현대인은 SNS를 통해 세계 곳곳에 있는 사람들과 시ㆍ공간적 제약 없이 실시간으로 소통한다. 디지털화된 정보는 손쉬운 검색, 무한한 복제, 신속ㆍ광범위한 확산, 장기간 저비용 보관이라는 특징을 가진다. 따라서 인터넷상에 한번 올린 정보는 오랜 시간이 흐른 뒤에도 뛰어난 검색실력을 가진 사람에 의해 언제든 세상에 다시 알려질 수 있다. 이러한 특성을 가진 인터넷상 개인정보를 삭제하고 싶어 하는 사람들에게 법적 근거를 제공하고자 하는 논의가 잊혀질 권리의 도입 논의이다.
그러나, 정보주체의 잊혀질 권리는 제3자의 표현의 자유와 충돌한다. 잊혀질 권리와 표현의 자유는 모두 상대적인 기본권으로서 양자가 충돌할 때 어느 한쪽만을 일방적으로 우선할 수는 없고, 구체적 사안별로 양자를 조화롭게 해결할 균형점을 모색하는 것이 필요하다. EU사법재판소와 일본의 동경고등재판소의 판결들을 보더라도 정보주체의 잊혀질 권리와 상대방의 표현의 자유의 충돌의 해결을 사안별로 검토하게 되는데, 그 기준으로서 공개된 개인정보에 대한 정보주체의 사생활의 민감도와 그 정보가 가지는 공공의 이익, 정보공개로 인해 얻을 수 있는 사회적 이익, 그리고 정보공개로 인해 정보주체가 입는 피해의 이익 등을 고려하여 판단하게 된다. 이 글에서는 이러한 기준을 염두에 두고 표현의 자유와 충돌정도가 다른, 정보주체 스스로 인터넷상에 올린 개인정보에 대한 잊혀질 권리와, 제3자가 인터넷상에 올린 정보주체의 개인정보에 대한 잊혀질 권리를 구별하여 잊혀질 권리실현을 위한 법적 규정을 달리 두는 방안을 제안하였다.
In the modern age people communicate in real time with others from around the globe through social networking services. The digitized information is easily searchable, can be endlessly copied, spread swiftly and widely, and stored indefinitely at low cost. Therefore information uploaded to the internet is propagated quickly and widely and stored long–term, meaning it may be known to the world even after much time has elapsed by someone who is skilled at searching. The debate on adopting the right to be forgotten concerns providing a legal basis for those who wish to delete their personal information left online.
The information subject’s right to be forgotten, however, comes into conflict with third parties’ freedom of expression. The right to be forgotten and the freedom of expression are both relative rights, with neither one unilaterally ascendant in cases of conflict but rather to be harmonized and balanced against each other based on the specific facts of each case. The European Court of Justice and Japan’s Tokyo High Court also reviewed the conflicts between information subjects’ right to be forgotten and third parties’ freedom of expression on a case–by–case basis. The considerations include the degree to which the disclosed personal information implicates privacy concerns, the public interest in the information, the social good to be gained from disclosure, and the harm to the information subject due to disclosure.
This article, taking into account such standards, distinguished between the right to be forgotten concerning information that the information subject uploaded to the internet of their own volition on the one hand, and information about the information subject that a third party uploaded to the internet by a third party on the other, which implicate freedom of expression to different degrees. Different legal provisions should apply to these two categories of cases in vindicating the right to be forgotten. In the case of information that the information subject uploaded to the internet, the information subject’s right to be forgotten should supersede others’ freedom of expression. On this subject, however, there is only a guideline from the Korea Communications Commission and no legal provision. It is therefore recommended that a new provision be added as Article 44–2(3) of the Information and Communication Networks Act. When a third party uploads an information subject’s information to the internet, there is a conflict between the right to be forgotten of the information subject who wishes this information to be deleted and the freedom of information of the third party who wishes to disclose the information. In order to balance and harmonize these rights, the article suggests that Article 44–2(1) and (2) of the Information and Communication Networks Act be utilized. In order to effectively secure performance by information network service providers, Article 76(2)5 should be added to the same Act as “A person who failed to take deletion or provisional measures in violation of Article 44–2(2) or (3),” subject to an administrative fine of up to 20,000,000 won. According to these provisions, an information subject of information uploaded to the internet by a third party, if the information constitutes a privacy violation or libel, may request an information and communication service provider to delete the information or delete it from search results under Article 44–2(1) of the Information and Communication Networks Act so that others may no longer search and discover personal information about the information subject.