Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2020.18.6.017

Dilemma of Data Driven Technology Regulation : Applying Principal-agent Model on Tracking and Profiling Cases in Korea  

Lee, Youhyun (Department of Public Administration and Police Science, Hannam University)
Jung, Ilyoung (Science and Technology Policy Institute)
Publication Information
Journal of Digital Convergence / v.18, no.6, 2020 , pp. 17-32 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study analyzes the regulatory issues of stakeholders, the firm, the government, and the individual, in the data industry using the principal-agent theory. While the importance of data driven economy is increasing rapidly, policy regulations and restrictions to use data impede the growth of data industry. We applied descriptive case analysis methodology using principal-agent theory. From our analysis, we found several meaningful results. First, key policy actors in data industry are data firms and the government among stakeholders. Second, two major concerns are that firms frequently invade personal privacy and the global companies obtain monopolistic power in data industry. This paper finally suggests policy and strategy in response to regulatory issues. The government should activate the domestic agent system for the supervision of global companies and increase data protection. Companies need to address discriminatory regulatory environments and expand legal data usage standards. Finally, individuals must embody an active behavior of consent.
Keywords
Technology Regulation; Data Industry; Principal-Agent Model; Tracking; Profiling;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Hwang. (2005), Principal-Agent Relations in the Policy Process: Reinterpreting the Formation Process of the "Drug Prescription & Dispensing Separation" Policy. Korea Policy Review 14(4), 29-57.
2 Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H. and Xue, Y. "Understanding and Mitigating Uncertainty in Online Exchange Relationships: A Principal-Agent Perspective," MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 2007, pp. 105-136. DOI: 10.2307/25148783   DOI
3 S, Lee. (2017), Contents and implications of guidelines for online customized advertisements, KISO Journal.
4 Lee, I. (2017) Study on Development Methods of Personal Information Protection in Korea. Personal Information Protection Commission Research Report.
5 Park, N. (2017). A Legal Analysis of the Profiling Provisions in the EU GDPR.
6 European Union (2016), REGULATION (EU) 2016/679 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).
7 Google and Facebook advertisements have it too easy, targeted by the EU(2017.01.12.) JoongAng Ilbo.
8 Jung, I. et al. (2019), The Analysis of Industrial Ripple Effect of GDPR and Issues in Innovative Technologies, STEPI Insight
9 3 in 10 World Citizens Are on Facebook"(2019.04.25.), Statista.
10 10 years of Facebook... 10 services that are now no longer in service (2014.02.03), ZDNet Korea.
11 Acquisti, A., & Grossklags, J. (2005), Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE Security & Privacy, 3(1), 26-33. DOI: 10.1109/MSP.2005.22   DOI
12 Rosenblum, D. (2007), What anyone can know: The privacy risks of social networking sites. IEEE Security & Privacy, 5(3), 40-49 DOI: 10.1109/MSP.2007.75   DOI
13 Google Fined Record $2.7 Billion in E.U. Antitrust Ruling(2017.06.29.), The New York Times.
14 Govani, T., & Pashley, H. (2007), Student awareness of the privacy implications when using Facebook,
15 Barth, S., & De Jong, M. D. (2017), The privacy paradox-Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior-A systematic literature review. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7), 1038-1058. DOI: 10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013   DOI
16 J. Kim et al. (2018), Study on information privacy paradox, 2018 NAVER Privacy White Paper.
17 E.U. Fines Google $5.1 Billion in Android Antitrust Case (2018.07.18), The New York Times.
18 'Domestic Agent system to come online' Survey of value-added telecommunications service providers is reverse discrimination for domestic firms (2019.09.22), Law Times.
19 M. Micheli, M. Blakemore, M. Ponti & M. Craglia. (2018). The Governance of Data in a Digitally Transformed European Society. Second Workshop of the DigiTranScope Project, European Commission, 2018,
20 T. Symons & T. Bass. (2017). Me, my data and I: The future of the personal data economy. London: DECODE, Nesta. Retrieved October 22, 2018 from https://www.decodeproject.eu/publications/me-my-data-and-ithe-future-personal-data-economy.
21 D. Braun & D. H. Guston. (2003). Principal-agent theory and research policy: an introduction. Science and public policy, 30(5), 302-308. DOI: 10.3152/147154303781780290   DOI
22 H. Y. Kang & H. Y. Kwon. (2019). Policy Suggestions on Personal Data Utilization by Analyzing Domestic and International De-identification Policy. Convergence Security Journal, 19(1), 41-48.
23 H. Ko & Y. Im. (2019). Data Ownership, Pakyoungsa : Seoul.
24 D. H. Guston. (1996). Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy. Science and Public Policy, 23(4), 229-240. DOI: 10.1093/spp/23.4.229
25 Chunlei Tang (2016), The Data Industry: The Business and Economics of Information and Big Data, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
26 R. Gauld. (2007). Principal-agent theory and organisational change: lessons from New Zealand health information management. Policy Studies, 28(1), 17-34. DOI: 10.1080/01442870601121395   DOI
27 T. P. Hagen. (1997). Agenda setting power and moral hazard in principal-agent relationships: Evidence from hospital budgeting in Norway. European journal of political research, 31(3), 287-314. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.1997   DOI
28 Ministry of Science and ICT (2019), Key Findings from 2018 Data Industry Survey.
29 Korea Internet & Security Agency (2018.03), Report on overseas private information protection trends.
30 Korea Data Agency (2018) White paper on data industry.
31 K. J. Arrow. (1985), "The economics of agency," In Pratt, J. W. & R. J. Zeckhauser (eds.), Principals and Agents: The Structure of Business, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 37-51.
32 Gerber, Brian. J & Teske. Paul (2000). Regulatory policymaking in the american states: A review of theories and evidence. Political Research Quarterly, 53(4), 849-886. DOI: 10.1177/106591290005300408   DOI