[ad_1]
The law requiring cancellation of a mobile phone password, which Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae ordered revised, has been criticized as a law that actually requires a confession. This is reported to be contrary to the existing position of Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae, who has pointed to human rights violations of suspects by investigative agencies, such as nightly investigations. The popular power harshly criticized it as a violation of human rights. A civic group filed a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission.
On the 13th, Lee Jong-bae, chairman of the People’s Power Policy Committee, said: “This law, which is a concern for human rights violations, is derived from an unconstitutional idea”, in relation to the order of the Chu minister to review the law to disclose passwords for mobile phones. It is a law to crack the phone password. “Representative Haejin Cho said,” I think I have gotten to the point where I believe that Minister Chu is the chief administrative officer for judicial affairs and prosecution and that he was a judge. Solidarity Action Committee of the Civil Organization for the Defense of the Rule of Law (Legal Refinement) filed a petition with the Korean National Human Rights Commission, saying: “Please recommend that Minister Chu withdraw the order to enact the law and receive human rights education to prevent it from happening again. “
The day before, Minister Chu explained on his Facebook page that “the UK is implementing such a system” in connection with the law to forcibly cancel passwords for mobile phones. In the UK investigative authority regulation act, since 2007, when the code cannot be cracked, the investigating agency asks the court for permission to crack the code and punishes the suspect if the suspect does not comply with the order.
However, there has been controversy in advanced countries such as the United States regarding password unlocking for mobile devices such as smartphones. Apple has rejected a US court order to unlock the iPhone of a terrorist in a 2015 shooting. The confrontation between US investigating authorities and Apple over cell phone passwords continues. In Korea, the Seoul Central District Court issued a seizure, search and verification order to collect fingerprints and iris information from a suspect who was charged with running an illegal gambling site last year. However, the situation is also interpreted to be different between collecting the suspect’s fingerprint and forcing him to press the password directly. A medium-sized lawyer in Seocho-dong said, “In the end, we are forced to make an unfavorable statement against ourselves, which may violate the constitution.”
Some point out that the law to reveal passwords is contrary to the existing prosecutorial reform policies of Minister Chu and the Moon Jae-in administration. After taking office, Minister Chu has continually raised the issue of human rights violations by investigating agencies. Minister Chu said in February: “The prosecution was born to protect human rights. Taking into account the natural role and function, human rights must not be violated in the exercise of the power of the prosecution. Said. Since then, the National Assembly has also introduced restrictions on night-time investigations and long-term investigations several times as a result of the reform of the prosecutor’s office in the Ministry of Justice.
Minister Chu also noted that the prosecution called and investigated former Star Mobility president Kim Bong-hyun, suspected of being involved in the Lime Asset Management situation, 66 times in three months. At the time, even in the passport, the prosecution was harshly criticized because the prosecution’s investigative practices had not been corrected. A prosecution official said: “It is difficult to understand if the suspect is not repeatedly investigated and if the mobile phone password is forcibly revealed. Under current law, the suspect is not punished for destroying evidence related to his crime, and the right to defend is guaranteed by the Constitution. It is done. “
Minister Chu’s order to review the bill was actually addressed to Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol’s closest friend, Prosecutor Han Dong-hoon. Some point out that it is inappropriate to give such an order in relation to a general criminal case, which is neither the National Security Law nor a terrorism case. Kim Han-gyu, former head of the Seoul Bar Association, said: “Chu has emphasized guaranteeing the suspects’ human rights at his inauguration, but it seems inappropriate to give such an order in political matters.” “It is the responsibility of the prosecutor to prove the crime of the suspect. It is also what the prosecutor must do. Whether or not the suspect tells him the password is also a right to remain silent.”
The Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office is investigating a prosecutor as a suspect in connection with a suspected attempt of force by a Channel A reporter. A prosecutor has not provided the password to the confiscated cell phone. Previously, the Prosecutors’ Investigation and Deliberation Committee issued a non-prosecution opinion against a prosecutor with the intention that the collusive relationship between a prosecutor and a Channel A reporter not be proven. The Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office prosecuted to a Channel A reporter in August, but he has yet to get rid of a prosecutor.
Reporter Na Seong-won [email protected]
[ad_2]
