• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.3-39
• /
• 2011

People may operate unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs or drones) thousands of miles from the drone's location. Drones were first used (like balloons) for surveillance. By 2001, the United States began arming drones with missiles and using them to strike targets during combat in Afghanistan. By mid-2010, over forty states and other entities possessed drones, many with the capability of launching missiles and dropping bombs. Each new development in military weapons technology invites assessment of the relevant international law. This Insight surveys the international law applicable to the recent innovation of weaponizing drones. In determining what international law rules govern drone use, the most salient feature is not the fact that drones are unmanned. The fact drones carry no human operator may be the most important new technological breakthrough, but the key feature for international law purposes is the type of weaponry drones carry. Whether law enforcement rules govern drone use depends on the situation and not necessarily who is operating the drone. Battlefield weapons may also be lawfully used before an armed conflict in the following situations: when initiating self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter; when authorized by the UN Security Council; when a government seeks to suppress internal armed conflict; and, perhaps, when a state is invited to assist a government in suppressing internal armed conflict. The rules governing resort to force in self-defense are found in Article 51 of the UN Charter and a number of decisions by international courts and tribunals. Commentators continue to debate whether drone technology represents the next revolution in military affairs. Regardless of the answer to that question, drones have not created a revolution in legal affairs. The current rules governing battlefield launch vehicles are adequate for regulating resort to drones. More research must be undertaken, however, to understand the psychological effects of deploying unmanned vehicles and the effects on drone operators of sustained, close visual contact with the aftermath of drone attacks.

• Management & Information Systems Review
• /
• v.36 no.5
• /
• pp.45-60
• /
• 2017

This study aims to elucidate the key improvements through the current state of customer support for smart home services based on the Internet of things and the evaluation of user's usage. Smart home services typically provide a wide range of value in terms of security, safety, manageability (electricity and water use), convenience, and remote management accessibility. In this study, we analyzed the current state of smart home service based on Internet of Samsung, SKT and LG U + companies in Korea. However, since LG U+ is the only company providing user reviews, there is a limit to generalization, but we are trying to figure out whether the customer value is conveyed properly or not, and in which part the customer support is focused to support the service. As a result of analyzing the results of the study, we found that the smart home service is commercialized and marketed in various forms. However, it is questionable whether the technological level and user satisfaction level are sufficiently satisfied. The results of this study are as follows. First, although each company provides usage guidance, they still ask many questions about joining products and using products. Second, there are many defects in the product itself, and it is found that the companies are not satisfied with the overall response. Third, the three companies are focusing on switches, outlets, sensors, and lamps. This is an individual intelligent product rather than an interlocking or linking level, and it can be seen that there are many parts that are not compatible with the concept of the original Internet of things. In conclusion, this study shows that there are still many areas to improve on the level of customer service provision of smart home service, in particular, the ease of use is low and the quality of products is not reliable. We would like to present the improvement of this in detail through this study and reflect the companies that provide it and the service providers.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.29-74
• /
• 2022

As social disasters occur under the Disaster Management Act, which can damage the people's "life, body, and property" due to the rapid spread and spread of unexpected COVID-19 infectious diseases in 2020, information collected through inspection and reporting of infectious disease pathogens (Article 11), epidemiological investigation (Article 18), epidemiological investigation for vaccination (Article 29), artificial technology, and prevention policy Decision), (3) It was used as an important basis for decision-making in the context of an infectious disease crisis, such as promoting vaccination and understanding the current status of damage. In addition, medical policy decisions using infectious disease data contribute to quarantine policy decisions, information provision, drug development, and research technology development, and interest in the legal scope and limitations of using infectious disease data has increased worldwide. The use of infectious disease data can be classified for the purpose of spreading and blocking infectious diseases, prevention, management, and treatment of infectious diseases, and the use of information will be more widely made in the context of an infectious disease crisis. In particular, as the serious stage of the Disaster Management Act continues, the processing of personal identification information and sensitive information becomes an important issue. Information on "medical records, vaccination drugs, vaccination, underlying diseases, health rankings, long-term care recognition grades, pregnancy, etc." needs to be interpreted. In the case of "prevention, management, and treatment of infectious diseases", it is difficult to clearly define the concept of medical practicesThe types of actions are judged based on "legislative purposes, academic principles, expertise, and social norms," but the balance of legal interests should be based on the need for data use in quarantine policies and urgent judgment in public health crises. Specifically, the speed and degree of transmission of infectious diseases in a crisis, whether the purpose can be achieved without processing sensitive information, whether it unfairly violates the interests of third parties or information subjects, and the effectiveness of introducing quarantine policies through processing sensitive information can be used as major evaluation factors. On the other hand, the collection, provision, and use of infectious disease data for research purposes will be used through pseudonym processing under the Personal Information Protection Act, consent under the Bioethics Act and deliberation by the Institutional Bioethics Committee, and data provision deliberation committee. Therefore, the use of research purposes is recognized as long as procedural validity is secured as it is reviewed by the pseudonym processing and data review committee, the consent of the information subject, and the institutional bioethics review committee. However, the burden on research managers should be reduced by clarifying the pseudonymization or anonymization procedures, the introduction or consent procedures of the comprehensive consent system and the opt-out system should be clearly prepared, and the procedure for re-identifying or securing security that may arise from technological development should be clearly defined.