Who's watching whom in Japan? It's a state secret

'''Who's watching whom in Japan? It's a state secret'''

By Ian Munroe

About 200 people gathered in a subterranean auditorium on the University of Tokyo’s Hongo campus earlier this month to hear from one of the world’s most well-known fugitives.

Edward Snowden spoke via video linkup from Russia, where he was granted asylum after revealing the U.S. National Security Agency’s controversial mass surveillance programs three years ago.

“You’re kidding yourself if you don’t think China is doing this, if you don’t think Russia is doing this, if you don’t think France and Germany are doing this,” the former NSA contractor said at a symposium on government surveillance and civil rights. “The question you should be asking yourself is, what are the policies in Japan?”

Snowden declined to answer that question himself, saying he had entrusted a group of journalists with the job of releasing newsworthy information from the trove of classified data he leaked. But he added that, from his experiences working at U.S. intelligence facilities in Japan and the United States, there is at the very least a high degree of information-sharing between the two sides.

Other speakers at the event, which took place on June 4, had their own insights into Snowden’s question. They included Daisuke Igeta, a lawyer who helped challenge the legality of blanket police profiling of Japan’s Islamic population.

The lawsuit centered on a leak of 114 police files six years ago that revealed police had collected information about tens of thousands of Muslims across the country — their names, photos, home and work addresses, their relationships, the mosque they attend — in the lead-up to the 2008 G-8 summit in Hokkaido.

“In my experience as a criminal lawyer, Japanese police departments have tremendous power to surveil, and they never open their activities to the court,” Igeta said in a separate phone interview. “So this is just the tip of the iceberg.”

Igeta and a team of lawyers argued that police had violated their clients’ constitutionally protected rights to privacy, equal treatment and religious freedom.

The Tokyo District Court ruled in January 2014 that the 17 Muslim plaintiffs were entitled to ¥90 million in compensation because the data leak violated their privacy. It said the police’s gathering of information on the plaintiffs was “necessary and inevitable” to protect the public from international terrorism, but declined to rule on the allegations of blanket profiling.

“Incidentally,” the court noted, “the plaintiffs allege that the Metropolitan Police Department and the National Police Agency had, as of 31 May, 2008, assessed and digitalized the personal information of ‘roughly 12,677 individuals’ equaling ‘roughly 89 percent of the 14,254 foreign nationals from Muslim countries registered in Tokyo,’ and later, by the time the Hokkaido Toya Lake summit convened in July of that year, had ‘profiled roughly 72,000 individuals from OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Conference) countries (assessment rate of 98 percent).’

“However, in this lawsuit,” the judge continued, “the issue is simply whether or not the plaintiffs suffered damage through the illegal exertion of public authority carried out against them, so whatever information-gathering activities that may have been conducted in relation to Muslims and Islamic-related organizations other than the plaintiffs cannot be said to influence the judgment in this case.”

After appeals at the district and high court levels, the Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit on May 31. The justices agreed with the lower court rulings that the 17 Muslim plaintiffs were entitled to ¥90 million in compensation for the data leak, but they again sidestepped the question of broader police profiling and surveillance.

The plaintiffs were from Algeria, Iran, Tunisia and Morocco, as well as Japan. One of them told The Japan Times that he first noticed he was being followed by law enforcement in the early 2000s. He said he was happy to cooperate with the officers whenever they contacted him. Then one day, they asked that he report on other members of his mosque, and he refused.

“We finally concluded that the legal governance of this country is not independent,” said the plaintiff, who asked that his name be withheld to avoid further harm to his reputation, which was severely damaged after he was identified as a potential terrorist in the 2010 leak. “It’s completely affected by the politics. It’s obvious that the government wants surveillance towards everyone.

“Our point was the very origin of the police investigation was wrong,” he said. “The surveillance is giving Muslims unhealthy relationships — it’s not easy that they can trust each other.”

The surveillance continues to this day, he said, including with plainclothes police stationed outside his local mosque every Friday.

Both the Metropolitan Police Department and the National Police Agency declined to comment on the Supreme Court case or the allegations of indiscriminate profiling and surveillance of Muslims.

The police have made few statements about the lawsuit. A representative from the National Police Agency said at a 2014 human rights committee hearing on the matter at the United Nations that they couldn’t provide details on counterterrorism “information-gathering activities,” but that police were following the letter of the law.

Others have defended the discriminatory surveillance measures. Naofumi Miyasaka, a professor at the National Defense Academy of Japan, described the data leak as a major failure in the country’s counterterrorism efforts because it disrupted the network of trusted informants the police had been relying on.

“I do not know how the Met Police, since then, changed their way of collecting, analyzing, stockpiling information, and how they try to restore Muslim people’s confidence,” Miyasaka said in an email. “That’s the point that I want to know.”

The legal saga unfolded as two similar court challenges played out in the United States. They came about after The Associated Press revealed in 2011 that the New York Police Department had also been surveilling Muslim communities in and around New York City and New Jersey.

The NYPD dissolved the controversial surveillance program in 2014 but the court proceedings rolled on. One of the lawsuits is still before the courts. Among those to offer support to the plaintiffs in that case is a group of descendants of Japanese-Americans who were sent to internment camps on U.S. soil in the 1940s.

“The treatment of the Muslim community by the Department has parallels to the treatment of Japanese-Americans by the federal government during World War II,” they said in an amicus brief.

A settlement was reached in the other NYPD case in January. Under the deal, the police agreed to “new safeguards to protect against bias-based and unjustified investigations of Muslim and other minority communities,” as the American Civil Liberties Union put it.

One of the many pieces of information about the secretive police program that came to light during the course of the court proceedings was that, in six years of spying on Muslim neighborhoods, NYPD detectives had produced no leads.

Igeta claims that U.S. authorities helped set up Japan’s own Muslim surveillance program. He and the other lawyers representing the 17 Muslim plaintiffs planned to translate and submit documents from the U.S. lawsuits to the Supreme Court to bolster their case, but the decision to throw out the case came down months earlier than they expected.

Hiroshi Miyashita, a law professor at Chuo University and an expert on privacy issues who also spoke at the Tokyo symposium, said he wasn’t surprised the Supreme Court did not strike down police monitoring of Muslims in Japan.

But the lawsuit is significant for another reason, he said: It’s one of the first major court decisions in which the government actions in question were shielded by a contentious piece of legislation.

“The police argued in court that ‘this is prevention of terrorist activity, this is prevention of serious crime.’ That’s why they did not disclose any of their surveillance activities in court,” he said. “This is protected by the designated secrets law.”

That legislation, which came into force in 2014, threatens jail time for bureaucrats who leak — or journalists who seek out — information the government deems secret.

Proponents say the law is designed to help tighten the government’s control over sensitive information so that Japan is better able to share intelligence with the United States, its closest ally. Critics say the definition of what constitutes a state secret is too vague, leaving room to keep broad swaths of information out of public view, and that it threatens press freedom.

Miyashita said the state secrets law has also had an impact on another recent legal case involving the Self-Defense Forces’ gathering of information about anti-war activists. He said the Defense Ministry similarly argued that the data collection was to prevent terrorism, and thus “did not disclose any of the information in court.”

“I think this is a very serious impact for the future of mass surveillance — everything will be secret,” Miyashita said. “I don’t deny any surveillance activities if it is healthy, if it is narrowly tailored. But the important thing is there should be an independent oversight mechanism. In Japan there is no such mechanism.”

Snowden went further. He described the state secrets law as “fundamentally dangerous to democracy” because it undermines public accountability. The law, he said, is an example of losing civilian control over government in Japan, part of a pattern of “creeping authoritarianism.”

“At the end of the day, if we’re to have an enduring free society, it has to be one where the public plays a primary role,” he told the audience. “You’re not the supporting cast, you’re the lead.”

Comments

 * S.J.: I recently posted a comment here about how I am routinely followed by Japanese authorities pretty much everywhere I go in Japan (in the comments section of the article published here, titled, "NSA whistleblower Snowden says U.S. government carrying out mass surveillance in Japan", dated, June 4 / June 5, 2016). Some of the posters were skeptical of my account, so I have posted two YouTube videos to substantiate my claims. Here are the links: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9cTOp7I8EHU  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dJua_F5twUE  To provide some context, I had recently visited this clothing store in Tokyo for the very first time and had purchased some clothes there. From the moment I stepped into the store (which is connected to a large train station) to the moment I left with my purchases, I was followed very closely by two security guards. They were in my face the entire time I was shopping, so this was not covert surveillance. I had to go back to the same store the following day to buy some more clothes. The exact same thing happened again and I was followed closely by two security guards for more than twenty minutes. This time I decided to discreetly video record them and have posted the videos on YouTube.  For reference, I have copied below my earlier comment in its entirety:  "It goes both ways, with Japan conducting surveillance on American citizens like myself who are living in Japan. In fact, Japan's surveillance programs are much broader and deeper, and they carry more real-life consequences. Japan has always placed a premium on controlling people, their thoughts and their actions. It is not an accident that there is so much apathy here and that it is essentially a one-party authoritarian state under the very thin veneer of democracy (which was imposed on it by the U.S.). Compared to other democracies like the U.S., there is very little in the way of individual or press freedom, respect for civil rights, or rule of law in Japan.  Japanese authorities make it very clear to everyone that they do not tolerate dissent or criticism of any sort. The costs for such actions can be very high including coersion, bullying, harassment, intimidation, ostracization, trouble at work, threats and even physical violence. The constant surveillance combined with a "nip it in the bud" mentality ensures that no one gets too out of line or questions authority. Historically, everything from the Kisha press clubs, postal system, family registry system, neighborhood Kobans and routine home visits by Police to "confirm" identities of those living there, and the powerful and intrusive neighborhood associations have been used to keep an eye on people and to quash dissent of any kind at the grassroots level. This is now being further aided by technology through monitoring of electronic communications, covert tracking of smartphones and use of facial recognition software in the ubiquitous security cameras which have been installed everywhere in Japan.  I take it as a given that the Japanese authorities are tracking my phone, computer and my electronic communications. Everyone is also familiar by now of various forms used by those in power to suppress dissent or criticism in online forums. The use of state-sponsored "troll farms" and "troll armies" to harrass, intimidate, bully, threaten and instill fear in individuals who don't toe the party line is on the rise. Unfortunately, in Japan, it goes further than this and extends to the real world where physical trolls (not just online trolls) serve the same purpose of harrassing individuals in person. Such real world intimidation is the next step when the trolls' online tactics fail to have their desired effect of shutting people up.  I myself have reason to believe that I am the target of such tactics by real-world trolls after their online efforts failed to stop me from voicing my criticisms and my challenging of certain questionable activities by Japanese authorities in both, online forums and in the real world. Being trolled in real life by getting routinely followed around by authorities and/or their shady cohorts in train stations, public restrooms, while shopping, at my gym and at my local park is just as much of a nuisance as being trolled online (except that physical trolls pose the added risk of getting assaulted or other physical harm).  As Snowden points out, Japan lacks privacy controls and has weak civil controls over the government. Monitoring peoples electronic communications, covert tracking of smartphones and facial recognition technology in security cameras makes it very easy for authorities here to misuse their capabilities and target innocent people to achieve their censorship and other goals."
 * B. (at S.J.): All I got from those two videos was someone with a camera acting suspiciously, following security guards taking footage of them, taking footage of the cashier, walking around after a purchase taking footage in the store...Honestly, no offence, S____, but that's all I got from those videos
 * S.J. (at B.): There was absolutely nothing suspicious about my behavior in the store, unless you consider "shopping while gaijin" as suspicious behavior in Japan. As I wrote in my post, I was followed around by the same two security guards the exact same way just the prior day when I also made a purchase at this store. I was not recording them then, so why was I being followed during my first trip to this store a day earlier? Besides, they started tailing me almost immediately after I entered the store, so there would have been no time for me to act suspiciously. The second day is when I decided to record them, but I was very discreet about it so they could not have known (otherwise, they could have asked me to stop recording or leave the store). I ask readers to watch the two videos and decide for themselves. As you can see in the videos, I made a purchase downstairs and then went upstairs where I was looking for some more clothes to buy. However, I decided to leave after a while, since I got tired of being followed around by the two security guards. Earlier, after having paid for my purchases downstairs, I realized that I still had a little more time before I had to be somewhere, so I decided to browse a little more for some other clothes before going upstairs. Again, there is nothing suspicious about it.  You have previously stated that your Japanese wife and father-in-law are former police officers and that your wife's two brothers are currently Japanese policemen. Does this have something to do with your viewing all things as "suspicious"? For crying out loud, this store sells extremely inexpensive clothes. What kind of "suspicious" activity could someone be doing in a cheap clothing store that is full of security cameras and where I knew I was being followed around closely by security guards? This may be a new low for even you, B____.  Remember, in another recent post, I wrote about being followed inside a public restroom of a train station by two guys in uniforms and being pinned by them? You didn't believe me then either, but this time I have proof for everyone to see. Back then about a month ago, I wrote the following (in the comments section of the article in The Japan Times, dated, May 17, 2016, titled, "Docomo makes smartphones covertly trackable by Japanese authorities")  "The time two guys in uniforms recently followed me into the restroom of a train station was a dead giveaway. The huge restroom was all empty with lots of free urinals all over the place, but they just had to use the two urinals which were right next to me on either side, while standing unusually close to me so as to pin me in.  This type of thing had been happening a lot to me recently, so after doing my business, I just stood there to see if they really did need to pee. Yet, not a single drop came out of either of them. As I just stood there waiting, they probably got embarrased after a few minutes (given how undersized both men were down there), zipped up their pants and left. Now, who goes to restrooms in pairs, pretends to use the urinal next to the only other occupied urinal while the whole place is all empty with many other urinals available, stands there for a few minutes without peeing and then leaving?"
 * B. (at S.J.): Yes, I agree...let people watch the videos and decide for themselves. Obviously, we have differing notions of suspicious. I'm not going to get into an argument with you on this. The videos just look creepy to me
 * S.J. (at B.): Yes, the two security guards at this store in the videos and the two guys who followed me to the public restroom in a train station before that definitely creep me out!
 * B. (at S.J.): checking out someone's "urinal activity" is really creepy (did you bring your camera?)...It would creep me out to the point of being "gun shy"
 * S.J. (at B.): What was more creepy was the way these two guys wearing uniforms were following me and tailed me into the restroom of the train station. The large restroom was almost totally empty and had rows of vacant urinals on all sides. However, these two guys came and stood right next to me and pretended to use the two urinals which were on either side of me. Not just this, but they pinned me in tightly and were standing so close to me as to be almost touching me. Now, that is creepy! BTW, B____, why do you keep coming back to this tread? I don't question you experiences, so I'm not sure why you feel so compelled to challenge other peoples' accounts of their experiences when you have no first hand knowledge of the incident. What exactly is your goal? In your last post two days ago you wrote, "I'm not going to get into an argument with you on this". How about sticking to your word?
 * B. (at S.J.): My comment was not intended as an argument as to whether or not filming a cashier then following security guards around a store from which you've already made your purchase constitutes suspicious behaviour. I think it does. You think it doesn't. That's clear and not worth an argument. My comment was a response to your comment about what constitutes creepy. Checking out someone's urinal activity is really creepy. Sorry, I didn't respond sooner. There are other things in life besides talking to you. As amusing as that is...
 * S.J. (at B.): If you read my earlier comments, you will see that both your characterizations of what happened to me at the clothing store and in the restroom are grossly inaccurate. I don't know if you are being disingenuous, can't understand my posts due to difficulty with reading comprehension, or have another reason. Which part of what I said about being followed by security guards almost as soon as I entered the store on the previous day, or being pinned by two guys in uniforms in an otherwise empty public restroom did you not understand?  I clearly had no time to act suspiciously at the store since I had just gotten there. The store's own video footage from security cameras will confirm this. End of story. In the restroom, I was just confirming my suspicions that the two goons were not there to urinate, but for other nefarious reasons. It was impossible for me to ignore the fact that they were not urinating because of how close they stood to me and because there was no partition between urinals in this restroom. Their actions were creepy, not mine.  In any case, good luck with whatever it is that you're trying to achieve (just don't twist what I have written, change the chronology of events, or take things out of context by cherry picking). I have no more desire to discuss this with you, and unlike you I plan to keep my word. Goodbye, B____.
 * B. (at S.J.): Well, I enjoin anyone to watch those videos and decide for themselves whether or not they are creeped out by a guy filming a cashier then walking around a store following security guards filming...Judging from those videos, I can only surmise your urinal story is just that...
 * R.L.: The dangers implicit in Japan's State Secrets Act are only beginning to be felt. With no independent oversight, secrets remain secret, and abuses of civil liberties are patronizingly waved off as one of the many ways our government is protecting us against the threat of terrorism. "Trust us," our government seems to be saying. "We can't tell you precisely what we're doing, but please know that it's perfectly legal and its done for the benefit of one and all." Contemporary Japan isn't as compliant as once existed . . . or currently exists in Abe's "Beautiful Japan."
 * J.A. (at R.L.): Of course we trust them. Look at the great way they handled the Fukushima meltdown---it only took the Japanese government three months to admit that there had been one and only took TEPCO five years to admit they knew it was a meltdown from day one.
 * S. (at J.A.): Really? Three months to admit there had been a meltdown? New York Times, March 13th 2011:  "So far, Japanese officials have said the melting of the nuclear cores in the two plants is assumed to be “partial,” and the amount of radioactivity measured outside the plants, though twice the level Japan considers safe, has been relatively modest."  TEPCO five years to admit they knew it was a meltdown from day one? I hope you have something to back up that, and not just some dancing around with the meaning of the word "meltdown" which does not have a firm technical meaning.  How do you explain this report from May 15th, 2011, showing all the fuel melted and out of Reactor 1? A little bit off five years...  http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110515e10.pdf
 * A. (at J.A.): Do... you know who made them build that reactor there?
 * Guest: This comment was deleted.
 * J.L. (at Guest): Codswallop.
 * M.B.: Its about time someone take the threat of radical Islam seriously
 * s.: I am a GUEST in this Country. It took a very,very long time before I could get a permanent residence even though I am married to a Japanese national and I had 5 children with him. I was actually happy that it was not easy to obtain. I have no police record. I am grateful to the Japanese Government for being strict about who they let in to their Country. That is precisely WHY Japan is SAFE. Japan is FREE from illegals and immigrants who may or may not be criminals or Islamic extremists. Japan will NOT become like Merkel's Germany or Cameron's England. They take care of their people. Unlike what Obama is doing to America.
 * S.J. (at s.): Sir, perhaps you had difficulty in understanding the article. We're not talking about immigration here but rather about lawful residents of Japan (both foreign and Japanese). Lawful residents of a country have certian civil rights, rights of privacy and other rights which non-residents who desire to immigrate to another country don't. I suggest you try reading the article again.

Source

 * https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2016/06/15/issues/whos-watching-japan-state-secret/#.XbOd6rJE2hA