본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Litigating Personal Data Disclosures against Information and Telecommunication Service Providers: A Korea-US Comparison

이세인|필립스
아시아태평양법연구소 (Asia Pacific Law Institute)|2015.12|Journal of Korean Law|제15권 제1호|pp. 191-235|DOI 10.23110/jkl.2015.15.1.009

0

조회

0

다운로드

1

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

Protection of personal informationPersonal information disclosuresIdentity theftClaims for personal information disclosuresDamages for personal information disclosures

초록

Millions of Korean and US consumers have sought remedies for the unauthorized disclosure of personal information by Internet-based information and telecommunication service providers (ITSPs). Courts and legislatures in Korea and the United States are fashioning legal claims and remedies to address these disclosures. We contribute to this evolution with a unique comparative analysis of the law in Korea and the United States, across three areas: (1) the definition of ‘personal information;’ (2) possible causes of action; and (3) available remedies. We compare and contrast the two countries’ legal approaches to disclosures, enriching our understanding of both jurisdictions. This article will help scholars, courts, and practitioners in Korea and the United States find an appropriate balance between consumer protection and commercial freedom. We conclude our paper by suggesting ways to improve the law’s effectiveness and efficiency in addressing the exponential technological developments in information communication.

Abstract

Millions of Korean and US consumers have sought remedies for the unauthorized disclosure of personal information by Internet-based information and telecommunication service providers (ITSPs). Courts and legislatures in Korea and the United States are fashioning legal claims and remedies to address these disclosures. We contribute to this evolution with a unique comparative analysis of the law in Korea and the United States, across three areas: (1) the definition of ‘personal information;’ (2) possible causes of action; and (3) available remedies. We compare and contrast the two countries’ legal approaches to disclosures, enriching our understanding of both jurisdictions. This article will help scholars, courts, and practitioners in Korea and the United States find an appropriate balance between consumer protection and commercial freedom. We conclude our paper by suggesting ways to improve the law’s effectiveness and efficiency in addressing the exponential technological developments in information communication.

참고문헌 (82)

  1. Matthew Moriarty, "Thy Brother Came with Subtlety: How a Cause of Action against Companies who Leak Data can Increase Security in the Digital Age", Univ. of Kan. L. Rev, 62, pp.813~ (2014)
  2. "Year of Mega Breaches & Identity Theft" (2014)[URL]
  3. "Mistakes are Costing Companies Millions from Avoidable Data Breaches" (2013)[URL]
  6. "Target Reaches Settlement with Visa over 2013 Data Breach" (2015)[URL]
  7. "Excellus Faces Breach-Related Lawsuit" (2015)[URL]
  8. "OPM Sued Again, Data Breach Today" (2015)[URL]
  9. "Is Neiman Marcus Case a Game-Changer?" (2015)[URL]
  10. "Data Breach Today"[URL]
  11. "Chief Justice Roberts: Technology among Top Issues for Court" (2012)[URL]
  12. 윤종수, "개인정보보호법제의 개관", 정보법학, 13(1), pp.179~209 (2009), 한국정보법학회
  13. 이재경, "개인정보 유출에 따른 정신적 손해와 위자료의 인정가능성 - 대법원 2012.12.26. 선고 2011다59834 판결 -", 동북아법연구, 8(3), pp.525~544 (2015), 동북아법연구소
  14. Rachel Peters, "So You’ve Been Notified, Now What?", Ariz. L. Rev, 56, pp.1171~ (2014)
  15. Peter Sloan, "The Reasonable Information Security Program", Rich. J.L. & Tech, 21, pp.2~ (2014)
  16. Eric T. Glynn, "The Credit Industry and Identity Theft", Buff. L. Rev, 61, pp.215~ (2013)
  17. Andrea M. Matwyshyn, "Symposium:Data Devolution", Chi-Kent L.Rev, 84, pp.713~ (2010)
  18. Jacqueline Klosek, "Information Services, Technology and Data Protection", Int’l Law, 43, pp.677~ (2009)
  19. to Privacy, "Antitrust Law Journal", 2015, 121~
  20. "Constitutional Court, 99Hun-ma513& 2004Hun-ma190, May 26, 2005", ~
  21. "Seoul Central District Court, 2006Gahab33062, 53332, Feb. 8, 2007", ~
  22. "Seoul High Court, 2008Na25888, Nov. 25, 2008", ~
  23. "Supreme Court, 2011Da59834, 59858, 59841, Dec. 26, 2012", ~
  24. "Seoul Central District Court, 2010Godan5343, Dec. 23, 2011", ~
  25. (2006)[URL]
  26. "Supreme Court, 2013Da43994, Feb. 12, 2015", ~
  27. "Supreme Court, 2011Da24555, 24562, May 16, 2014", ~
  28. "Seoul High Court 2009Na11931 & 2009Na119148, Feb. 10, 2011", ~
  29. "Seoul Central District Court, 2008Gahap75268 & 2009Gahap91281, Nov. 6, 2009", ~
  30. "Daegu District Court, 2012Na9865, Feb. 13, 2014", ~
  31. "Daegu District Court Kimcheon Division, 2011Gaso17384, Apr. 26, 2012", ~
  32. "Seoul Western District Court, 2011Gahab11733, 2011Gahab13234, 2011Gahab14138, 2012Gahap1122, Feb. 15, 2013", ~
  33. "Seoul Central District Court, 2011Gahab129394, 2011Gahab129400, 2011Gahab105718, 2011Gahab90267, 2012Gahab46342, Nov. 23, 2012", ~
  34. 최호진, "해킹에 의한 개인정보유출과 정보통신서비스 제공자에 대한 손해배상책임에 관한 고찰 - SK컴즈 사건을 중심으로 -", 법조, 63(2), pp.123~159 (2014), 법조협회[DOI]
  35. "Seoul High Court, 2013Na20047, 2013Na20054, 2013Na 20061, 2013Na20078, Mar. 20, 2015", ~
  36. "Seoul High Court, 2007Na33059, 33066, Nov. 17, 2007", ~
  37. "Seoul Central District Court, 2006Gahab33062, 53332, Feb. 8, 2007", ~
  38. "Target Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (D. Minn. 2014)", 64 F. Supp. 3d, 1304~13101 (2014)
  39. "Ruiz v. Gap, Inc.(N.D. Cal. 2008)", 540 F. Supp. 2d, 1121~1128
  40. "Target Corp.", 64 F.Supp.3d, 1310~1312
  41. "Wolfe v. MBNA America Bank(W.D. Tenn. 2007)", 485F.Supp.2d, 874~881
  42. "Complaint, Geocities, FTC Docket No. C-3850" (1999)[URL]
  43. "Fact Sheet 6a"[URL]
  44. "Hollowayv. Bristol-Myers Corp.(D.C. Cir. 1973)", 485 F.2d, 986~1001
  45. "Boggio v. USAA Federal Savings Bank(6th Cir. 2012)", 696 F.3d, 611~615
  46. "Perry v. First National Bank(7th Cir. 2006)", 459 F.3d, 816~823
  47. "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2015"[URL]
  48. "Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity" (2014)[URL]
  50. "Data Security and Breach Notification Act of 2013, S. 1193, 113th Cong. § 6" (2008)[URL]
  51. "Selected State Laws Governing the Safeguarding and Disposing of Personal Information"[URL]
  52. "Other sources of standards are the U.S. - EU Safe Harbor Framework"[URL]
  53. "Security Breach Notification Laws" (2015)[URL]
  54. "2015 Security Breach Legislation" (2015)[URL]
  55. Jill Joerling, "Data Breach Notification Laws: An Argument for a Comprehensive Federal Law to Protect Consumer Data", Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y, 32, pp.467~476 (2010)
  56. "Michaels Stores Pin Pad Litigation(N.D. Ill. 2011)", 830 F. Supp, 518~528
  57. Lee Chang-Hyun, "A Study on Consolation Money-Focused on Torts", pp.259~260 (2011)
  58. "Supreme Court, 84Daca722, Nov. 13, 1984", ~
  59. "Seoul High Court, 2008Na25888, Nov. 25, 2008", ~
  60. "Supreme Court, 2011Da59834, 59858, 59841, Dec. 26, 2012", ~
  61. "Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 1147-51 (2013)", ~
  62. "Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S.Ct. 2334, 2341 (2014)", ~
  63. "Resnick v. AVMed Inc(11th Cir. 2012)", 693 F.3d, 1317~1330
  64. "Katz v. Pershing, L.L.C.(1st Cir. 2012)", 672 F.3d, 64~79
  65. "Reilly v. Ceridian Corp.(3d Cir. 2011)", 664 F.3d, 38~43
  66. Jonathan Wall, "Why the Third Circuit Should Recognize Fear of Identity Theft as an Injury-in-Fact", Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev, 22, pp.587~ (2013)
  67. James P. Nehf, "Recognizing the Societal Value in Information Privacy", Wash. L. Rev, 78, pp.1~7 (2003)
  68. "Carlough v. Amchem Products, Inc.(E.D. Pa. 1993)", 834 F.Supp, 1437~1455
  69. "In re Adobe Systems, Inc. Privacy Litigation(N.D. Cal. 2014)", 66 F.Supp.3d, 1197~1217
  70. "Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.(S.D.Cal.2014)", 996 F. Supp.2d, 942~963
  71. "Strautins v. Trustware Holdings, Inc.(N.D. Ill. 2014)", 27 F.Supp.3d, 871~879
  72. Miles L. Galbraith, "Identity Crisis: Seeking a Unified Approach to Plaintiff Standing for Data Security Breaches of Sensitive Personal Information", Am. U. L. Rev, 62, pp.1365~ (2013)
  73. "Spokeo v. Robins, 135 S.Ct. 1892" (2015)[URL]
  74. "Robins v. Spokeo, 742 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 2014)", ~
  75. "Spokeo, 135 S.Ct. 1892" (2015)[URL]
  76. "Anderson v. Hannaford Bros. Co.", 659 F.3d, 151~166
  77. "Ruiz v. Gap, Inc.", 380 F. App’x, 689~699
  78. "Resnick v. AvMed, Inc.", 693 F.3d, 1317~1327
  79. "Stollenwerk v. Tri–West Health Care Alliance(9th Cir. 2007)", 254 Fed.Appx, 664~667
  80. "Federal Trade Commission, ChoicePoint Settles Data Security Breach Charges" (2006)[URL]
  81. "Three New Ways to Protect Your Identity in 2012" (2012)[URL]
  82. "Consumer Disputes Mediation Committee held SK Broadband and Auction Liable for Personal Data Breach" (2015)[URL]

관련 논문AI추천

개인정보 유출통지제도의 효과적인 운영 및 개선방안이대희한국경영법률학회 · 경영법률2014 · 제24권 제3호미국의 개인정보보호 관련 법·정책의 변화와 시사점권현호IT와 법연구소 · IT와 법연구2014 · 제9호The Limitations on the Use of Big Data Pursuant to Data Privacy Regulations in Korea김세진, 손도일, 최정열아시아태평양법연구소 · Journal of Korean Law2017 · 제17권 제1호Rule or Standard: The De-Identification of Personal Information in Korea고학수, 이선구아시아태평양법연구소 · Journal of Korean Law2017 · 제17권 제1호개인정보의 제3자 제공으로 인한 피해에 대한 사법적 구제문성제법학연구원 · 성균관법학2005 · 제17권 제3호The Regulations for Data Protection in the EU: Some Implications for Korea최요섭EU연구소 · EU연구2017 · 제47호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (11건)

Subjective Requirement of Competition Law Violations홍명수pp. 1-18So-called Vertical Dimension in the Cartel Case이호영pp. 19-32Information Exchange as a Type of Agreement?Kenneth T.Kim, 김미정, 윤신승pp. 33-56Supreme Court Rulings on Determining the Cartel End Date윤성운, 김남우, 문성호pp. 57-72Practical Issues in the Enforcement of Leniency Program in Korea박성범pp. 73-89
원문 보기