> Even SK constitution said it is illegal. but they don't give a damn about it.
This is a popular meme that is also not entirely correct. I should stress that this incident is very different from the usual MITM from ISP and government though. I assumed you are talking about the general MITM because you mentioned SNI (because you can't put malwares with just SNI sniffing).
The constitution only says about the "privacy of correspondence" in the Article 18, and several acts including the Protection of Communications Secrets Act (통신비밀보호법) [1] and the Act on Promotion of Information and Communication Network Utilization and Information Protection (정보통신망 이용촉진 및 정보보호 등에 관한 법률) [2] do have many exceptions that make them legal at least in principle. Indeed, most websites blocked by SK ISPs host either illegal obscene materials (distinct from the legal pornography in the SK legal system) or advocacy for North Korea (illegal due to the National Security Act 국가보안법). I'm not necessarily for such blocks but it is plain wrong to say that they are illegal.
Even NK advocacy sites do not threat national security either, but I meant that such restriction is allowed by the law which was ultimately passed the Congress and so you are wrong to claim that it's "illegal". See also my other comment for the background.
Also the watchmen argument against such restrictions is so old at this point that there are lots of counterpoints available for you, if you wish.
which exception by the way? please explain which exception makes them `legal` to scan every communication for censorship. not everyone and not every network requests are related to national security and illegal action(i.e. gamble, drugs, etc.)
> which exception by the way? please explain which exception makes them `legal` to scan every communication for censorship.
Oh yeah, see the Act on Promotion of Information and blablabla, Articles 42-2, 44-2, 44-3 and 44-7. In particular Article 44-7 (2) through (4) explicitly allow for such technical measure to be enforced. ("Information and communications services" include ISPs for sure, see the definitions in Article 2.) Like it or not, it is legal in principle and your claim doesn't make it illegal.
> not everyone and not every network requests are related to national security and illegal action(i.e. gamble, drugs, etc.)
By the way, you seem to acknowledge that the government can scan them for illegal actions then?
This is a popular meme that is also not entirely correct. I should stress that this incident is very different from the usual MITM from ISP and government though. I assumed you are talking about the general MITM because you mentioned SNI (because you can't put malwares with just SNI sniffing).
The constitution only says about the "privacy of correspondence" in the Article 18, and several acts including the Protection of Communications Secrets Act (통신비밀보호법) [1] and the Act on Promotion of Information and Communication Network Utilization and Information Protection (정보통신망 이용촉진 및 정보보호 등에 관한 법률) [2] do have many exceptions that make them legal at least in principle. Indeed, most websites blocked by SK ISPs host either illegal obscene materials (distinct from the legal pornography in the SK legal system) or advocacy for North Korea (illegal due to the National Security Act 국가보안법). I'm not necessarily for such blocks but it is plain wrong to say that they are illegal.
[1] https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=7235&lan...
[2] https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=38422&la...