[비즈한국] Companies sometimes make decisions that are difficult to explain by money alone. Understanding the underlying laws and systems can help you grasp the details. 'Useful Business Tips (Al-Sseul-Bi-Beop)' introduces clues to help you understand business trends.
The online world is not a special space. It simply plays a role that replaces or complements the offline world. Depending on the situation, it can become even more significant than the offline world. Therefore, if an action in the online space constitutes a crime, it should not be treated as something special or trivial; legal responsibility should be demanded just as it would be for an offline act.
I bring this up because, considering the ever-expanding influence of the online space, there is a growing need to punish acts that insult or defame others through comments, posts, videos, and the like.
The reality is quite the opposite. Many users in the online space dismiss insulting others in comments as a form of "humor code" or "meme." There is often no awareness that it is a crime. Even some practitioners I have met, such as investigators, often react by saying, "Why make such a fuss over something like that?", "Won't it just be buried over time anyway?", or "They probably deserved the insults."
However, objectively speaking, unless there are circumstances such as having substantial grounds to believe it is true, writing purely for the public interest, or the content and method conforming to general customs, insulting others is a crime in itself. There is no reason to rationalize or justify it. It is obvious that insulting others for fun is wrong, so there is no room to evaluate it differently just because it occurs online.
I frequently handle criminal complaints regarding insulting or defamatory posts in the online space through various channels. There is something to keep in mind when filing a criminal complaint: the facts of the complaint must be clearly organized. At this point, it is crucial to identify the suspect, the date and time, and the location.
First, obtain the URL (Uniform Resource Locator) of the post. When capturing the screen of the post, use a utility program to display the timestamp of the capture so that you can specify the time (the moment of capture) and the location (URL). By periodically and repeatedly performing such capture work, you can emphasize that the suspect did not post the insulting content just once, but has been doing so for a long time.
Next is the issue of identifying the suspect. If the poster signed up as a member of an online site and uploaded the post while logged in, finding the suspect is not difficult. However, there are cases where users act as so-called "floating nicks," writing posts or comments without signing up for the site.
While most online sites require users to sign up and log in to write posts, some sites allow or even encourage posting without logging in, or even without signing up at all, for the purpose of maintaining a light atmosphere or attracting more users.
In such cases, it is impossible to identify the suspect by their ID. You have no choice but to identify the suspect as the author of the post by combining details such as the post title, date and time of posting, and partial IP address exposed in the post. For example, suppose you file a complaint identifying the author "OO (63.189)" of a post from a certain month and day as the suspect. The police secure the suspect's identity by obtaining a search and seizure warrant from the court and analyzing the log records received from the online site operator based on that warrant.
However, the Information and Communications Network Act stipulates minimum retention periods for log records, such as 1 month or 3 months, depending on the type. Consequently, many online sites delete log records older than 1 or 3 months. Therefore, for posts made more than 3 months ago, even if you file a complaint and the police execute a search and seizure warrant, they may not be able to find the suspect's identity. Thus, if you find insulting posts while monitoring, it is better to file a complaint immediately without delay.
What about online sites where the operator is located abroad? Foreign services often respond more tepidly to requests from domestic investigative agencies and courts compared to domestic services. For this reason, users who value anonymity and security intentionally use foreign services. Even if a domestic investigative agency obtains a warrant from the court, enforcing it abroad requires complex procedures such as judicial cooperation. Unless it is a mega-case like the "Nth Room," it is very difficult to persuade investigative agencies to proceed with such procedures.
Therefore, in the past, if the identity of a poster of insulting content on a foreign service like YouTube or Twitter could not be determined, people were satisfied with just having the post taken down through a "temporary measure request," without even dreaming of criminal punishment for the poster.
However, looking at the recent case of 'Taldeok Camp,' being active anonymously on foreign sites does not necessarily guarantee safety. There was a person who operated a YouTube channel called 'Taldeok Camp' and created videos slandering, criticizing, and insulting celebrities. The victimized celebrity and their agency applied for the 'discovery' procedure in a U.S. court to find out the operator's identity. The application was granted, and they were able to obtain information about the Taldeok Camp operator from Google headquarters. Based on this information, they filed a criminal complaint and a lawsuit for damages, and the operator of Taldeok Camp ended up bearing criminal punishment of a suspended sentence and tens of millions of won in liability for damages.
As such, it is not impossible to secure the identity of a user even on a foreign service. However, because the process of hiring a local law firm and applying for discovery in a local court involves tremendous costs and time, it is not a method that can be easily chosen by anyone other than famous celebrities or agencies.
Meanwhile, criminal complaints and civil lawsuits take at least 6 months to achieve meaningful results. While legal action is necessary to get to the root of a suspect's crime, if you are currently feeling too much stress due to an insulting post, it is faster to request a suspension of the post from the online site operator as a temporary measure rather than waiting for the results of a complaint.
When such a request is made, the online site operator determines whether to suspend the post by judging the validity of the application. However, if the site operator has become aware of the existence of the insulting post and has even received a request for deletion but leaves it alone, the operator may face legal responsibility, so in practice, they tend to accept requests for temporary measures.
As the term suggests, temporary measures like suspending a post are merely provisional actions. No punishment is imposed on the poster. Therefore, it does not serve as a root-and-branch solution against the insulter. Compared to the various circumstances examined earlier, criminal complaints and temporary measures each have their own pros and cons.
How should one structure the basic logic and content when making a request for a temporary measure? There is good material for reference here. If you browse the Namuwiki homepage, there is a category called 'Transparency Report.' It contains records of stakeholders requesting temporary measures, and you can even check the full text of the requests. Since high-quality temporary measure requests are written and posted for issues that are timely and sensitive, it is a good method to refer to them and structure the content of the request to suit your situation.