Global Voices » Jae Yeon Kim

South Korean Man Allegedly Kills Noisy Neighbors

Jae Yeon Kim — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:58:03 +0000

A 45-year-old South Korean man allegedly killed his two upstairs neighbors during the hectic Lunar New Year holiday weekend in Seoul, South Korea because he complained that the pair were too noisy.

According to published reports [ko], the man, whose last name is Kim, had regularly made complaints about the noise coming from upstairs. On February 9, 2013, his anger exploded, and he allegedly attacked the two victims, who were trying to calm him down.

Noise complaints from residents of apartment complexes have skyrocketed, with 7,021 cases in 2012, nearly 20 times more than the previous year, according to the South Korean Ministry of Environment. More than half of the Korean population live in apartments, according to 2010 Korea Statistics, and in five new bedroom communities outside Seoul, where real estate prices have surged, the number of residents living in apartments reaches more than 80 percent.

The alleged murder in Seoul caused South Koreans to take a closer look at the failings of the South Korean real estate industry as well as the reason why some are so quick to turn to violence over trivial matters.

South Korean apartment building. Photo by Flickr user NEIC. (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Twitter user @managak [ko] lamented the inability of some South Koreans to deal with disputes over noise with civility, pointing to an overwhelmingly stressful society as the cause:

@managak: 층간소음때문에 살인이 났단다. 예전에 공중전화를 오래쓴다고 살인이 벌어진 적도 있었다. 사건을 단순하게 보고 농담거리로 희화하는 것은 아닐까? 지속적인 스트레스로 불안한 정신상태에, 서로 갈등하고 억눌려있던 감정이 사소한 계기에 폭발했다고 봐야지.

@managak: A man killed his neighbors because of the apartment noise nuisance. Some time ago, another murder was committed because the victim had occupied a public phone booth for too long. Have we over-simplified these crimes and made them into laughing stocks? It should be understood as an explosion of suppressed emotions triggered by one tiny thing and an event caused by unstable minds suffering from incessant stress.

Another Twitter user @actwalk [ko] wrote that the real estate industry's culture of bribery helped to make the noise problem in apartment buildings unbearable:

@actwalk: 시스템 부실이 개인 책임으로 환원되는 대표적 사례가 층간소음인 듯 싶다. 건설사와 시행사들이 먹는 돈 좀만 줄이면 층간소음 문제는 상당부분 해결됐을텐데…

@actwalk: As a matter of fact, the real murderer is the shaky social system. If we could cut down on the bribe money construction companies get, then the apartment noise nuisance problem would have been alleviated to a substantial extent.

A user on South Korean Internet portal Daum Agora, under the name The Horizon of Events, criticized [ko] Korean construction companies’ proclivity for bribes. His post entitled “Everything About the Apartment Noise Nuisance” has been read more than 56,508 times:

사실 층간소음 문제는 과거에도 계속 제기되어왔던 문제이고, 이미 10여년전에 우리나라 아파트의 낮은 방음성능이 문제가 되어 관련 규제안이 추진되었으나 건설사들의 이익을 대변하는 국토해양부의 미온적인 태도로 실효성 없는 규제안만 마련되었습니다. [...] 10여년전에 환경부와 시민단체에서는 중량 충격음 45데시벨 수준의 강력한 규제를 원했으나 국토해양부(그 당시는 건교부)에서는 반대하였고, 결국 50데시벨로 올라가게 되었으며 표준바닥구조라는 희한한 규제안을 만들어 건설사들에게 면죄부를 주었습니다.

In fact, the apartment noise nuisance problem was raised about a decade ago. Back then, a bill regulating the use of low-quality soundproof materials was proposed. However, that bill was downgraded to nominal regulations due to lukewarm reactions of the Ministry of Land, Transport, and Maritime Affairs who choose to stand for the construction companies’ benefit.[...] The Environment Ministry and civic groups originally proposed the noise cap of 45 decibel level, which is a strong measure, but the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (at that time, the Ministry of Construction and Transport) rose this bar to 50 decibel. Furthermore, they came up with this weird regulation called ‘Standard Floor Structure regulation’ to give excuses to the companies (to continue their sloppy soundproofing construction work).

Furthermore, the author pointed out that the obsession that South Koreans have with real estate investment has contributed to the problem:

어느 나라나 투기꾼은 존재하지만, 한국은 전국민이 투기꾼입니다.이러니, 집이 생활의 도구가 아닌 투기꾼에 의한, 투기꾼을 위한 것이 되고 말지요. 건설사, 정부에게도 책임이 있지만 투기에 환장한 국민들에게도 책임이 있다는 것이지요. 수십만원 밖에 안 하는 핸드폰, TV에 조금의 문제라도 생기면 환불 요구하고 난리를 치면서 수억원을 호가하는 아파트 자체의 품질에는 무관심한 소비자들이 많습니다. 핸드폰 살 때, CPU의 속도는 어느 정도인지, LCD 해상도는 몇 인지 스펙을 꼼꼼히 따져보는 사람은 많아도, 아파트 구입시에는 방음 성능이 어떻게 되는지 꼼꼼히 따져보는 사람은 거의 없습니다 [...] 대충 마구잡이로 지어도 비싸게 잘 팔리는데, 건설사들이 미쳤다고 품질에 신경쓰면서 시공합니까? 게다가, 아파트에 심각한 하자가 발생해도, 집 값 떨어진다고 그 것을 공론화하지 않고 쉬쉬하는 입주자들이 수두룩합니다.

There are speculators everywhere worldwide. However, I would say every South Korean is speculator. House is no longer a necessity for living, but an object of speculation, for speculators. Undoubtably, construction companies and the government are to blame, but citizens are also responsible for this mess. When people buy a new cellphone and TV, they usually check every detail from the CPU to LCD resolution. However, when they buy an apartment, they don't care whether it was built with sufficient sound-proofing materials [...] Since the poorly built apartments are sold so successfully, the construction companies don't need to care about the quality. Plus, there are so many residents who even after detecting serious construction flaws in their building, never make them public and keep silent on the matter because it could drive their housing prices down.

South Korea: Net Neutrality Debate Re-emerges

Jae Yeon Kim — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:56:44 +0000

Net neutrality is an Internet network principle that blocks Internet service providers or governments from restricting consumers’ access to networks and discriminating against traffic from different contents and sites. However, by the advance of mobile broadband networks, this principle has been challenged in many parts of the world and demand for new traffic management rules have grown ever stronger. One of the most wired countries in the world, South Korea, is in the midst of a heated debate on net neutrality– an issue which will greatly affect the future of the Internet.

On June 4, 2012, ‘Voice Talk', a new Korean mVoIP (mobile VoIP) was released in the Korean domestic mobile market. This service was developed by Korean start-up KaKao which operates the nation's most popular mobile messenger application named ‘Kakao Talk’. Subsequently, Korean telecommunication companies, including Korea Telecom (KT) and SK Telecom, launched attacks on Voice Talk, claiming that it will substantially degrade the quality of their data network services. They even said that this new innovation will not only threaten their telecommunication infrastructure but the public interest. Conflict between these telecommunication companies and internet companies led to government intervention.

Image of Kakao Talk application. Image by Flickr user xabeldiz (CC BY 2.0)

The Korea Communications Commission(KCC) announced on July 13, 2012 that the authorities have come up with a basic guideline for reasonable network management. However, this new rule would allow Korean telcos to discriminate against not only mVoIP, such as Voice Talk, but also Peer to Peer (P2P) technology that has been widely used in South Korea for online broadcasting and downloading software patches. The government's decision started an uproar in South Korean online space. Especially in some communities where people shared their distaste for the government imposing a set of guidelines to quell the conflicts, it was easy to find people holding grudges.

For example, Twitterer @goodhyun who is a former MS employee and a tech writer, lamented [ko] that the government decision would narrow future debates on the Internet governance in a wrong way.

망중립성 논의는 거시경제학적 함의가 풍성해 이 사회가 더 튼튼한 제도 설계를 할 수 있게 만드는 좋은 소재입니다. 그러나 방통위께서 저렇게 스스로 전지전능한 듯 종결자 노릇을 해 주시니 논의는 이제 아마 감정적으로 치닫겠지요.

Net neutrality debates entail ample macro-economic implications. Thus, engaging in this debate will provide a great opportunity to build a better design for institutional foundations in our society. However, as noted, KCC acted as an almighty, final decision-maker, killing any remains of rational discussions and starting emotional confrontations.

Others are concerned about the decision's impact on innovation and basic civic rights in South Korea. Twitter user @rushtenm criticized [ko] the government for lack of concern about the decision's ramifications for the prospect of innovation.

망중립성을 지켜줘야할 정부가 나서서 통신사 편을 들어주는 한쿡. 이러면서 또 3년 후에 우리나라에는 외국의 혁신적인 서비스가 없다고 징징거리겠지…. ㅉㅉ

The government is supposed to protect net neutrality but it only favors telcos. Despite this decision, they will complain later that we do not have innovative Internet services like overseas….

Another Twitter @soventure, a social entrepreneur, writes [ko] that the decision should have been made more carefully as it would reshape free expression online:

농담처럼 이야기하고 있지만..하도 기막혀서 그런것이구요. 망중립성은 정말 중요합니다. 앞으로 컨텐츠벤처의 경쟁력을 다 깎아먹을 수 있는 문제도 있고.. 더 크게는 표현의 자유가 제한되는 문제도 있죠..

I commented with some humor [not because it's funny in any good way] rather it is hilariously ridiculous. Net neutrality is really important. First of all, it significantly matters for start-ups in online contents business… and more fundamentally [if net neutrality were dead], it will endanger online free expression as well..

@woohyung, a South Korean Internet expert residing in the U.S., blames [ko] the Korean government for its incompetence in terms of making Information Communication Technology (ICT) policy:

미국규제에선 21C 보편적서비스 개편방향이 최대 관건 중 하나 망중립성포함해 유무선망통합/IP서비스통합/신기술혁신/커뮤니티브로드밴드등이 관련된 주요정책요소들. 한국규제기관은 전문성/역량 다 부족하면서 인터넷강국 마케팅에 스스로 빠져 매우 오만하다 생각

In the United States, providing universal access for citizens to ICT infrastructure is one of the key concerns for their regulatory debates. This includes issues such as the convergence of physical and wireless networks, IP-based services, new technology innovations, community broadband and the others. However, Korean regulatory agencies [including KCC] has lacked sufficient expertise and capability concerning this aspect. By branding itself as a Internet-strong nation, they have been trapped in their own arrogance.

In order to raise public concerns about this policy debate and represent citizens’ voices in the decision-making process, Citizens’ Coalition for Economic Justice, Open Web, The Internet is ours, Jinbo.net, People Power, Womenlink Media Activism Center, Citizens’ Action Network, and the other civic-minded organizations formed the Network Neutrality Forum on May 2, 2012. So far, they have hosted two open seminars on net neutrality for journalists on June 13 and July 3.

South Korea: Web App Controversy Reignites Net Neutrality Debate

Jae Yeon Kim — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:09:01 +0000

Net neutrality is a principal which does not allow Internet service providers or governments to restrict consumers’ access to networks or to discriminate traffic coming from different contents and sites. As more and more people use smart phones and tablet computers, thereby increasingly burdening wireless connections, this core principle of Internet governance is fast becoming one of the most debated issues in South Korea.

Kakao Talk Controversy

On May 26, 2011, the Korea Communications Commission (KCC) announced [ko] that they would soon examine whether ‘Kakao Talk‘, a smart phone messenger application which has 14 million users in South Korea, follows net neutrality guidelines. The app allows mobile device users to send and receive messages for free.

Kakao Talk, leading Korean mobile messenger application. Image by Flickr user VoIPman.

The government sees Kakao Talk as a ‘free rider’ of Internet network services, and is considering ordering them to pay network service fees to network providers as a result of the heavy traffic it is responsible for. This decision has drawn immediate criticism from net users.

Blogger Nizad, who published “The Naked Apple” in 2010, blames [ko] the decision for jeopardizing the nondiscriminatory policy which is essential for Internet development:

본래 망중립성이란 쉽게 풀어쓰면 다음과 같다. 통신망을 이용하는 데이터는 그것이 음성이든 문자든, 인터넷 데이터든 차별받지 않고 공정하게 취급받는다. 망 사업자는 중립적 입장에서 망을 관리해야 한다. 이런 것이다. (…) 네이버나 다음, 구글 등의 대형 포털사업자도 트래픽을 많이 유발한다. 그럼에도 망 사업자가 따로 제한하거나 요금을 물리지 않는다. 유독 카카오톡에만 민감하게 문제삼는 것도 우습다.

Let me break this down to you: the net neutrality means ‘any digital content using the network, whether it is audio (referring to phone calls), text messages or Internet data, should be protected from any discrimination and be fairly treated. And network providers should maintain their neutrality when managing various networks.’ [...] Naver, Daum, or Google, these portal sites have also caused heavy traffic but the government did not regulate those big companies by limiting their service or demanding them extra fee, while they target KakaoTalk almost exclusively. This is ridiculous.

Blogger Imagination factory owner takes [ko] a more comprehensive approach to this issue:

물론 서비스의 개선 문제에 대해서는 요금을 지불해야 하는 것이 맞긴 하지만 요금 지불을 한다고 하여서 현제 버벅거리는 서비스가 좋아질 것이라는 기대는 안하게 되는 게 국내 통신사들이다. […] 거기다가 각 통신사별로 망 개선작업(LTE, 3W 등)의 사업을 추진하고 있는 이 시점에서 이 저격의 의미는 조금이라도 투자비를 회수하려는 것 처럼 보여지기도 한다.

Of course, we may need to pay an extra fee on improving the service quality. However, my experience tells that it is better not to expect Korean network providers to improve their dissatisfying service quality, even if we pay them more money. […] Moreover, as major network providers now conduct network improvement operations (LTE, 3W and the others), it seems that they penalize Kakao Talk to extract at least some of their investments out from it.

Blogger Ssangdoong Appa reacted similarly. He writes [ko] that even though it is understandable that network providers deserve the rights to demand an additional return from Kakao Talk, such a decision should be made carefully since it can cause a negative effect on small business start-ups:

왜냐하면 이전에는 이런류의 서비스가 없었으며 있다하더라도 그렇게 많은 트래픽을 일으키지 않았기때문에 이제는 정비가 필요한 것이다. 아쉽게도 이렇게 되면 신선한 작은 IT벤처회사들이 시장 진입장벽이 높아만 가니까 어려워질 것이다. 이런 부분을 국가는 염두하고 무조건 시장의 논리에 의해서만 대기업편을 들어줘서는 안 된다.

In the past there were no services like [Kakao Talk]. Even if there were, they did not cause this much traffic. As the situation has changed, we now need to adjust the current system. But if we allowed [a penalty against Kakao Talk or similar companies] it will further increase the market entry cost and thereby make things difficult for small IT start-ups. The government should take this into account when they form their policies and should refrain from blindly following market logic and siding with conglomerates.

Blogger Yonggari comments [ko] that even though there are numerous Wi-Fi networks installed throughout the country, citizens still face difficulty in using them because of compatibility issues; Wi-Fi providers each have their own unique systems and policies. The blogger feels the need to urge the Korean government to better manage the Internet infrastructure the nation already has, and proposes a commons-based solution that could ease the current tension and enhance public interests:

Wi-Fi가 대중적으로 보급되었지만 정작 공공장소에서의 Wi-Fi를 사용하다보면 여간 짜증나는일이 아닐 수 없다. 현재 SKT, KT, LGT 등 통신 3사의 Wi-Fi정책은 전부 다르다.[...] 하지만 이렇게 제한도 없고 정책도 없이 난립되는 AP[Access Point]들 때문에… 결국 서로 간섭을 일으키고 통신도 제대로 되지 않는 지경에 이르게 되는 것이다. (기본적으로 Wi-Fi는 14개 채널을 사용하지만 채널 간 guard space가 없이 인접채널과 겹쳐서 주파수를 사용한다. 그렇기 때문에 간섭엔 특히나 더 취약하기 마련이다.) 적어도 공공장소에서만큼은 시민들에게 통신사에 구애받지 않고 Wi-Fi망을 제대로 이용하게 해줄 수 없는건가?

Wi-Fi is widely spread, but accessing it in public space can often be irritating. Currently SKT, KT, LGT [Three major Korean network providers] all operate their own Wi-Fi differently.[...] However, there is no restriction on APs (Access Points). Those mushrooming APs interfere with each other and therefore undermine the overall communication efficiency. (Wi-Fi basically uses 14 channels. But there is no guard zone between neighboring channels, therefore making Wi-Fi specifically vulnerable to interruption.) I suggest that the government should allow citizens free access to Wi-Fi in public spaces no matter with which network providers they are registered.

Recently, a group of Korean and overseas Internet companies and contents providers, including major market leaders like NHN and Google Korea, announced [ko] that they plan to form Open Internet Alliance (OIA) on September 2011. Their purpose is to protect consumer rights and to prepare themselves for the KCC’s upcoming decision on net neutrality in November 2011.

South Korea: Controversies on the Return of Korean Royal Books

Jae Yeon Kim — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:24:57 +0000

Uigwe (의궤 in Korean) is a collection of Korean Royal books that was looted by French troops during the French invasion of Korea's Kanghwa Island in 1866. It finally returned home after 145 years on May 2011.

The South Korean government celebrated the return with a large-scale traditional ceremony on June 11 and decided to exhibit it at the National Museum of History from July 19 to September 18. However, controversies remain as the return of the Korean Royal books is deeply connected with Korea's troubled modern history.

As the return of the royal books was achieved after long years of tedious negotiation with the French government, this return has been warmly welcomed by many. What ignited the various controversies was the fact that the return was conditional, a de facto ‘rent’ of the treasure rather than a permanent return. The Korean government is required to renew the agreement it made with the French government, regarding keeping the artefacts in South Korea, every five years.

But most Koreans are still thrilled at the news. Bloggger JooYoo who participated in the welcoming ceremony on June 11, expresses [ko] how people are overwhelmed with joy over the return of the national treasure:

외규장각 의궤는 비록 ‘대여'라는 이름으로 계속 연장을 해야한다고는 하지만 중요한 건 ‘컴백홈'을 했다는 것!

Although the royal book return was a conditional return, under the title of “rent”, which requires a continuous renewal of the agreement, the most important thing is that we finally got them back here.

Uigwe is highly regarded treasure for its beauty and its historical value in understanding Korean tradition. Blogger Cookiedesiger reflects [ko] this view:

예로부터 내려온 것은 작은 못 하나라도 민족의 혈이 흐르는 보물이 아닌가 합니다.

Traditionally inherited things are precious. The spirit of nation runs through them. Even the smallest nail contains the spirit.

National pride and humiliation mingled

The decision to rent the treasure was based on consideration of French domestic law. And in the diplomatic world, it is interpreted as the French government practically allowing the return. But that explanation could not satisfy Koreans. Blogger Binbini argues this negotiation was unfair and short-sighted [ko]:

정부와 외교 통상부가 하는 말을 보시라. 갱신 형식으로 사실상 영구 대여가 된다. 일단 돌아온 문화재를 빼앗아 가겠느냐. [...]원래 우리나라에 있던 문화재를 강제로 약탈해 갔습니다.

Look at what the Head of Administration and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said: ‘It is actually “a permanent rent” as long as we continue to renew the agreement’ and ‘What would they do about it? Once the treasure arrived in South Korea, they couldn't possibly take this away from us.’ [...] They've forgotten that it was looted during the French invasion.

The National Museum of History located in Seoul, South Korea. Image by Flickr user RadioHat. (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

That disagreement is intertwined with the paradoxical combination of national pride and humiliation. For example, blogger A Small World in the World expresses his resentment [ko] toward the attitude of the French government and its decision to allow the ‘limited’ return:

솔직히 남의 나라에서 약탈해 간 문화재를 이정도까지 완벽하게 보관해 줬다는 점에서는 프랑스에 감사했습니다.[...]애초 외규장각 의궤는 우리나라 겁니다. 긴 세월 남의 나라 도서관에 있다가 원래 있어야 할 곳으로 돌아오는 것 뿐입니다. 우리나라 입장에서 보면 나쁜 놈들이 뺐어간 내 물건 되찾아 오는 겁니다.

Frankly speaking, I felt grateful to the French government for well preserving our national treasure for many years. [However] Uigwe is our national treasure in the first place. It has been stolen and kept in a foreign country’s library for many years. [Thus] From the Korean perspective, getting it back from France is to retrieve what we rightly deserve to have.

Then the blogger continues:

더구나 외규장각 의궤에 관련해선 프랑스는 우리국가를 상대로 대놓고 거짓말을 한 전력이 있습니다. 고속철도 도입 당시 프랑스 일본 독일 등의 고속철에 대한 논의가 있었을 때, 우리나라가 프랑스 TGV를 선택한 결정적인 이유가 프랑스 대통령이 약속한 외규장각 도서 반환에 대한 약속 때문이라고 해도 과언이 아닙니다. 당시 미래를 생각하면 일본 고속철도가 더 나은 선택이라는 말이 있었지만, 저 약속 때문에 프랑스 TGV를 선택한 것입니다.

Moreover, the French government told an outright lie to us in the past regarding the return of royal books. When we were torn between choosing France, Japan and Germany in giving a contract to build high-speed rail here in South Korea, the French president made a strong promise to return the royal text. This promise was one of the deciding reasons that we adopted French TGV before those of other countries. At that time, some people suggested that Japanese rail technology is a better choice for the future, but we still chose French TGV, just because we so badly wanted to retrieve our royal text.

Although the blogger did not articulate it explicitly, it was not hard to read between the lines that his post reflects Koreans’ view on the colonial era. His post title read ‘Royal Text Return: While Resenting Japanese Occupation, Why are We Reacting so Generously toward French Invasion?‘ [ko] and note that the blogger chose the words “outright lie” in the first sentence. He used such an emotive word about a ‘negotiation’ situation where costs and benefits only matter and cold calculations are the only language two sides use.

Nonetheless, pushing the Korean public to accept the limited return of the treasure seems myopic. That does not encompass public views and feelings toward their tragic history and how their views affect current Korean society.

South Korea: Dating App Developer Convicted of Privacy Violation

Jae Yeon Kim — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 12:26:55 +0000

The web developer of a controversial mobile application which tracks down the current location of one’s boy/girlfriend, has been indicted without detention by police in South Korea for violating the country's telecommunication law.

South Korean net users have criticized authorities for misunderstanding the application and have branded the decision as double-standards. They have also voiced concerns that the government’s harsh decision may discourage future web development.

The ‘Devil's App’

The ‘Trust Me!’ application (indirect translation) and its powerful Location-Based System enables users to track down targets, most commonly spouses or boy/girlfriends, to check if they are lying about their whereabouts.

The application was an instant hit in Korea, even amid concerns over information security and privacy. It ranked among the top 10 searched words of 2010 in South Korea’s most visited web portal sites such as NAVER and Daum.

App icons in the window of an Apple store. Image by Flickr user Cristiano Betta (CC BY 2.0.

The direct translation of the application's name is ‘You Can Trust Obba’ (오빠 믿지, in Korean). The Korean word ‘Obba’, which literally refers to a female’s older brother, is widely used as an affectionate nickname for men when in a relationship. The English equivalent would be ‘sweetie’ or ‘darling’. However, ‘Trust Me!’ was soon nicknamed the ‘Devil’s app’ for thwarting cheaters’ attempts to stray.

On January 6, 2011, police charged 24-year-old developer, Jung-tae Kim, with providing people’s locations to third party users without consent.

Korean Communications Commission (KCC) explained that the reason the app's liability had been brought into question was not because of the complaints filed by several individuals, but rather mistakes made during its authorization procedure. Korean communication law states that when providing an individual's location to a third party, an organization has to notify and be licensed by the KCC.

Korean net users have accused the government of adopting double standards. A loyalty cashback program called ‘OK Cashbag‘, run by South Korean conglomerate SK Group, was also investigated by Korean authorities for commercial use of personal information. It was left unpunished however, after the government dropped the case.

Furthermore, people have blamed the government for its belated response in the case of ‘Trust Me!'. No action was taken against the app until several months after it became available for purchase.

Here is the summary of Korean Twitter users’ discussion of this issue.

@ollehs simpson stated:

오빠믿지 앱 개발자가 위치정보 공개 앱 개발한지 수 개월 이내에 검거된 것과 OK 캐쉬백 개인정보 사용남발이 불법이 아닌 것.

The developer of the ‘Trust Me!’ app has been indicted when it has already been available for several months. ‘OK Cashbag’ overused personal information much more than they did, but ‘OK Cashbag’ was not held accountable for legal liability. (This is unfair.)

@amatory11 criticized:

‘오빠믿지’ 개발자 입건, 개인정보 무단이용한 OK캐쉬백은?.. 대기업은 조사만 한거냐?

The police indicted the developer of ‘Trust Me!'. What about ‘OK Cashbag'? In dealing with the conglomerate, the government only investigated the case (rather than give the punishment)!

@skysy317, instead of criticizing the government's unfair treatment, pointed out the app’s utility:

‘오빠믿지 유용함. 어서 풀어줘

‘Trust Me!’ app is useful! Please, release him! Soon!

Slowing App Development

Some developers worried that this case could slow down the current boom of mobile app development in South Korea.

Young developers such as ‘Trust Me!’ founder Kim either do not care or do not understand the law and its interpretations; over-application of the law without clear evidence may dampen entrepreneurial spirits.

Blogger Silver Wolf (은빛 늑대, in Korean) commented on this aspect [ko] of the government’s decision:

오빠믿지 어플이 과연 (최근 신문 기사의 제목처럼) 개인의 정보위치 정보를 전화번호만 알면 마음대로 알 수 있을까요? 개발자이기도 하면서 직접 어플을 다운받아 사용해 본 결론은 아니다… 입니다. 실제로 이 어플은 커플간의 양방향 아이디를 일치 시켜야 되고, 실제로 등록이 되었다해도 실시간 위치정보가 아닌..내가 보여주어야 상대방에게 위치가 전송되는 방식이었습니다.

As mainstream media’s headlines allude, can the ‘Trust Me!’ app truly reveal the other’s location if the person knows his target’s mobile phone number? As a developer who downloaded and tried this app for a while, the answer is ‘NO’… In reality, this mobile app requires both parties’ (the ‘locater’ and the ‘locatee’) registrations and their IDs. Even after they registered themselves, it is not a real-time transmission of one’s location. The information regarding one’s location can be transmitted only after the sender had agreed.

The blogger then provided his view on why Kim's indictment occurred, even without clear evidence of privacy infringement. He blamed false and inaccurate media reporting, done without a clear understanding of the app’s function and mechanism:

아마도 언론이나 단순히 글을 퍼날은 블로그들에 의한 사실여부 확인보단 자극적인 보도로 인해 여론이 안좋은 쪽으로 형성되어 정통위에서도 이런 결정을 내린게 아닐까 합니다. … 더 이상 이와 같은 사례로 제2의 개인 개발자에게 피해가 가지 않았으면 하는 바램입니다.

I suggest that this situation was caused by sensational media coverage and ignorant bloggers who absentmindedly copy-pasted these news articles. Due to this [the spread of inaccurate reports], the public formed hostile views towards the app, which led the Korean Communications Commission to make the decision… I hope no such case happens again to the Korean web developing community in the future.