JCLU Works to Create Safeguards to Protect Privacy

Today Japanese law does not provide strong protection to maintain the confidentiality of information concerning individuals, nor does it provide people with an effective legal right to review information in the possession of government concerning themselves. JCLU has lobbied to demand improved legal protection in these areas.

Relationship to the Information Disclosure Law

The issue of enabling individuals to review government-held information concerning themselves was raised during deliberations over the Information Disclosure Law. The Administrative Reform Commission Subcommittee on Information Disclosure took the position that this issue should be resolved within a system providing for protection of the privacy of individual information. (See the Subcommittee Commentary (kangaekata).) Accordingly, Japan‘s information disclosure law itself does not provide a right for individuals to inspect information concerning themselves. Moreover, the law provides that individual information is generally exempt from disclosure, thus blocking access even to self-information.

Position Statement Presented to Government Committee on October 18, 1999

Following Diet passage of the information disclosure law, a government committee was appointed to study protection of individual information and access to self-information. One critical aspect of the work is review of a 1988 law which provides a partial solution. On October 18, 1999, JCLU submitted an opinion letter to this committee (“Committee for the Promotion of an Advanced Information and Communication Society”). The JCLU letter called for fundamental revision of the “Law concerning the Protection of Individual Information in the Possession of Administrative Agencies Processable by Electronic Computers.” JCLU pointed out that this law has the following deficiencies:

  1. It applies only to administrative agencies. It does not apply to the Courts, the Diet, or to the many “special corporations.”
  2. It applies only to information processed by computers; it does not apply to manually processed information.
  3. There is no provision to apply to especially sensitive information.
  4. The scope of exemption is too broad concerning requirements that “individual information files” be reported to the Management and Coordination Agency, be included in file indices and be subject to public examination.
  5. Information not included in “individual information files,” medical information and educational information are excluded from information subject to review by individuals concerned.
  6. It does not provide a right to demand revision of incorrect information.

The JCLU letter further pointed out that the Administrative Reform Commission itself called for urgent review of this issue due to “strong demand from the People for a right to review information concerning themselves, especially medical and educational information.” The letter also stated that privacy protection had become a matter of great urgency due to recent passage of a law authorizing the use of wiretaps and revision of the Fundamental Residential Registry Law.

Individual Information Protection Discussed at JCLU Forum

The subject of the proposed law to protect information concerning individuals in the possession of private organizations was taken up at a regular meeting of the JCLU membership held on July 25, 2000. The discussion focused on the “Proposed Outline concerning a Fundamental Law Protecting Individual Information” (“Outline”) released by the government the preceding month. In his introduction, Representative Director Mikio Akiyama stated that “the intent of a law to protect individual information is to realize `respect for the individual` but a side effect is a restriction on the `right to know,` so the issue must be carefully evaluated.” JCLU Director Hiroshi Miyake said that the need for a law protecting individual information was recognized in the course of the debate over the information disclosure law. He stressed that, to the extent that an disclosure system seeks to protect privacy, it must allow review of information by individuals concerning themselves.

The Outline proposed that government agencies and private organizations be subject to the same set of rules. Miyake pointed out that application of the same standards regarding information archiving and disclosure to private organizations would constitute an obstacle to the operations of NGOs and citizens groups. He suggested that rules applicable to government agencies and to non-governmental organizations should be considered separately. He also recommended that the new law should follow the eight principles enunciated by the OECD Board of Directors.

Next, JCLU Director Kenta Yamada made a presentation regarding the potential impact on freedom of expression. Yamada called for excluding information gathered by media organizations during the process of reporting from the scope of the law. Failure to do so would potentially have a chilling effect on reporting as it might pose a threat to the confidentiality of information sources.

Yamada also put forth the suggestion that information in the possession of media organizations could be segregated between information gathered through reporting activities on one hand, from information gathered for marketing purposes on the other (such as information concerning subscribers, subscription fees, etc.).

JCLU Comments on Government Interim Report Presented on August 25, 2000

On August 25, 2000, JCLU formally delivered its written opinion concerning the Outline to the government‘s “Specialist Committee on a Legal System to Protect Individual Information.”

The JCLU opinion stressed four main points:

  1. Different treatment should be provided for information in the hands of government agencies and private organizations. Government agencies should bear a heavier burden to protect the confidentiality of individual information.
  2. The existing “Law concerning the Protection of Individual Information in the Possession of Administrative Agencies Processable by Electronic Computers” should be revised to require disclosure of information to individuals concerned, whether in manual or electronic form.
  3. In the event of a violation of privacy by a non-governmental entity, relief should be provided not by a government agency, but by an agency to be established by private organizations.
  4. Activities where the primary objective is exercise of freedom of expression, such as reporting, publishing, academic activities and research, should be excluded from coverage.
No.326]
Translated by Lawrence Repeta