RSSRather than submit to new Korean law, YouTube turns off user uploads
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published April 13, 2009, 4:39 PM
In the midst of a Draconian new South Korean law passed April 1 that could force some ISPs to enable lawmakers to suspend their customers' Internet accounts or face fines, Google's YouTube division has turned off some features that could, if misused under the new law, land its customers in prison.
The South Korean National Assembly narrowly passed a sweeping new law whose purpose was to create a system of accountability for the nation's Internet users. While ostensibly the new law is designed to discourage piracy, Korean journalists such as Korea Times' Kim Tong-hyung provide evidence that the law's true purpose may be to enable government authorities to keep tabs on all kinds of online behavior, including political and social networking.
The new law, whose translated bill title was the Orwellian sounding "Comprehensive Measures for Information Protection on the Internet," literally makes it a crime for someone to post defamatory information against another person, should that person register a complaint. In order to make the law workable, the country is instituting a "real-names" login system for all its ISPs, in an attempt to create some kind of audit trail leading every kind of transaction back to a traceable source. All this, ostensibly, in the name of protecting piracy.
The English-language Korean news provider The Hankyoreh quotes the Internet division chief for the Korea Communications Commission, Lim Cha-shik, as heralding the law's passage as a way to calm citizens' fears "about an increase in the disadvantages associated with Internet use, such as personal information leaks and the spread of harmful information."
Rather than find itself in the middle of a future political and civil rights debacle with another Southeast Asian nation, Google yesterday decided it would suspend the ability for its Korean users to upload any videos, or post any kind of commentary whatsoever alongside videos. The changes were announced last Thursday on the YouTube Korea blog.
Also that day, the company's VP for global communications, Rachel Whetstone, posted a lengthy explanation, which also amounted to something of an apology. Translated into English, it loses a lot of its grace, although it quite clearly says that Google does not wish to be used as an instrument for governments' dissemination of information about its users.
Whetstone also called into question the need for governments to monitor certain categories of communications, noting that while Germany has banned the practice of Nazism, it encourages communication about Nazism in order for citizens to be conscientious of how evil the practice actually is.
This afternoon, Google sent Betanews an English-language human translation of the company's blog post, which includes this: "We have a bias in favor of people's right to free expression in everything we do. We are driven by a belief that more information generally means more choice, more freedom and ultimately more power for the individual. We believe that it is important for free expression that people have the right to remain anonymous if they choose."
The Hankyoreh also did a much better job of translating Whetstone's Korean statement than Google's automated service, citing her as having written, "Google thinks the freedom of expression is most important value to uphold on the Internet. We concluded in the end that it is impossible to provide benefits to internet users while observing this country's law because the law does not fall in line with Google's principles."
Users may still be able to overcome YouTube's roadblocks -- if they want to take the risk -- by changing their country of origin in their profiles to any other country. A YouTube blog page actually explains this. However, users may still be taking a risk, especially if the new real-names login system takes account of uploads at the ISP level. It doesn't seem likely that such a bypass would completely absolve YouTube, under the new law, from conspiracy to commit an insult.
korea is determined to keep its values humble.
perhaps, it is why their culture and family values are strong while ours in the u.s. are based on greed and prejudice, drugs and guns.
to bad youtube is unable to provide such a service with virtue and value.
Score: 0
|NEWSFLASH:
CENSORSHIP= GOOD WHOLESOME VALUES!!
*laughing*
That's fabulous. That post is *so* going in my snippets file.
Score: 0
|Little bored this morning, so...
"a Draconian"
Couldn't be helped, I'm afraid. Ever since reading these books as a child I cannot see this word without immediately conjuring to mind the dragon-men of Krynn. ;)
Score: -1
|I also like Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms. Drizzt Do'Urden is my favorite FR character.
Score: 0
|Another case of the law of unintended consequences.
Score: 0
|I suspect that this law started as a reaction to the sort of mega-hysteria that seems to arise from time to time in South Korea & China.
There was a case in Korea a while ago where someone was accused of treating his wife / girlfriend (I don't remember the details) very badly in a posting online. This led to a furious reaction & a determination to track down the guy in question and make him pay. Someone was identified and (despite his protests) lost his job, was forced to move and so on.
Clearly this sort of instant anonymous condemnation without any form of trial is very dangerous indeed.
Still - one can't help being pretty nervous about this sort of law which is intended to make liable for any potential consequences (under Korean law) of your online actions.
For instance, what happens when someone impersonates you?
And when you have offenses like "conspiracy to commit an insult" - I guess anonymity is an essential. That is, if the Korean Democratic process is to move on from the rather farcical "Democracy Treatre" that it is today.
Score: 1
|"in the name of protecting piracy." You might want to reread that.
Score: 0
|Or perhaps not - maybe piracy should be protected!
However, this law clearly was not intended to do so.
Score: 0
|Well, they are free to do so, but this "To protect their customers" BS needs to stop.
We're so busy trying to protect everyone from everything we're going to end up with a bunch of witless imbeciles.
I mean, seriously...do we really need warning labels on Hair dryers stating not to use them in the shower? Do we *really* need to protect people this stupid? Wouldn't we be better off as a species if we just let nature take it's course?
I'm not for a second suggesting we start killing off the criminally stupid. No need. If they really *are* that stupid, their own idiocy, preferably combined with the use of power tools/hair dryers/trampolines/virtually *anything* that requires a functioning neuron, will do the job quite nicely.
Bonus points if it gets caught on video (as a public service to others).... ;-)
Score: 1
|"We're so busy trying to protect everyone from everything we're going to end up with a bunch of witless imbeciles."
Oops...Too late! ;-))
Score: 0
|Remember the woman who sued McDonalds because her coffee was too hot and there was no warning label stating that it was hot?
In reality, the protection is for the businesses, not the consumer. If enough people could sue McDonalds for such utter stupidity, McDonalds would have to charge you $15 for a hamburger just to cover their costs, and no one would buy their hamburgers.
The same applies here for Google. How long will Google's services stay free if they can be sued by the South Korean government or by whomever is filing the defamation complaint? I would imagine it wouldn't be very long.
Score: 4
|Easy. Until they put a statement of limited liability and make it a condition of using the sevice at one's own risk.
Oh! I just got a hangnail typing, so I am going to sue BN and Google and YOU for making me so upset that I couldn't control myself - not to mention that as a result of the hangnail, I also knocked over a cup of scalding coffee into my lap and my cigarette has subsequently fallen onto the rug as a direct consequence of my injuries and emotional trauma and has caught the drapes on fire...
I'll get back to you...if I survive! But you folks are in big trouble!!!!
;-)))
Score: 0
|lol, agreed with PC_Tool.
Score: -1
|@dkratter:
The coffee in question was spilled on the woman by the server. It was hot enough to give the woman 2nd(?) degree burns. The suit didn't even really involve the coffee, it was more of a personal injury lawsuit that the media swept into this big to-do about...nothing.
But meh.... You are right about the companies protecting themselves, but what's most disappointing is that in most cases...they go overboard. Instead of fighting these absurd labeling (protecting the stupid) requirements, they allow the nanny-state to walk all over them. They think they are saving money on legal fees and not "disturbing the beast", but what they are really doing is helping to lay the groundwork for even more BS down the road.... Give an inch, they'll take a mile.
Score: 0
|