South Korea provokes teenage smartphone privacy row

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33091990?OCID=fbasia&ocid=socialflow_facebook

by gilangh • 11 years ago

35 45 11 years ago

pmontra• 11 years ago

How do they know that the phone is used by a teenager? I expect that the SIM is on one of the parents but I don't know how that usually works in Korea.

pjc504• 11 years ago

It'll be administratively tied to the national ID card system somehow.

mechazawa• 11 years ago

Is this enforced by the OEM ROM? Won't flashing a custom rom on your phone bypass it? How do they know the user is within the age group that is required to install it? If 3rd party apps are supported for this is there an app that either has a "hidden" disable setting or an app that pretends to have the functionality but in reality does nothing. Won't the infrastructure for a product like this be a large target for hackers? Is it enforced by the SIM card? Will it automatically be disabled when the user becomes old enough not to have the app installed?

gambiting• 11 years ago

I guess you have to register the age of whoever uses the sim, and the phone networks won't accept data connections if you haven't got the app installed(which probably handles logging into their servers or whatever).

eveningcoffee• 11 years ago

This shows how thin is the layer of democracy in the society.

"South Korea is a vibrant democracy. It's had free and fair elections since 1987."

(so it is 28 years, this is only about 5 years more than nations in Eastern Europe who escaped Soviet Russian dictatorships).

"Major-General Park Chung-hee took power in a coup in 1961.

He was a strongman who utilised brutal methods - but he also dictated that industries be created.

Under his direction, the South Korean economic phenomenon was born."

(this also raises the question why dictators in the north were not able to do the same)

"Koreans know that. And the current president knows that. She should do - Park Geun-hye is the dictator's daughter. "

(this makes me throw up a little)

TazeTSchnitzel5• 11 years ago

(this also raises the question why dictators in the north were not able to do the same)

Different strategies. Also, the DPRK made a number of big mistakes which doomed its economy, and much of its economic output is immediately spent on bribes.

This shows how thin is the layer of democracy in the society.

It's not the only "democratic" East Asian country. I'm skeptical of Japan and Singapore where the same party always wins.

patio11• 11 years ago

I'm skeptical of Japan and Singapore where the same party always wins.

Singapore is a de-facto one party state where it is notable when an opposition party wins any seats whatsoever in the legislature. Three of Japan's last four prime ministers were from the Democratic Party of Japan, which is not the Liberal Democratic Party, which is the "same party" you're thinking of. The Japanese government, for all its numerous faults, runs hotly contested elections on a more-than-regular basis which can, and do, result in "voting the bums out."

Whether they have "democratic efficacy" is a bit more of an open question -- some observers of Japanese politics might opine that it is a rare, rare Japanese government where the legislature or prime minister exercise proximate control of the levers of sociopolitical power.

pjc504• 11 years ago

(this also raises the question why dictators in the north were not able to do the same)

Presumably the continuation of the proxy war; the US would have been a lot more open to South Korea.

drzaiusapelord2• 11 years ago

Gee, maybe instead that communism has been proven to be a economic, political, and human rights disaster? Oh right, of course not. Its the US's fault that broken ideology doesn't work, right? Communists never get judged by history it seems, at least on HN.

Is there anything in your mind that isn't the US's fault?

drzaiusapelord2• 11 years ago

this also raises the question why dictators in the north were not able to do the same

Because communism doesn't scale, doesn't really work past the stage of moving farmers into factories, and can only be implemented via punishing human rights violations that keep people from asserting their basic rights of property, prosperity, petitioning the government, changing leadership, etc.

A South Korean "strongman" is pretty weak sauce compared to a communist strongman. Chung-hee held back democratic reforms and was an autocrat. The Jong-un dynasty has sent tens of millions of people to starvation, labor, and death camps, including children, mostly for political reasons. These things are not remotely comparable.

junto2• 11 years ago

The BBC should make look closer to home and grow some teeth and balls and challenge the horrendous and repugnant direction in which the UK government is trying to take on privacy, blanket spying on the general public, right to protest and freedom of speech.

forloop• 11 years ago

Their funding is thanks to the British government[0]. So they'll do no such thing.

[0] They enforce something like a TV tax.

pjc504• 11 years ago

The last time they tried to take on the securitat was over the "dodgy dossier" in the runup to the Iraq war. They lost, quite comprehensively, and are not in a position to ever do this again.

The conservative government is already not keen on the BBC, and the press are happy to attack it to support Sky as an alternative.

retube• 11 years ago

the horrendous and repugnant direction in which the UK government is trying to take on privacy

Well that's just your opinion. A lot of people would disagree with you.

themartorana2• 11 years ago

I'm not sure a lot would...

ionised• 11 years ago

It's my opinion too.

junto2• 11 years ago

That's true. There are a large number of people that truly believe that if you have nothing to hide then you don't need privacy. Many believe that our security from terrorism is worth the trade off.

On that note, please can you post your last 6 months of bank account statements on github for us all to have a look at? I'm sure you won't mind us taking a look.

malka• 11 years ago

In UK, you have a right to privacy. As long as you are a high profile pedophile, that is.

Quppa2• 11 years ago

South Korea is a good example of how the proliferation of technology doesn't necessarily entail increased political freedom. They might have great internet connectivity, but it comes with all sorts of overt censorship - the government blocks numerous websites, and periodically crack down on 'false rumours' online. Previously they enforced the infamous 'real name' law aimed at preventing anonymity on arbitrarily large websites.

tempodox• 11 years ago

Maybe not right away, but the effect is already showing:

...learning to control what kinds of media are encountered on the net is now a part of growing up...

Don't underestimate the power of youth. The old ways won't continue unchallenged.

Quppa2• 11 years ago

I hope you're right.

On the other hand, the 'power of youth' works both ways - it seems like a non-negligible percentage of youth in the West favour more censorship, not less - witness the rise of 'trigger warnings' and 'safe spaces' on university campuses, for example. Their aims might be quite different to those of a semi-authoritarian government, but the censorious impulse is the same.

solve• 11 years ago

For parents to conduct surveillance? Only if you define "parent" as the "government".

alandarev• 11 years ago

I doubt the government needs an app installed to track the traffic.

hippich• 11 years ago

It mentions "sites", but how you can know if browsing happens over strongly encrypted connection? Or part of it is MITM'ing these phones?

abandonliberty2• 11 years ago

I was mortified when I heard of 'surprise phone checks': parents have their child walk them through every single piece of content and app on the phone.

I know someone who found that their 12 year old daughter had found a much older out-of-state admirer who was going to drive out to pick her up. She had been sending explicit pictures of herself. She no longer has a smartphone.

As a child, I would not have responded well to this invasion of my privacy. Perhaps if the electronics are given to them with no expectation, it would not be as bad. It would also help prepare them for our future totalitarian regime.

PS: Any parents reading this, the app in question was Kik, noted for its prevalence of pedophiles, but there are certainly alternatives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kik_Messenger#Controversy

Lawtonfogle2• 11 years ago

My kid sister and all her friends use Kik. I've had a blunt conversation with her about technology in general, but she is probably the only one in her peer group who has had such a conversation.

That said, the 'controversy' section is an interview with two people. I could say the same about any app being used by children; if you know how to manipulate people and children use it, you can find children seeking validation that will do just about anything for it. Is there any actual reason that Kik is worse than normal technology?

abandonliberty2• 11 years ago

To be fair: two separate interviews with pedophiles, 5 separate news reports including police warnings, and my personal experience with it.

We're in agreement though - this can happen on any platform, and we essentially only have anecdotal evidence that it may be worse on Kik, but it's definitely one of the apps I would check with an at-risk youth. It's easy to lose track of all the newfangled apps kids are using these days.

Your approach is ideal with a child you can have an open dialog with.

patcheudor• 11 years ago

Honestly, this sounds like the South Korean governments version of Superfish:

"Parents will be able to to see what their kids are up to online and block access to "undesirable" sites."

Given any number of browsers could be installed on the phone, I'm thinking there's a high likelihood this could be a proxy based solution since that would be the simplest approach. While such approaches to nanny guards aren't necessarily inherently broken, there are some real-world difficulties that make the design and implementation hard to secure. I hope they had a really good security review.

notNow• 11 years ago

South Korea is taking the concept of Nanny State to a whole new level!

wumbernang• 11 years ago

When I'm paying the bill, its my network and responsibility as a parent so I'll take whatever measures I need and track what I want. This is partially to protect my arse from misadventure by proxy and partly to establish healthy use of the internet.

This is done openly and with agreement only. My eldest disagreed so she doesn't get a handset paid for.

Thriptic• 11 years ago

I frankly don't understand why people get so worked up about kids and the internet. I definitely watched plenty of online porn when I was kid. I spent lots of time on IRC, chat rooms, vent, forums, and in games talking to and playing with people who were significantly older than me. I had a great time, at no point was I "in danger", I was able to explore issues and questions I had in private, and I found the experience to be a great way to learn and interact with adults on a more equal footing. I think the only time kids can get into trouble is when they intentionally reveal their identity. As long as everyone remains anon, I think the internet is a perfectly safe place for kids on the whole.

GhotiFish• 11 years ago

I absolutely agree, when you and I were growing up on the internet, it was an obviously safe space because the norm was pseudonyms and anonymity.

Now it's all about tying everything you say to your full name and current living address so it can follow you around for the rest of your life as a permanent record. Kids can do serious harm to their future selves by acting like the self absorbed little shits that we all once were.

The public view is that staying anonymous is some kind of "protection for criminals". It's very difficult to explain that it's "protection for your child". In my view, this pressure to publicly identify is a huge problem online.

South Korea provokes teenage smartphone privacy row

Related Stories