Recently, a defector filed a case with prosecutors asserting that the North Korean Refugees Foundation (NKRF) illegally leaked the personal information of defectors.
The defector asserts that the foundation leaked the names and phone numbers of more than 4,100 defectors to a third party organization in the process of commissioning a survey between last August and this September into the living conditions of defectors in South Korea. The defector also asserts that the Ministry of Unification should be investigated to establish whether it is guilty of negligence.
With more and more media organizations reporting the story, defectors say they are becoming more and more concerned.
One defector who escaped North Korea in 2009 told Daily NK, “I was so worried about my family after hearing the news about the leak of personal information that I couldn’t sleep. North Korea is already desperately trying to establish who has disappeared… if they work out that I am here, I don’t know what I’ll do”.
It is widely accepted that leaking information about defectors is far more serious than leaking that about anybody else because of the severe consequences it can bring for families left behind in the North.
That being said, the two most important questions about this latest leak are whether it was an ‘illegal leak’ and what information it contained’.
NKRF asserts that the incident was neither illegal nor a leak.
Someone affiliated with the organization explained, “In the process of the survey we only offered the minimum information about defectors that could not distinguish them, required a security guarantee from the investigating agency, and all the information was withdrawn or destroyed afterward.”
The official strongly denied that the personal information was in any sense leaked, calling the claim “groundless”.
Certainly, NKRF is obligated by law to conduct research on the resettlement of defectors in South Korea under the ‘North Korean Refugee Protection and Settlement Support Act’, Clause 30, Section 4, Paragraph 8.
In accordance with said provision, the Ministry of Unification and NKRF targeted defectors 8 years and older to investigate their family status, financial status and educational level. A panel survey was also organized for defectors who had been in South Korea for a period of 1 to 3 years at the time. The purpose of the survey was to help establish more effective forms of resettlement support for defectors, and obviously it was consented to by the individual defectors themselves.
It is almost always necessary for a surveying agency to collect basic information such as a respondent’s name, number and address. It is a must for basic transparency. It is “Really the bare minimum that must exist for an interview survey,” as an individual with experience of the activity put it.
Other defectors agree also that the basic information is not enough for even the National Security Agency to trace families back in North Korea. At the same time, such surveys are very important for seting the basis for future resettlement policy, providing as it does actual testimony from defectors resettling in South Korea. Therefore, the filed case leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
This unfortunate incident does, however, provide an opportunity for private organizations and tthe Ministry of Unification to change their perspective and stop thinking they must constantly take care of defectors. There are over 20,000 defectors in South Korea now, and it seems that it won’t be long before they stop being simple policy beneficiaries and start active oversight of policy, too. The administration should face this challenge head on and become more transparent in its activities.
