Prosecution’s practice of examining telecommunication information comes under fire again

A view of the Supreme Prosecutors\' Office building in Seocho-gu, Seoul. A file photo by the Kyunghyang Shinmun

Investigative agencies’ practice of imprudently examining the telecommunication subscriber information has come under fire again after the prosecution was found to have conducted a review of the telecommunication user information of several journalists and politicians earlier this year. While the prosecutors claimed to have checked limited information, such as telecommunication subscriber details, critics say that a wide range of reviews in the name of investigations could be a problem. It is highly likely to infringe or curtail the freedom of speech and communication, which is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.

In January, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office's Anti-Corruption Investigation Division 1, which is investigating the "President Yoon Suk-yeol's defamation case," requested the telecommunications company to receive subscriber information of the phone numbers, which were found to have spoken to the people involved in the case at a specific time. Many of them included journalists and politicians, but it was only recently, seven months later, that they were notified of the inquiry.

Regarding the controversy over the reckless examination of telecommunication subscriber information, the prosecution explained on August 4, "The examination was carried out to journalists and politicians because the subjects of the communication warrant were mainly journalists and some members of the main opposition Democratic of Korea (DPK) and the callers also included journalists and politicians." It added, "The records of the calls were not included in the examination because reviewing them is impossible.”

The indiscriminate examination of telecommunication subscriber information by investigative agencies is a chronic problem that bursts periodically. Even during the Moon Jae-in administration, the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) was criticized for checking the telecommunication information of several members of the People’s Power Party (PPP). Yoon Suk-yeol, then a presidential candidate for the PPP, strongly protested, saying, "They checked the telecommunication information of me, my wife, her friends, and even my sister," calling them "crazy people."

Providing the "fact confirmation data of communication information" that identifies the date and time of the call, the duration of the call, and the phone number of the other party requires permission from the court in accordance with the Protection of Communications Secrets Act. However, examining subscriber details does not require court authorization, so it has been done at the discretion of investigative agencies. As a result, personal information, such as the phone owner's name, resident registration number, address, and subscription and termination dates are often collected indiscriminately. For this reason, the National Human Rights Commission has recommended that indiscriminate examination of telecommunication subscriber information be banned.

With the revision of the Telecommunications Business Act, a system has been implemented to notify the parties of an investigative agency's examination of telecommunication information within 30 days, but many criticize that it is virtually useless. This is because there is no problem even if it is notified several months after the inquiry. The Telecommunications Business Act allows investigative agencies to postpone the notification of the inquiry for three months up to two times.

Seo Bo-hak, a professor at Kyung Hee University's Law School, said, "The prosecution's inquiry of telecommunication details can send a threatening message to the parties subject to the examination, saying, 'We can conduct a separate investigation by identifying additional information on the people you interact with." Although the prosecutors claimed that they "simply checked the identities," the act of checking them itself may infringe on people’s basic rights.

※This article has undergone review by a professional translator after being translated by an AI translation tool.