초록 close

관련 전문가와 이해관계자들은 「개인정보보호법」이 (구)「개인정보보호법」의 비합리적으로 경직된 동의제도와 형사처벌 규정 등 규제 체계를 그대로 유지하고 있고, 이러한 기존제도와 맞물려 가명정보 개념 도입 등 신설된 규정들도 그 기능을 다하기 어려울 것이라는 문제를 지적하고 있다. 사실 이러한 문제점들의 주요 원인의 하나는 정보주체의 ‘동의 여부를 결정하는 권리’와 ‘개인정보자기결정권’이 동일한 권리라고 잘못 이해되고 있다는 점이다. 이는 개인정보자기결정권의 보호법익을 부당하게 확대할 뿐 아니라, ‘동의’ 이외의 정당한 개인정보 이용(흐름)에 장애로 작용한다. 이에 개인정보자기결정권의 본질에 대한 종합적 검토가 필요하다. 개인정보자기결정권은 정보주체의 절대적 권리는 아니다. 헌법재판소가 개인정보자기결정권을 간단히 “자신의 개인정보를 스스로 결정할 권리”라고 정의하고 있지만, 이에는 “정보주체의 동의거부권, 열람권 등 절차적·형식적 위험규제 등 통제권을 보장함으로써 궁극적으로 정보주체가 향유하는 사생활의 비밀과 자유 뿐만 아니라 인격권 및 민사적 계약상의 권리 등 실체적 권리의 총체”라는 의미와 “정보주체가 다양한 인격적, 경제적 이익 등을 향유하기 위해 자신의 개인정보 유통을 적극적으로 형성할 수 있는 권리”라는 의미가 포함되어 있다고 해석할 수 있을 것이다. 그러나 개정 후에도 고수되고 있는 고지와 동의 기반의 ‘사전동의 = 형식적 동의’ 및 ‘동의의무 위반 = 형사처벌’이라는 공식은 ‘동의 만능주의’를 더욱 견고하게 할 뿐 아니라, 개인정보의 과잉보호를 초래하여 정당한 개인정보 처리까지 규제하는 원인이 된다. 특히 빅데이터 분석을 통한 추론데이터 이용 등 전에 없던 새로운 유형의 개인정보 이용 환경은 지금까지 고수되어 오고 있는 ‘고지에 입각한 동의’라는 개인정보보호법제의 전통적 규제방식을 무력화시키고 있으며, 새로운 규제방식을 요구하고 있다. 「개인정보보호법」은 핵심은 개인정보자기결정권의 본질을 희생시키기 않으면서, 데이터 활용에 따른 개인에게 주어지는 편익뿐만 아니라 기업과 국가 전반에 미치는 편익 등을 고려한 적합하고 효과적인 규제에 있다.


The right to self-determination of personal information is not an absolute right of the data subject, and legal interests of the right must not be unreasonably expanded. This right is a right recognized as a new protection system for areas outside the scope of normal privacy right protection, because it is not appropriate to apply the laws related to privacy protection to general personal information. Though the Constitutional Court defines the right to self-determination of personal information simply as “the right to decide on their own personal information”, the definition shall be construed that it means “the totality of tangible rights such as personal rights and civil contract rights, as well as the right of privacy that the data subject ultimately enjoys by guaranteeing the rights of control such as procedural and formal risk regulation such as the right to refuse consent and the right to access” and that it means furthermore “the right of information subjects to actively form their own personal information distribution in order to enjoy various personal and economic benefits.” Therefore, the 「Personal Information Protection Act」, which specifies the right to self-determination of personal information, is a law that contains regulations for personal information protection such as legality standards and procedural requirements for personal information processing, and that, in addition, personal information is not only the object of protection, but a balance between protection and use is promoted, premising the free movement of personal information as a “medium that identifies and evaluates the information subject or as a medium that establishes social relations.” But the formulas of ‘prior consent = formal consent' and 'violation of consent obligation = criminal punishment' based on notice and consent, which have been adhered to even after the revision, not only strengthens the 'universalism of consent', but also causes excessive protection of personal information, which is the cause of regulating even legitimate personal information processing. In particular, the use of new types of personal information, such as the use of inferred data through big data analysis, not only increased the risk of personal information, but also changed the nature of the risk. In addition, it is defeating the traditional regulatory method of the Personal Information Protection Act, which has been adhered to so far, “informed consent,” and is demanding a new regulatory method. While the EU and the UK still adhere to the principle of 'notice and consent' as a core principle, on the other hand, through the collection of public opinions on the legal handling of personal information in the AI and big data environment, and publication of guidelines, notifications suitable for the new environment and it provides detailed information on cases related to the method of consent. As such, it is urgent for Korea to seek practical solutions to cope with the big data environment. In addition, although not mentioned in this paper, it is necessary to review the legal system and policy on matters to be considered in the big data environment, such as the right to veto automated decision-making such as profiling and the right to move personal information in GDPR. The 「Personal Information Protection Act」 is a law that aims to protect individual freedom and rights and ultimately realize individual dignity and values by setting matters on the processing and protection of personal information as specified in its purpose. To this end, efforts are needed to prepare an appropriate and effective regulatory method in consideration of not only the benefits given to individuals from using data, but also the benefits to companies and the country as a whole, without sacrificing the nature of the self-determination of personal information.