• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.29
• /
• pp.225-268
• /
• 2011

The general public are interested in the politics and form public opinion and keep in check the government for true democracy. The general public have the right to be furnished information from the government. And the government should enact the Freedom of Information Act to provide the public's right to know. At the same time, the government should enact the Data Protection Act to provide the public's right to privacy. There is a friction between the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act. It's hard to maintain the proper balance between the Freedom of information Act and the Data Protection Act, but many countries try to do so. The UK enacted the Data Protection Act 1998(DPA), which entered into force on 2000, to comply with EU Directive 1995. The Freedom of Information Act 2000(FOI), which came fully into force on 2005, was passed in 2000. The FOI imposes significant duties and responsibilities on public authorities to give access to the information they hold. The purpose of this study is to consider the provisions of the personal data in FOI and DPA. Besides this, it identifies the complaint cases on public authorities about the disclosure and exemption of the personal data in comparison with the acts. If information is the personal data of the person making the request, it will disclose under the DPA. If information is the personal data of a third party, it will disclose under the FOI. These acts interact each other to make up for the weak points in the other to make a proper application of the act on public authorities. This study may have any limitation in making a comparative study of the disclosure and exemption of the personal data in Korea. But it is expected to provide a basis for understanding the disclosure and exemption of the personal data in the UK.

• Journal of Korean Society of Archives and Records Management
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.147-172
• /
• 2019

With the provision of the original text information disclosure service, the time spent on determining the disclosure of the original text information decreased, and the number of original text information disclosure significantly increased. In public institutions, the risk of the exposure of personal information also increased. In this study, the status of personal information protection in the original text information disclosure service was investigated. Moreover, the causes of the exposure of personal information were analyzed, and improvements were proposed. The survey presented the following results. First, 13% of the original text information collected contains personal information, which is the nondisclosure information. Second, among the original text information that includes personal information, the original text information, including the personal information of the public official, was the most important. In particular, many records about vacation and medical leaves were found. Third, there were many cases in which information about the individual of the representative was exposed in the agency that deals mainly with the contract work. Fourth, a large volume of personal information was not detected by filtering personal information. Upon analyzing the cause of the exposure of personal information, the following improvements are suggested. First, privacy guidelines should be redesigned. Second, the person in charge of the task of deciding whether or not to disclose original text information should be trained further. Third, the excessive disclosure of information based on the government's quantitative performance should be eased. Fourth, the filtering function of the personal information of the original text information disclosure system should be improved.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2015

Recently, Practicing of ghost surgery and duty of informed consent of doctors have become a big issue in the medical dispute and lawsuits. The ground of admitting the informed consent and the agreement(self-determination of patients) can be based on the dignity of man and the right to pursue his happiness guaranteed under Article 10 of the constitution in theory. However there are no explicit legal regulations on the duty of the informed consent and there is no substantive legal enactment on the informed consent, but there is a collision between self-determination of patients and the discretionary power of doctors. If the discretionary power on the duty of the informed consent was extended it may result in the infringement of the right of surgical patients, so called arbitrary medical treatment. Relating to this issue, New Jersey Supreme Court held that a patient has the right to determine not only whether surgery is to be performed on him, but also who shall perform it. Moreover it held that a surgeon who operates without the patient's consent engages in the unauthorized touching of another and, thus, commits a battery'. But there are no ghost surgery cases adopting battery theory in Korea, and professional negligence has been considered rather than the battery, regarding an absence of hostile intent to injure patient. Supreme Court of Korea held that a doctor who operates a medical procedure without the patient's valid prior consent based on wrong diagnosis commits professional negligence resulting in injury, and the patient's invalid consent do not preclude wrongfulness'. However, if a health care provider conducts a completely non-consensual treatment or substitute surgeon without consent, the action should be plead in battery, not negligence, but if a health care provider violate his duty of care in obtaining the consent of the patient by failing to disclosure all relevant information (risks) that a reasonable person would deem significant in making a decision to have the procedure, the action should be plead in negligence, not battery. Therefore, the scope of patients' self-determination can be protected by stating clearly the scope of the duty of the informed consent and the exemption of the informed consent legislatively, it is considered that it is valid to legislate the limitation of the discretionary power.