Home > Opinion > Editorials

Fixing the rules onwiretapping quickly

Published: 06 Aug. 2024, 20:19

In a shocking development, the prosecution broadly surveilled conversations of journalists and opposition lawmakers in the past. The Journalists Association of Korea and the Democratic Party (DP) strongly criticize it, but the prosecution says it was just a part of its “legitimate investigations.” Press groups and the opposition have claimed that conversations of as many as 3,000 people were overheard by prosecutors.

But the prosecution only fuels suspicion. It looked into their conversations in January, but notified victims of the fact in August. The prosecution says it didn’t violate the law, but we wonder why it delayed the notification for seven months.

Our Constitution mandates that private conversations should not be intimidated. Needless to say, citizens’ uninterrupted communications are the backbone of privacy and democracy. Due to the need for such surveillance to protect public interests, law enforcement authorities can access the sensitive information of citizens. And yet, it should be done in a limited way.

The wiretapping took place during the course of investigations by the prosecution into the suspicions over the public opinion manipulation case ahead of the 2022 presidential election. Real estate developer Kim Man-bae and journalist Shin Hak-lim were suspected of spreading fake news about Yoon Suk Yeol — the presidential candidate of the People Power Party (PPP) at the time — before the election. That’s certainly not a complex case. But why did the prosecution need such sensitive information on journalists and opposition lawmakers?

After controversy arose, the prosecution said it hadn’t looked into their conversations in detail. The prosecution said it inquired about the conversations to find out who the suspects’ counterparts were. Still, such a practice can infringe on the freedom of speech. If prosecutors can have information about reporters’ news sources, it can critically damage the freedom of the press. The National Human Rights Commission already advised against the provision of phone records by telecommunication companies.

But political circles’ reactions are disappointing. The DP lambasted the prosecution for its “supersized eavesdropping,” while the PPP is engrossed in defending the prosecution. In 2021, when the Corruption Investigation Office for High-raking Officials spied on phone records of then-presidential candidate Yoon and his wife as well as PPP lawmakers during the Moon Jae-in administration, the PPP vehemently criticized that.

Such a drastic change cannot earn trust from the people. The National Assembly must fix the rules for wiretapping before it is too late.