"Must Disclose Everything" vs "Store Will Go Bankrupt": Controversy Over the Disclosure Scope of COVID-19 Patient Movement Paths

Different Criteria for Confirmed Cases' Movement Range by Local Governments Cause Confusion
"Expand and Unify Disclosure Scope" vs "Protect Personal Information" Conflicting Opinions in Politics
Central Disaster and Safety Countermeasures Headquarters Limits Detailed Disclosure of Confirmed Cases

On the first weekend of social distancing level 2 in the metropolitan area, on the 29th, citizens are waiting for COVID-19 testing at the screening clinic of the National Medical Center in Jung-gu, Seoul. Photo by Moon Honam munonam@

[Asia Economy reporters Seunggon Han and Yeongeun Kim] "Knowing the exact movement paths of confirmed cases makes us less anxious," "At this rate, customers will stop coming altogether."

As the daily number of new confirmed cases of COVID-19 in South Korea continues to exceed 500, entering the third wave, controversy has arisen over the scope of disclosure of confirmed patients' movement paths. While some argue for reducing the disclosure scope due to privacy concerns, others insist on revealing detailed movement routes to prevent further spread of COVID-19.

Since the 6th of last month, the Central Disaster and Safety Countermeasures Headquarters has recommended through information disclosure guidelines not to disclose detailed personal information such as the confirmed patient's gender, age, nationality, and residence below the eup/myeon/dong level.

Additionally, disclosed information must be deleted after a certain period (14 days), and places where contacts occurred and means of transportation are to be disclosed; however, if all contacts have been identified, disclosure is not required. This is in response to concerns that disclosing movement paths with low epidemiological relevance causes privacy violations and economic damage.

Accordingly, local governments such as Siheung-si in Gyeonggi Province and Namdong-gu, Seo-gu, and Yeonsu-gu in Incheon have announced that they will only disclose information up to the dong level where the confirmed patient resides. Also, Seongdong-gu in Seoul, which has been disclosing confirmed patients' movement routes, decided to disclose only the list of places visited by confirmed patients without any patient information, following the Central Disaster and Safety Countermeasures Headquarters' guidelines.

A comment stating the need for detailed disclosure of the movements of COVID-19 confirmed cases has been posted on an online community. Photo by Online Community Comment Capture

However, the differing disclosure scopes among local governments have increased confusion among citizens. Moreover, there are growing complaints about the lack of detailed movement paths in emergency disaster messages and local government blogs sent whenever confirmed cases occur.

According to basic local governments in Incheon on the 25th, Gyeyang-gu, Dong-gu, and Jung-gu disclose no information except the confirmation date, and Michuhol-gu has also switched to non-disclosure of confirmed patients' residences since the 21st, only revealing the dates of contact with confirmed patients, symptom onset, testing, and positive diagnosis.

Also, the 'COVID-19 Confirmed Patient Movement Path Map' provided by Gwangju Metropolitan City only discloses the status of confirmed patients and contacts, and places where 14 days have passed since the last contact or where all contacts have been identified are not marked on the map.

Some citizens who feel anxious about the risk of spread argue that local governments need to disclose confirmed patients' movement paths in more detail. Earlier, on July 7, a post titled "Please clearly disclose the movement paths of COVID-19 confirmed patients in Gwangju Metropolitan City" was uploaded on the Blue House National Petition Board, receiving over 7,000 agreements.

In online communities such as local mom cafes, responses include, "Personal information is important, but at least knowing where the confirmed patients came from helps us be more cautious," "We want disclosure of movement paths, not personal details, but the lack of proper disclosure makes us anxious," and "Even if contacts are identified, shouldn't we be informed of places visited by confirmed patients?"

A member of an online community posted a message stating that disclosing the movement paths of COVID-19 confirmed cases is meaningless. Photo by Online Community Post Capture

On the other hand, some do not feel the need to disclose confirmed patients' movement paths.

A user of an online local community said, "Since all quarantine measures have been completed and contacts are notified separately, I don't understand why people keep wanting detailed information," adding, "As a business owner, customers are already few, and if it's known that a confirmed patient visited, customers stop coming for weeks. Even though quarantine is thoroughly done and there is no problem, it's very hard to run the business because customers don't come."

Amid differing opinions on detailed disclosure of confirmed patients' movement paths, a study has emphasized the need to consider privacy protection and human rights.

On the 26th, Professor Myoosoon Yoom's team at Seoul National University Graduate School of Public Health reported that in a focus group interview conducted from the 24th of last month to the 7th of this month with 20 epidemiological investigators in Gyeonggi Province, responses indicated that "disclosure of confirmed patients' movement paths is ineffective, and for 'K-quarantine' to succeed, protection of personal information and consideration of human rights must be prerequisites."

Regarding the necessity of disclosure, they said, "Since infection risks are filtered out and tested even if overlapping with confirmed patients' paths, and quarantine is completed before reopening businesses, disclosure is unnecessary," adding, "Disclosure causes more anxiety among citizens and damages businesses; ultimately, no one benefits from disclosure."

Opinions are also divided in the political sphere. On the 24th, Kang Hoon-sik, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, held a non-face-to-face video meeting with the Disease Control Agency's disclosure officers, demanding an expansion and unification of the disclosure scope, stating, "Since confirmed patients' movement paths are not disclosed below the eup/myeon/dong level, citizens' anxiety is increasing, and inconsistent disclosure scopes among local governments are causing confusion."

Conversely, Yoo Ui-dong of the People Power Party argued, "Many local governments neither disclose personal information properly nor comply with deletion timelines," emphasizing, "To ensure public trust and cooperation with quarantine authorities, urgent measures for personal information protection are needed."

Meanwhile, the Disease Control Agency announced on the 10th the legislative notice of the Enforcement Decree and Enforcement Rules of the Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Act. Unless there are objections, the prohibition of recording residences (below eup/myeon/dong) is expected to be mandatory from December 30.

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