This article overviews laws and recent developments on protecting privacy and personal data in Canada, so that contribute to the future discussion in Japan. Canada has developed its own privacy and personal data protection system in line with respecting the efforts taken by the European Union and the United States. Privacy by Design, advanced by Dr. Ann Cavoukian, has been acknowledged worldwide. I have dealt with these surroundings on privacy and personal data protection in Canada in this article.
The challenges which can be found from overviewing Canadian legislations are, for example, the limitations of Ombudsmen authorities both in the federal and the provincial level; the need for obliging Privacy Impact Assessments and data breach notiﬁcations; the issue on the jurisdiction between the federal law and provincial laws; data localization provisions enacted in a speciﬁc province, the concern about the “adequacy decision” made by the European Commission.
Privacy by Design has played an important role to heighten the international presence of Canada, done by its special efforts. It has become well known also among Japanese stakeholders. However, we have not only to understand the notion of Privacy by Design, but also to consider how to implement the foundational principles.
Trying to solve the domestic issues along with harmonizing the international developments is the common need both in Canada and Japan. It is necessary to continuously look at discussions in Canada because they are instructive for Japanese discussions.
This study includes 1) Introduction 2) The analysis of a contract about privacy from the viewpoint of substantive law, 3) The analysis of a contract about privacy from the viewpoint of procedural law, 4) The future discussion point of a contract about privacy. In Vol. (1), especially why people make a contract about privacy is discussed.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the U.S. adopted an Order for new privacy regulation on providers of BIAS (Broadband Internet Access Service) on 27 in October, 2016. The new rule, with more strict restriction to ISPs to collect, use, and disclose their customers’ information, does not cover edge providers such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., and it is a hot issue that which operators should be subject to strict privacy regulation in ICT business ﬁeld. This paper focuses on the purpose and background of FCC’s new regulation and try to reach some suggestion about the issue.
2.The Right to Be Forgotten in EU and Japanese Law System
3.Overview of Lower Courts’ Decisions on Removing Internet Search Results
4.The Ruling of the Supreme Court of Japan on January 31st, 2017
With the boom in bit-intensive and live streaming content in the broadband Internet ecosystem, accompanied with growing market power of network operators, “network neutrality” has become the focus of discussion among various stakeholders. In addition, the recent popularity of zero-rating options in mobile broadband businesses has made this problem even more complicated to be dealt with. This paper summarizes the essence of the “network neutrality” problem and an approach of the Japanese government, and discuss how zero-rating will aﬀect its approach to this problem and what is required in the future policy making.
This paper focuses on the overview of the importance of legal issues which will underpin a future Robot Symbiosis Society.I would like to refer to the necessity of proceeding with academic research regarding Robot Law including AI and the Internet of Things, (IoT) and then tried to conduct research in the various, connected, interdisciplinary ﬁelds such as constitutional law, administrative law, civil law and criminal law.The current legal system is unlikely to be able to solve the conundrum of every potentially serious problems in a very different and new,autonomoous robot use environment.I really believe that it is possible for us all to provide the legal framework necessary to underpin this new social system.
2. Existing Scheme and its limits.
(1) Existing Co-regulative Scheme
(2) Its Effectiveness and Limits
3. Debate for New Scheme
(1) Task Force at the MIC(Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)
(2) Ad hoc Meeting for Facilitating Parental Control and Proposal by the TCA (Telecommunications Carriers Association)
(3) New functions of the EMA(Content Evaluation and Monitoring Association)
The discussions made in the revision of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information in 2015 revealed the issues that could not be achieved with the amendment, and highlighted that a number of unresolved problems remain in current legislation. One of the issues that could not be achieved is that it was not realized despite being understood that it was necessary to include individual behavioral data recorded with device identiﬁer as the subject of protection under the Act. And the unresolved problem with current legislation is, for example, that the interpretation of the sentence " can be easily matched with other information " in the deﬁnition of personal information has not been clariﬁed.
This series of papers attempts to propose a direction to solve the remaining issues for the next revision of the Act. Speciﬁcally, by focusing on the difference between " personal information" and " personal data " , by clarifying the difference in interpretation between the sentence " can be easily matched with " and " can be matched with " , we aim to unify only the provision on " personal information ﬁle " in the private sector and the public sector.
The following Part I, unresolved issues are listed, and what is the problem with each issue is shown.
This article puts questions of protection of personal information on special local public entities. In recent years, many special local public entities were founded as a way out of ﬁscal difficulties of local government in Japan. These special local public entities must not be excluded from the municipality proscribed in the law of protection of personal information. Some of special local public entities, however, have no authority to enact their ordinance of protection of personal information to protect personal information of their inhabitants, and they must be covered by the ordinance of ordinary local public entities.