Flawed bills need rewriting

メディア規制法案に反対する

The government attaches great importance to the personal data bill, as it does to the emergency security legislation that is also under parliamentary debate. The Japan Newspapers Publishers and Editors Association (Shinbun Kyokai) and other media groups have issued a statement that the bill could open the way for government interference with the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution.

Indeed, the bill is fraught with problems. The Diet should leave no stone unturned to devise an acceptable system for personal data protection. For that purpose, this measure should be drastically revised. It should perhaps even be abolished and a new bill written.

There is no question that personal data, such as name, age, occupation, family composition and phone number, must be properly protected. The proposed legislation, however, contains potentially restrictive provisions that seem to exceed the need for protection.

One problem, from the standpoint of the media, is that fines and other penalties could be imposed on news organizations even though, in principle, punitive rules would not apply to them. Academic and research organizations, religious organizations and political groups also would be excluded.

Businesses that handle personal data would be required to (1) limit its use to specific purposes, (2) acquire it properly, (3) assure its accuracy, (4) keep it safe, and (5) allow for involvement by the people with whom it originated. These principles would impose legally binding obligations on them, such as preventing release of any data on a person to a third party without that person's consent.

Violations of these legal obligations would prompt the Cabinet minister in charge to take disciplinary actions, such as corrective recommendations and orders. If these actions were ignored, penalties would be imposed. In other words, such violations would constitute illegal acts that could entail the payment of compensation under the Civil Code.

The obligation to obtain a person's consent for release of data could seriously undermine reporting activities. For example, reporting a corruption scandal involving a politician would become practically impossible if the politician, citing the above obligation, objected to the printing or broadcasting of the story. Such a requirement is as unrealistic as it is unreasonable.

Another problem is the fuzzy legal coverage of news organizations. Academic, religious and political activities are governed by law. Political groups, for instance, are regulated by the campaign finance law. But there is no law governing news organizations, with the exception of broadcasters. So it is unclear which minister is in charge of news organizations, or who will control what.

In addition, the bill in question calls for the creation of private oversight groups comprising businesses that handle more than a certain amount of personal data. This proposal is also problematic. Such groups, says the government, will be organized voluntarily to settle complaints and protect such information. In effect, however, they will come under government influence. It is difficult to see how such organizations will attract many members.

There is no doubt about the urgent need for legislation that protects personal data, considering the international development of corporate activity. However, it is wrong to include rules for media regulation in such legislation. In the European Union, it should be noted, journalism and art are not subject to regulation under such a law.

It is true that the media often exceeds the limits of decency, as illustrated by the often callous reporting of victims of crimes and accidents. That is very regrettable. But remedial action should be left primarily to voluntary efforts by the media, not to government regulations. In fact, all types of media — newspapers, magazines, broadcasts — are now building an effective system of self-regulation.

The human rights bill also needs a wholesale review. In particular, the proposed human rights commission should be restructured so that it will become truly independent from the government, which itself could commit rights violations. This bill, too, poses basic problems for the media. Along with the personal data bill, it should be drastically revised through active debates inside and outside the Diet.

The Japan Times: May 3, 2002
(C) All rights reserved

      日本新聞協会や他のメディアは、個人情報保護法案は憲法で保障された表現の自由に政府が介入する道を開くとして抗議の声明を発表した。個人情報保護の必要性は疑うべくもないが、保護の必要を超えた制限条項を含むこの法案は、大幅に修正するか、廃案にして改正する必要がある。

      法案によると、企業は個人情報の利用目的の制限、適正な方法による取得、内容の正確性の確保、安全保護措置の実施、情報源の保護といった原則を守る義務を持つ。つまり個人情報を本人の同意なしに第三者に提供しない法的義務が生じる。違反すると管轄省庁の勧告･命令を受け、応じない場合は罰金が課される。しかし、この義務は報道活動を妨げることにつながる。政治家の汚職疑惑などは、情報源の政治家に情報の公表を拒否されれば追及できないからだ。

      放送事業者以外の報道機関について定めた法律がないため管轄省庁が明確でないという問題もある。また、各業界に対し、一定量以上の個人情報を扱う企業で構成される、苦情処理などを行なう個人情報保護団体の設立を求めている。この団体は自主的組織だというが、実際には政府の息がかかった組織になってしまうだろう。 企業活動の国際化で個人情報保護法の制定が早急に求められるが、この種の法律に報道規制の条項を入れるのは間違っている。確かに品位を欠くマスコミ報道は多いが、それに対する措置は報道機関の自主規制であって、政府が関与すべきでない。

      人権擁護法案も、人権委員会の独立性確保のため、国会内外での活発な議論を通じ、徹底的に見直すべきだ。

The Japan Times Weekly
May 11, 2002
(C) All rights reserved