인터넷 서비스 이용약관과 영장주의

Despite the fact that no warrant was issued in the so-called “Avoidance Yuna” case, it raised concerns that Naver provided the police with personal “communication data” such as Naver IDs, names, resident registration numbers, mobile phone numbers, and subscription dates, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Telecommunication Business Act. The appellate court in this case ruled that Naver had unlawfully violated the plaintiff’s right to control their personal information. However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, noting that Naver was not obligated to scrutinize the data request. This situation brings up key issues that need to be addressed: (1) Does the warrant requirement apply to the provision of communication data? (2) If it doesn’t, why? (3) Does agreeing to the terms of service of an Internet service provider mean forfeiting one’s right to control his or her personal information? The “Terms of Internet Service” on the Internet refers to the pre-drafted agreements provided by service providers. Naver’s Personal Information Processing Policy states that personal data may be shared with third parties in certain situations, such as when required by law. The Constitutional Court has ruled that obtaining communication data under the Telecommunications Business Act is considered a “voluntary investigation,” as there is no coercive measure involved. In the United States, laws concerning the acquisition of users’ personal information without a warrant are often guided by the terms of service agreed upon by users. The private search doctrine allows for searches or seizures conducted by private entities without the need for a warrant. The third-party doctrine holds that individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy for information they voluntarily provide to third parties for business purposes. The doctrine of third-party consent allows law enforcement to conduct a legal search if one of the joint occupants of a space consents to it. The direct consent doctrine interprets a user’s agreement to Internet terms of service as consent for law enforcement to access personal information. Lastly, the abandonment doctrine states that if a person relinquishes their interest in an object, a warrantless search is legal under the abandonment of rights, even if it is not explicitly a renunciation of rights to law enforcement. It is unreasonable to assume that agreeing to Internet terms of service equates to giving up the right to control personal information. Therefore, the relevant provisions of the Telecommunications Business Act should be revised to ensure that investigative agencies can only access users’ communication data when a judge has granted permission or issued a warrant.