Can data, including personal information, be a “thing”? Data has emerged as the “capital of the 21stcentury,” raising questions about its legal characteristics. An attempt has been made to enact legislation to ensure the data ownership and to protect the privacy of the subject of the data.

On January 9, the National Assembly passed the so-called “three data bills”--amendments of the Personal Information Protection Act, the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, and the Credit Information Use and Protection Act. The government labeled the three “data bills” as legislation linked to the economic activities of the people and immediately welcomed the amendments. The government said, “They will promote the release of data and expand the distribution of information, which is a key resource in the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” and added, “The government will support the purchase and processing of various data produced with pseudonymization and integration as well as the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and plans to create innovative services in the financial industry, the health industry and areas involving smart cities and autonomous vehicles.” The government and businesses constantly argued that, “If regulations on the protection of personal information are not eased, we will fall behind in international competition because we won’t be able to utilize data, a key resource.” The civil society expressed concerns referring to the latest amendments as “personal information theft legislation,” but their views were buried under the argument of international competition.

The reason civic groups are calling the three “data bills” “personal information theft legislation” is because they opened the door for companies to use the personal information of individuals for commercial purposes without the consent of the individuals through pseudonymous data. Unlike anonymous data, with pseudonymous data one can identify the subject of the data when it is combined with other information. Companies can use pseudonymous data to make a profit by developing goods tailored to the individual. For instance, insurance companies can combine and analyze the data from one’s car insurance with information on his driving habits from a telecommunications service provider and customize an insurance plan for that driver. Pseudonymous data includes sensitive information, such as medical records and credit information. Individuals will contribute to the moneymaking operations of companies for free without being aware of how their information is being used. This is why the issue is triggering more than concerns about leaking personal information. It raises a fundamental question, “Who is the owner of the data?”

The National Human Rights Commission of Korea raised a similar issue in the recently released, “Human Rights Survey of People Engaging in Platform Labor.” Chamsaesang, a media outlet conducted a study commissioned by the Human Rights Commission, and in the report, Kim Chul-sik, a professor of sociology at the Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH) stated, “When it comes to platforms using the labor and contents provided by its users for free as a source of profit, so far people have mostly cited problems concerning the collection of personal information, the lack of respect for human rights, and the invasion of privacy.” Kim argued, “We need to go further and discuss regulations on excessive profits monopolized by online platforms as well as the issue of companies returning such profits back to society.”

Meanwhile, the National Assembly is approaching this issue from a market perspective, trying to legally ensure the individual’s ownership of the data and encourage data trading. In November 2019, Liberty Korea Party lawmaker Kim Se-yeon proposed an amendment including data among “things” stipulated in the Civil Act. The current Civil Act defines “things” as “corporeal (a material object with a form that occupies space and can be identified with human senses) things, electricity, and other natural forces, which can be managed (such as wind power, hydroelectric power, and nuclear energy).” Lawmakers are trying to stipulate a new definition, “corporeal objects and intangible objects, which can be managed, such as electricity and data.”

However, the amendment is not likely to pass any time soon. Yet it is still meaningful in a situation where the debate on the collection and use of personal information continues with the growth of the data-based industry. If the legislation is amended, individuals, who are the subjects of the information, can earn an income by selling their information, and companies can process the data to develop products after paying a price for the information. Professor Choi Kyoung-jin (Civil Act), director of the Gachon University AI-Big Data Convergence Center (G-ABC Center) took part in planning the bill and said, “We’re not saying that we should recognize general and full ownership of all data as with real estate. We’re trying to create minimum room to recognize ownership of data with features that comply with ownership.” He further argued, “For the person who has the data, it is important to secure a certain price for providing the data, and for the person purchasing the data, it is important to secure a stable source of quality data. We are trying to satisfy both parties.”

Lawmaker Kim Se-yeon believes the amendment could be an answer to the declining number of jobs due to technological advances. A representative of the lawmaker’s office said, “Robots are replacing humans in an increasing number of areas, and we have to consider how the state can care for the people who will lose their jobs. We came up with the idea of the robot tax as a revenue source for the government and data ownership as a source of income for the individual.” Discussions on ensuring data ownership are in progress in Europe, but so far no country has specified it in law.