「위치정보의 보호 및 이용 등에 관한 법률」 제29조의 개정 방안

Abstract

The police are authorized to collect location information such as reporters to make emergency rescue more efficient in dangerous situations. Nevertheless, the current 「Location Information Act」is contrary to the purpose of the revision of the law and shows a wide gap from reality, which hinders the swift rescue operation. In particular, Article 29 of the same Act is the most important regulation in collecting personal location information, but due to problems that do not properly reflect reality this study proposes legislative amendments based on Article 29 of the「Location Information Act」. First of all, it is necessary to unify the methods of requesting emergency rescue from emergency rescue agencies and police stations. The location tracking of emergency services focuses on a ‘solid status’ relationship, while the location tracking of police stations focuses on a ‘special situation’ relationship. The above dualized rescue requests should be changed to a unified rescue request method as they result in undermining the efficiency of emergency rescue and neglecting the safety of the people. Second, illustrative techniques are needed to clarify the ‘urgent risk’ situation. Not only does other laws, including the「Location Information Act」, have no technology for ‘urgent risks’, but the concept itself is so abstract that it is an obstacle to preventing police judgment in urgent situations, which requires revision to give clarity. Therefore, it is necessary to add an example situation of ‘urgent risk’ to the statement so that it can be judged quickly and accurately. Third, the method of confirming the intention of the structural requester of ‘Third Party Location Tracking’ should be revised. The provision of Article 29 of the same Act as an exception to Article 15 of the「Location Information Act」is aimed at rescuing the people in a dangerous situation more effectively, and in turn it is a clear violation of the upper clause of Article 29 paragraph 3. Therefore, at the time of ‘Third Party Location Tracking’ the pseudo-identification should be changed from ‘pre-check’ to ‘post-notification’. Fourth, legislation needs to be improved to track the location of ‘incomplete report’. The ‘incomplete report’ currently carries out location tracking even though there is no legal basis, which acts as a very high task burden for the police. In order to ensure that the police's response to the ‘incomplete report’ can be made without illegality, the concept and legal grounds that reflect reality should be established.