Controversy Over 'Dongseon Gonggae' Reignites Amid COVID-19 Resurgence

Different Approaches by Local Governments on COVID-19 Movement Disclosure
"Detailed Disclosure" vs "Human Rights Violation" Debate Continues

On the 28th, as the spread of the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) worsened, citizens lined up to get tested at the screening clinic of Guro-gu Public Health Center in Seoul. Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

[Asia Economy Reporter Song Seung-yoon] As the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) spreads comprehensively, the controversy over 'disclosure of movement paths' that arose during the first wave of COVID-19 originating from Daegu and Gyeongbuk last February is reigniting. This is due to the lack of unified standards among local governments that independently disclose confirmed cases' situations and movement paths.

Currently, confirmed patients' movement paths are disclosed through the local government to which the confirmed patient belongs, according to the "Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Act." However, some local governments disclose specific information such as the names of stores visited by confirmed patients, while others completely withhold personal information. As controversy over the scope of movement path disclosure continued, the Central Disease Control Headquarters (CDCH) distributed detailed guidelines on June 30 titled "Guidelines for Disclosure of Information such as Confirmed Patients' Movement Paths, 3rd Edition." According to these guidelines, local governments must not disclose personally identifiable information such as the confirmed patient's gender, age, nationality, workplace name, or residential address below the eup, myeon, dong level. Also, disclosed information must be deleted 14 days after the confirmed patient's last contact with others. The guidelines allow disclosure of store names, detailed addresses, exposure dates and times, and disinfection status, but if all contacts in the space are identified, this information must be switched to non-disclosure.

Since then, local governments have generally disclosed confirmed patients' movement paths according to these standards. However, as COVID-19 cases have recently increased again, confusion has arisen with local governments setting different standards for the scope of disclosure. Jeju City provides information including confirmed patients' movement paths and even occupations that can be inferred through the city’s website and social network services (SNS). Wonju City also decided on the 25th to disclose detailed movement paths of confirmed patients. In Seoul, the scope of disclosure varies by district.

On the 28th, as the spread of the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) worsened, a notice related to the numerous confirmed cases was posted in a corridor-style apartment in Guro-gu, Seoul. Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

On the other hand, some local governments have shifted from detailed disclosure to non-disclosure of movement paths. This is because confirmed patients' movement paths have become subjects of ridicule or witch hunts online. A representative example is when 'n-th infection' from entertainment establishments in the Sangmu district of Gwangju spread. One confirmed patient's movement path became a source of amusement. Since it was known that this patient visited multiple entertainment establishments in one day and was a teenage female, indiscriminate speculation and ridicule ran rampant online. Subsequently, from the 21st, Gwangju City reverted to non-disclosure of all information including confirmed patients' gender, age, residence, and symptoms.

Local governments that disclose information cautiously due to concerns about side effects sometimes face complaints demanding 'disclose in detail.' The rationale is that accurate information is necessary to determine if movement paths overlap. Experts explain that even if movement paths are disclosed according to guidelines, it does not cause significant problems for quarantine efforts. Professor Lee Jae-gap of the Department of Infectious Diseases at Hallym University Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital said, "The purpose of disclosing movement paths is to allow individuals to check if they are in a risky situation. Since the necessity is clear, if disclosure is limited to the extent that achieves this purpose, there is no likelihood of problems."

Meanwhile, the Central Disaster and Safety Countermeasures Headquarters (CDSCH) announced at a briefing on the 26th that, after inspecting local governments' disclosure of confirmed patients' movement paths from the 29th to 31st of last month, 35 cases of non-compliance with information disclosure standards were identified. Specifically, 19 cases involved disclosure of personally identifiable information such as confirmed patients' age and gender, which was the most frequent. There were also 11 cases where information was not deleted after the disclosure period expired. Additionally, there were 3 cases of address disclosure.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.