Corporate Accountability in Networked Asia
201
legislature, to develop a new “ distributed and ubiquitous network model ” of governance and manipulation of the public discourse, enabled by “ positive technologies
for free fl oating control ” which “ can hide under an ethical patina the real intention
of control directed at establishing the new digital rule of cybersociety. ”
43
In 2009, Google decided that it would not contribute to this trend. In April of that
year the company announced that the local Korean section of its video-sharing service,
YouTube, would disable users from uploading videos or posting comments because
allowing them to do so without registering their real names and ID numbers was a
violation of local law. The company cited a concern for South Korean Internet users ’
right to freedom of expression, stating on its offi cial blog, “ We believe that it is important for free expression that people have the right to remain anonymous, if they
choose. ”
44
Unnamed executives quoted in the press at the time indicated that South Korean
companies resent being used as agents for the chilling of free expression in their
country, but fi nd themselves in a weaker position to resist given that their main customer base — and in many cases sole market — is domestic. In the wake of Google ’ s
announcement, The Hankyoreh news Web site quoted an unnamed executive at one
of South Korea ’ s major Internet portals who said, “ When I saw Google ’ s decision, I
was jealous and at the same time deeply distressed. . . . South Korean businesses will
have to endure criticism from users while following unwanted regulations. ”
45 The
Korea Times quoted a similarly frustrated offi cial from Daum, the country ’ s secondlargest Web portal: “ The increasing government regulations can ’ t help Korean Web
portals if Internet users feel they ’ re on a short leash. Korea is one of the few countries
where local companies introduced enough quality services to stay ahead of global
Internet giants in the market, but now it seems we may be losing some of our competitive edge. ”
46
In China, where there is little hope of a fair hearing in the courts, no free media
coverage, and no recourse to oppositional politics, executives can ill afford to stand
up to the government. However, South Korean companies, operating in a democracy,
are in a much stronger position to advocate on behalf of the rights of their users,
challenge government orders in cases that are arguably unconstitutional or even
illegal, and push for changes in law so that they will not be compelled to act as de
facto opaque extensions of the ruling political power in a way that taints their own
relationship with users and customers.
It appears that at least some attempts are being made in this direction. In April
2009, the Korea Times reported that K-Internet, an industry lobby of 150 Internet
companies, protested against a controversial bill proposed in parliament by members
of the ruling Grand National Party that would grant intelligence authorities greater
powers to intercept user communications on mobile telephone networks and Internet
services, requiring all ICT companies to maintain comprehensive logs of user and
201
legislature, to develop a new “ distributed and ubiquitous network model ” of governance and manipulation of the public discourse, enabled by “ positive technologies
for free fl oating control ” which “ can hide under an ethical patina the real intention
of control directed at establishing the new digital rule of cybersociety. ”
43
In 2009, Google decided that it would not contribute to this trend. In April of that
year the company announced that the local Korean section of its video-sharing service,
YouTube, would disable users from uploading videos or posting comments because
allowing them to do so without registering their real names and ID numbers was a
violation of local law. The company cited a concern for South Korean Internet users ’
right to freedom of expression, stating on its offi cial blog, “ We believe that it is important for free expression that people have the right to remain anonymous, if they
choose. ”
44
Unnamed executives quoted in the press at the time indicated that South Korean
companies resent being used as agents for the chilling of free expression in their
country, but fi nd themselves in a weaker position to resist given that their main customer base — and in many cases sole market — is domestic. In the wake of Google ’ s
announcement, The Hankyoreh news Web site quoted an unnamed executive at one
of South Korea ’ s major Internet portals who said, “ When I saw Google ’ s decision, I
was jealous and at the same time deeply distressed. . . . South Korean businesses will
have to endure criticism from users while following unwanted regulations. ”
45 The
Korea Times quoted a similarly frustrated offi cial from Daum, the country ’ s secondlargest Web portal: “ The increasing government regulations can ’ t help Korean Web
portals if Internet users feel they ’ re on a short leash. Korea is one of the few countries
where local companies introduced enough quality services to stay ahead of global
Internet giants in the market, but now it seems we may be losing some of our competitive edge. ”
46
In China, where there is little hope of a fair hearing in the courts, no free media
coverage, and no recourse to oppositional politics, executives can ill afford to stand
up to the government. However, South Korean companies, operating in a democracy,
are in a much stronger position to advocate on behalf of the rights of their users,
challenge government orders in cases that are arguably unconstitutional or even
illegal, and push for changes in law so that they will not be compelled to act as de
facto opaque extensions of the ruling political power in a way that taints their own
relationship with users and customers.
It appears that at least some attempts are being made in this direction. In April
2009, the Korea Times reported that K-Internet, an industry lobby of 150 Internet
companies, protested against a controversial bill proposed in parliament by members
of the ruling Grand National Party that would grant intelligence authorities greater
powers to intercept user communications on mobile telephone networks and Internet
services, requiring all ICT companies to maintain comprehensive logs of user and