인터넷 ‘실명제’의 기술적, 사업적, 법적 문제점

The ‘real-name-verification’ requirement provoked a heated debate between those who advocate freedom of expression and the right to remain anonymous and those who take the position that the real-name-verification measures would be necessary to curb undesirable aspects of the internet. However, the debate is marred by a lack of understanding of the technology which is necessary to verify the user identity in internet-based communications. The debate has been conducted on an erroneous premise that ‘real-name-verification’ could somehow be used to verify the user identity. The confusion makes it difficult to understand legal issues of a statutory requirement to verify user identity. This paper seeks to identify the problems posed by real-name-verification measures, which are widely practised due to a lack of techinical understanding of the statutory provision (Art. 44-5 of the Act to Promote Use of Communications Network and to Protect Information) which, in fact, requires verification of user identity. First, the paper offers a discussion of the Korean Government’s unsuccessful attempt to demand Google Korea, Inc. to implement verification of user identity. The government’s attempt was prompted by a parochial outlook and an ignorance of internet and authentication technologies. The incident also brings to light the tension between ‘global’ nature of the internet and the fragmented state of national regulatory regime. Google Youtube responded in a manner which is technically sound and true to the nature of the internet. The Korean government’s pointless attempt merely demonstrated the unreasonableness and impracticality of a national regulatory measure vis-a-vis the internet. Second, from a technological point of view, the real-name-verification requirement introduced by the Election for Public Offices Act is clearly different from the vefication of user identity required under Communications Network Act. The paper offers a detailed explanation of these differences. Various issues posed by the business arrangement for the widely practised real-name-verification service are explained as well. Third, verification of user identity, as distinct from real-name-verification, would impose an impracticable degree of costs and complexity on service providers, thus making it an un-enforceable legal requirement. On the other hand, the real-name-verification measures are technically incapable of verifying user identity. Various constitutional debates surrounding the user identity verification requirement of the Communications Network Act start from a false assumption that it is possible to verify user identity through the currently used real-name-verification service. The latter merely checks whether the name provided by a user (whose identity remains unknown) is a real-name; that is, a name which does exists in the government's database. It cannot verify the identity of the user who supplies such a ‘real name’. User identity verification requirement introduced by Communications Network Act appears to have been motived by the Korean government’s hostile attitude towards freedom of expression and the prejudice against the internet, which is regarded by the law-makers as a subversive media. The real-name-verification requirement effectively isolates Korean internet from users of the world (whose names are obviously not verifiable by a database of the Korean government or name-check service providers in Korea). It is a shameful regulatory error committed by ignorance of technology and parochialism of the regulator.