The amendment became known as the ‘Conversation Recording Prohibition Act,’ and immediately caused considerable controversy. Civil groups issued a statement criticizing the bill as not only violating freedom of expression and the right to know, but also significantly harming the public interest in that it greatly discourages social accusation activities and media activities that reveal social irregularities.704) In a poll conducted by Gallup Korea, more than 80% of the respondents aged 18 to 29 said, that they “oppose the amendment because it is necessary to prove crime and whistle-blowing.” Conversely, according to the ‘Report on Survey of Public Opinion over Call Recording’ conducted by Hangil Research Co., Ltd. on 2,000 men and women over the age of 18 nationwide, 63.6% of the respondents opposed the other party recording without their consent. B) Competing Interests of Investigating Social Irregularities and the Right to Voice Privacy and freedom guaranteed by Articles 10 and 17 of the Constitution include the right not to disclose an individual’s private life and the right to autonomously control one’s information. The ‘right to voice’ is a right derived from personality rights and is guaranteed by Article 10 of the Constitution. The act of secretly recording conversations without the consent of the person being recorded and reproducing them openly can be regarded as an act of violating the right to voice guaranteed by the first sentence of Article 10 of the Constitution, unless there are other circumstances, such as presuming consent from the person to be recorded or not violating social norms. The right to voice is a right that has not received much attention as a form of basic human right. The right to voice was discussed as a form of basic human right as part of the proposed amendment to the Protection of Communications Secrets Act. The people in favor of the amendment assert that it is unethical to record conversations at all times, and that legislation to protect the right to voice is necessary, similar to the response to hidden cameras. They assert that it is necessary to prevent the act of damaging social reputation by intimidating or disseminating the other person through recording conversations or calls without the consent of the persons concerned, and even though this can be punished under the current law, there is no way to punish the simple disclosure of audio files.705) 703) Reasons for the proposed amendment to the Protection of Communications Secrets Act and main topics 704) OpenNet, Opinion on partial amendment to the Protection of Communications Secrets Act (Submitted by Rep. Yoon, Sang-hyeon, Bill No. 2117633), Oct. 11, 2022 291