black!! by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like the kettle calling it's own white parts black. This guy was a free speech advocate. He was posting what the board had been censoring. I think this is a case of moral crusaders bent on cleaning up society, and willing to fight extremely dirty to do so. Which is what the self-righteous always do, be it pro-lifers murdering or law enforcement breaking the law to catch the "bad guys."

    3. Re:pot kettle black!! by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      To clarify: the OTHER board members were the moral crusaders willing to do immoral things. This guy seems opposed to the whole idea of censorship, his efforts to make it a transparent process are not hypocritical by my estimation.

    4. Re:pot kettle black!! by TWX · · Score: 1

      I'd bet that censor is on stun right now...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:pot kettle black!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, censorship is usually meant to work like a black hole, like something doesn't exist. if you mention what is censored it is no longer censored. it's an old way to fight censorship and usually just leads to illegal(even by their own standards) action by the censoring body, which means the censoring body has all the more reason to censor it.

      basically the other members think that it's ok to ban discussion of dicks from minors.

    6. Re:pot kettle black!! by martyros · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that's not what happened. One of the members of the board of censors is actually a free speech advocate. He started posting things on his blog which he thought had been wrongly censored. So it's no surprise that republishing of material which was already censored would be flagged up as something to be censored.

      The argument the EFF is making is that the censorship itself needs to be open; the blog lets the public know what kinds of things are actually being censored, and they are thus urging the committee to leave it up.

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

  2. For those too lazy to RTFA by c0lo · · Score: 5, Informative
    The relevant paragraphs

    The Korean Constitutional Court struck down the Telecommunications Business Act provision for being too vague, warning about the risk of censorship associated with the ICEC regime.

    However, unabashed, the South Korean government has merely replaced ICEC with another administrative body whose job it is to apply new, vague legal standards to the Internet. Made up of nine members appointed by the president, the Korean Communications Standards Commission (KCSC) was created to regulate Internet content.

    ...

    Professor K.S. Park is a member of KCSC, one of three members suggested by the opposition party. Prof. Park is a scholar with a long history of defending online freedom of expression, and he organized the constitutional challenge against the rule abolishing online anonymity...
    ...

    In July, Prof. Park decided to begin exploring the nuances of these censorship choices in his blog. Believing that a censorship regime is terrible but a secret censorship regime is even worse, he used his blog to educate people about the types of content that were being removed from the Internet in South Korea. He would publish a sample of the type of content that had been removed and include a legal discussion of the removal choice. For example, Prof. Park posted non-sexual pictures of human male anatomy, such as those found in sex education books, along with the argument that such images are not obscene and that even by the conservative Korean standards it's enough to just place age-restrictions on access. Six of his fellow commissioners rejected the argument.

    As a result, in August, Prof. Park found his own blog on the roster of sites to be considered by the KCSC board.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    1. Re:For those too lazy to RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it would set a dangerous precedent if they allowed those posts to stand - it would indicate that the commission is obligated to actually understand and think about the content they are banning, and not just check for nudity or cuss words. Fortunately they have realized that they simply have to make an exception for people in a position of authority, since such people are well known in the community and as respectable people they could not violate the spirit of the statute in any case.

    2. Re:For those too lazy to RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The other relevant part is this:

      "Earlier, the country’s Telecommunications Business Act (1991), which states that ‘‘a person in use of telecommunications shall not make communications with contents that harm the public peace and order or social morals and good customs"..."

      So, basically all it took was one picture of a penis, in a non-sexual context for the purpose of discussing censorship, and that apparently "harmed the public peace and order or social morals and good customs"? Heaven forbid someone in South Korea have access to a picture of a penis ON THE INTERNET! I guess they better censor Wikipedia.

      Way to go, South Korea. You're a long way off from North Korea, but obviously you're making great progress towards reunification with that regime.

    3. Re:For those too lazy to RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too lazy to RTFA? It seems most posters were too lazy to read the summary!

    4. Re:For those too lazy to RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh you're right. Censoring digital pictures of penises is right up there with public executions and concentration camps.

  3. Re:all societies will always censor by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 2

    Irregardless of the differences between what is censored between the different nations, there is one huge difference between nothing ever censored at all and something censored: infrastructure. The infrastructure is a drag on businesses and individuals alike. For example, if I am responsible if someone posts something "bad" in a comment on a blog I run, then that makes it much harder for me to run my own blog. If I am a common carrier, then that makes it a lot easier to do.

    --
    Responsibility is an addiction
    Virtue is a temptation
    Community is a cartel
  4. Re:all societies will always censor by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

    My name is Inigo Montoya von Totengrammatik. You said "irregardless." Prepare to die.

    But besides that, there's something more than the cost of the infrastructure that needs to be considered: the fact that the infrastructure is already in place. Governments tend to like hiding the list of censored sites, and invariably it seems they are prone to overstepping, secretly using the blacklist to a remarkable range of corrupt ends. At least Korea had this free speech advocate standing in the way.

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  5. Who Censors the Censors ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Censors, apparently...

    1. Re:Who Censors the Censors ? by TWX · · Score: 2

      Yeah, well REDACTED the censors! They can go REDACTED a REDACTED fat REDACTED!

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Who Censors the Censors ? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe the censor can censor the censor back to achieve openness...

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    3. Re:Who Censors the Censors ? by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Yo dawg, I heard you liked to censor, so I put some censors on your censor so you can censor what gets censored.

  6. Another one for the pot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the OP: "...The EFF is deeply troubled by the rise of administrative boards to censor the Internet—now extant in Turkey, Australia, India and South Korea..."

    You can add the UK to that list - they have the "Internet Watch Foundation"....

    1. Re:Another one for the pot... by TWX · · Score: 1

      As long as there's a socially-recognized need to provide for censorship, either for victims' rights like in the case of the exploitation of minors, there will be boards whose jobs are to try to make censorship work.

      The only way to make it work truly fairly, in my opinion, is to make it very difficult to censor unless one can provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the content to be censored is of a crime yielding a victim, and the presence of the content itself is the cause of victimization. Voyeurism, pornography of minors, the outright celebration of violence, and the real and demonstrable threat of violence are the only major criteria that I would really censor for everyone. For those that are adults, they can choose what to look at and what to avoid, and parents should take the initiative to deal with their childrens' viewing habits.

      That being said, people are judged by what they say, and if someone says something implying a possibility of committing a crime, their speech, in whatever form it may come, can be used as proof against them.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Another one for the pot... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      the outright celebration of violence

      What do you mean by this?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    3. Re:Another one for the pot... by metacell · · Score: 1

      I agree; it's better to err on the side of freedom and allow some abuse of free speech, than to err on the side of censorship and open up possibilities for politicians and bureaucrats to censor anyone who threatens their power.

      That being said, people are judged by what they say, and if someone says something implying a possibility of committing a crime, their speech, in whatever form it may come, can be used as proof against them.

      This is not without its problems either, since anyone can be made to look suspicious if you dig through enough of his or her statements. As Cardinal Richelieu said, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." There's a reason lawyers always advice their clients not to talk to the police, no matter how innocent they are.

      Most people have also broken the law in some way or other, often without being aware of it. Having access to all private information gives a lot of power to politicians and civil servants to scare or blackmail their enemies - you know that if you criticise the wrong person, they'll find something to pin on you, maybe even something you're guilty of without being aware of it. Especially since the law is a matter of interpretation.

      And even if you're eventually found to be not guilty, you may be arrested, tied up in court for a long time, lose your job, etc.

    4. Re:Another one for the pot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Missed the whole bumfights phenom, didja?

    5. Re:Another one for the pot... by Darkness404 · · Score: 1
      Censorship of anything is a bad thing.

      Voyeurism is too hard to really define accurately and unless the person being filmed can identify where it is and prove that the person couldn't be on a public street or something and see them and even then it would be someone's word against someone's word.

      As for CP, the laws have done a lot more harm than good. By making it a restricted commodity and by making batshit insane decisions on it, we've got laws that harm, rather than help minors. First off, by making possession of it a crime, we've created an underground economy where rapists and abusers can get money to feed their crimes. Instead of letting it die out with previous images, our current laws encourage people to start paying the rapists rather than getting it for free. Net result is more minors are harmed because of these laws. Next, it is impossible to say what does and doesn't constitute CP, how is it that a drawing can be constituted as CP? Or a photoshop manipulation. Both of them are victimless crimes, no one is getting abused in either of them. Or what about the 19 year old with a 17 year old boy/girlfriend where they might be charged with CP for sending nude pictures, despite the fact that a day later when the 17 year old is 18 it is somehow legal?

      As for celebrating violence, that is political speech and should, without a doubt, be protected. For example, in America we have Independence Day which celebrates the armed, violent, attacks against the British in the Revolutionary War. We celebrate soldiers who make a living killing others. The news celebrates violence all day, praising violent cops and violent soldiers. To quote Voltaire

      It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets

      And as for the "real and demonstrable threat of violence" it is again political speech that should not be censored. Not to mention that violence can, and should be used to topple an oppressive regime.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    6. Re:Another one for the pot... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      As long as there's a socially-recognized need to provide for censorship, either for victims' rights like in the case of the exploitation of minors, there will be boards whose jobs are to try to make censorship work.

      You are absolutely correct. Therefore the answer to this problem is obvious. (Censorship is a terribly inefficient and ineffective way to prevent the exploitation of minors, incidentally)

    7. Re:Another one for the pot... by WNight · · Score: 1

      As long as there's a socially-recognized need to provide for censorship

      There isn't. But there's always some totalitarian twerp willing to stack the discussion by bringing up statistically nonexistent things, or unpleasant things like kiddy porn that are only a symptom of the still unaddressed actual abuse, and try to use peer pressure to make it look like anyone who wants an uncensored net is really a secret freak or naive.

      The only way to make [censorship] work truly fairly, in my opinion

      Oh yeah, that's what the world needs, the uninformed opinion of someone whose best idea is limiting speech for great justice.

      make it very difficult to censor unless one can provide proof

      Oh yeah, so you mean make it trivially easy and give the keys to some bureaucrat who will push the button whenever given a properly signed form?

      So yeah, let's just re-architect the internet into a centralized thing, require ID for anything, mandate government-key-escrow style crypto for everything (to remove the need for all other crypto), make all other crypto illegal to allow the scan for things needing censoring, and maintain an huge database of links and content hashes we've marked. Not to mention the hacking target that we've created...

      And that doesn't even touch on the bureaucracy inherent in the censoring organization, let along in the auditing process require to be able to recognize and ultimately undo mistaken censoring, etc.

      Wow.

      Because you're easily led, panicky, and morally outraged by the skin of your own species, you want to break the internet almost entirely, enact a trillion-dollar government boondoggle, then funnel all communications and business through that boondoggle. Or had you not thought of any of the consequences of your desires?

  7. Pull US financial support by mrmeval · · Score: 1

    Why should I have to pay to fund their evil? Maybe having the north cross the DMZ will give them a reason to support freedom.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    1. Re:Pull US financial support by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      You turn to the US to defend freedom? Where have you been the past decade?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Pull US financial support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What financial support? You mean the token American troops stationed in S Korea? S Korea actually pays the US for those troops and equipment (planes, ships, and etc). Without US guaranteeing military aid for both S Korea and Japan, amount of military build up on that part of the world will be very scary. Chinese build up is one thing but add S Korea and Japan to that... US will lose any influence it has in Asia at that point.

    3. Re:Pull US financial support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My kneejerk reactions won't help here, but I sincerely hope you are trolling. S.K. has to play the part of the 'ow my balls' guy from Idiocracy on a regular basis in order to keep up their U.S. relations. They have built great infrastructure with the proceeds, but come on - they have to firehose their own people down in the streets to get many of those measures through which puts them well ahead of the U.S. with regards to exercise of public participation.

      S.K. has out paced us in green reform, IT infrastructure and access, are marginally higher in literacy, are behind only Japan in maths literacy, and direct much of this from a city within virtual spitting distance of the 'enemy' to the north.

      They will do well to prevent Westernization and the slovenly characteristics that have made the United States a political nightmare to govern. Look at the U.S. political candidates, look at our business leaders... They will do well to avoid any further Westernization, and will thus remain a prime destination for talented Americans looking to go somewhere with a cultural future. I know several that have left for those climes.

      So, I would propose it would be healthier for the world for the Zetas to cross the U.S. border and open up on innocents than for N.K. to invade S.K. I hope neither happens - but your DMZ talk would be better aimed at North America if you want to see change in S.K.

      I'll stay in the U.S. and do my best to love it, but I do envy those that are able to enjoy the significant personal freedoms that come with a culture that does not expect a 'right' of public expression. This breeds much stronger private alliances anyhow.

    4. Re:Pull US financial support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You turn to the US to defend freedom? Where have you been the past decade?

      I'd +1 you if I wasn't such an anonymous coward. Freedom of speech in the US is a complete fallacy.

    5. Re:Pull US financial support by loufoque · · Score: 1

      It's the US that's forcing countries to accept its military bases, not the other way around.

    6. Re:Pull US financial support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's the US that's forcing countries to accept its military bases, not the other way around.

      We had a plan to leave Yongsan. It was requested that we stay.

    7. Re:Pull US financial support by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      It's the US that's forcing countries to accept its military bases, not the other way around.

      That's actually very false. US Military bases are huge boons to the native economy, provide training and coordination with allied countries, gives them political leverage both with us and other nations, and strengthens their defense on our dime. The last couple times we've looked at closing some bases the countries have requested we stay and provided benefits in order to convince us. That's not the case across the board of course, but it is when talking about places like SK and Germany for sure.

    8. Re:Pull US financial support by loufoque · · Score: 1

      It's mutually beneficial, but it's the US that initially chose to do that to keep the countries in control, since they like to believe they're the world saviors and dispensers of justice, and that everyone should try to be more like them.

    9. Re:Pull US financial support by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Americanism compares favorably to the ideologies those bases were built to oppose: Nazism, Stalinism, and Islamism.

    10. Re:Pull US financial support by wsxyz · · Score: 1

      The US military withdrew completely from Korea in 1949.

    11. Re:Pull US financial support by loufoque · · Score: 1

      That's merely one point of view.
      I'm sure muslims would disagree.

    12. Re:Pull US financial support by poity · · Score: 1

      You're sure Muslims would disagree with an opposition to Islamism? You sound very prejudiced and misinformed

      islamism/islmizm/
      Noun: Islamic militancy or fundamentalism.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    13. Re:Pull US financial support by loufoque · · Score: 1

      I'm sure a lot would disagree that Americanism compares favourably to it.
      A significant portion of muslims are in favour of Islamism.

  8. They have such censorship in South Korea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No wonder some people confuse north and south sometimes...

  9. Re:Own medicine by metacell · · Score: 1

    Hm? This was the board member who was opposed to censorship, and tried to make the board's work more transparent. Of course the more censorship-friendly board members don't like him posting about it on his blog.

  10. Oblig. by gargletheape · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    In Soviet Korea, censor censors censor!

  11. Recursion is cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is!

  12. Re:all societies will always censor by Darkness404 · · Score: 2

    Yes it is the same thing.

    The right to post a YouTube video (copyright stuff is an entirely different issue, same with Google being a private company, both things I won't address in this post), to wear a Swastika and to protest the government are all parts of the exact same right which all people have by virtue of being born. Anytime you attempt to censor anything you are infringing a natural right which has the end result: tyranny. The right to free, uncensored speech, aside from being a natural right of all people is very much needed in any country with any sort of voting or democratic process, because without information from all sides, people won't be able to make the best decisions at the polling booths.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  13. Re:THEY EAT THEIR DOGS THERE, DON'T THEY ?? by royallthefourth · · Score: 0

    Yo dog, I heard you like internet censorship so I censored your internet censor's internet.

  14. South? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At first glance, I just said "Oh, North Korea!" Then I looked again and said, "Wait, South?"

  15. Re:Pet peeves... by Canazza · · Score: 1

    in other words: Two wrongs don't not, no way, no how, make a right. Infact, it makes it doubly wrong.

    --
    It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
  16. Re:all societies will always censor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you could make a movie about idiot zombies. That would be great.

  17. Yo dawg... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Yo dawg, we heard you like censorship, so we censored your censors, so you can censor while you censor your censored censorship!

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  18. If he really wants to "fight it from the inside" by Fned · · Score: 1

    ...he should just leak the block list.