This paper examines the issues involved in local
governments regulating video games and Internet
use by ordinance using the Kagawa Prefecture Video Game Ordinance (KPVGO) enacted in 2020.
First, this paper discusses the limitations of local
governments’ authority to enact ordinances regulating digital platform operators that provide online
games and other services. In the digital age, the regulation of digital platform operators under the ordinance raises the problem that the effect of the ordinance extends extraterritorially.
Secondly, this paper examines whether KPVGO
violates the parent’s right to educate the children,
the children’s freedom of playing video games, and
the freedom of business by digital platform operators.
Finally, this paper points out that there are limits
to the judicial remedies for video games and Internet regulation by ordinance. The court’s power to
review unconstitutional legislation may not adequately examine the constitutionality of ordinances
regulating the Internet and video games enacted by
local governments. Therefore, local governments
themselves need to examine the legislative facts and
carry out a fair public comment process.
The concentration of economic power threatens to
erode not only consumer welfare, but also citizen
welfare, such as the sustainability of democracies
and the guarantee of individual freedom. The digital
media platform companies that have emerged in recent years already have significant economic and
media resources, and in addition to their economic
dominance, they are also gaining political influence.
If the present situation remains unchanged, the danger of a decline in citizen welfare could become apparent.
This article argues that the introduction of new
economic regulatory rules is necessary to prevent a
decline in citizen welfare resulting from the concentration of economic power in digital media platform
companies. The article then proposes three possibilities as new economic regulations: 1) strict application
of conduct regulations in Antitrust Act, 2) separation
of platforms and commerce, and 3) enactment of
new regulatory Acts to ensure platforms neutrality
and fair redistribution of their advertisement revenues.
Twitter employs an automatic image clipping system, which sometimes result in the author’s name
not being displayed on posted or retweeted image.
The Supreme Court of Japan on July 21, 2020 ruled
that a retweet of another person’s post containing
an image would be an infringement of the Right of
Attribution under the circumstances of this case
when the image was displayed with the attached author’s name removed by Twitter’s automatic image
clipping system. This article discusses the conflict
and the coordination between the author’s rights
and expressions on SNS through the intrinsic understanding and the critical review of this decision. The
article understands that the purpose of the attribution right is to protect the interest of claiming authorship of the work. In light of this purpose, the
court should leniently find that the author’s name is
indicated. We doubt that the interest of claiming authorship was harmed in this retweet case. With the
development of search technology, it has become
easier to secure the benefit of claiming authorship.
Thus, we need to explore a new way of the right of
A victim damaged by a distribution of a violating
information can demand ISP to disclose the identification of its sender. But to obtain the information
which can identify the sender, the victim must file
two lawsuits, firstly against the hosting provider,
and secondly against the internet access provider,
because the former provider normally doesn’t keep
the name and address of the sender, but only the IP
address and timestamp of violating information
which make the victim to identify the latter provider who has the information of real name and address
of sender. This is long way to file a lawsuit against
the sender violating the victim’s right.
To get the identity of the sender, the victim must
prove the violation of his right, mainly defamation or
copyright infringement. In case of defamation, the
plaintiff has to prove not only his damage of reputation from the distribution of sender’s expression, but
also the lack of public interests or the falsehood.
This burden of proof is more than the lawsuit between the victim and the sender.
In 2020, Japanese government prepared the reform of this law. The research group made a plan to
reform which establish a single procedure to disclose
the information of the sender violating the victim’s
This article analyses the plan to reform of the
right to demand disclosure of identification information of the sender.
The following perspectives will be deliberated
with regard to fundamental considerations for ensuring both the effectiveness of infectious disease control measures and the guarantee of the right to privacy:
⑴ issues concerning the restriction of the right to
privacy in emergency situations, including: (ⅰ) measures associated with emergency situations and the
restriction of the right to privacy in a such situations; (ⅱ) normalisation, regularisation and the continuing of exceptional responses in emergency situations, (eg concerns about ‘roll-back’ and the ‘ratchet
effect’); (ⅲ) use for purposes different from those originally intended, (‘Dual-Use’); and (ⅳ) acquisition of
subsidiary information and unexpected emergence
of unexpected situations, (eg the applicability of ‘human-body temperature’ to personal information requiring consideration and subsidiary information associated with the measurement of human-body
temperature and the example of ‘mission creep’); and
(ⅴ) the need to respond to over-reactions which do
not recognise the urgency of the situation.
⑵ Issues concerning privacy in infectious disease
control include: (ⅰ) procedures for requesting and
disclosing personal information and the issues related to privacy; (ⅱ) the obligation to cooperate with active epidemiological surveys of specified patients
and others based on the revised Infectious Diseases
Control Act and restrictions on the right to privacy;
(ⅲ) the correspondence between the personal information taken and thus, sensitive personal information acquired in relation to the taking of tests, etc, (ⅳ)
the implementation of tests for infectious diseases
which are not included in the tests to be taken and
the violation of privacy and (ⅴ) the necessity of thorough security management measures for information
management in relation to countermeasures against
⑶ The use of technology for infectious diseasecontrol and privacy: (ⅰ) the use of GPS location information, (ⅱ) the introduction of contact-tracing and
confirmation applications and the considerations required to resolve concerns about their widespread
use, (ⅲ) the acquisition of biometric information and
the use of biometrics, and (ⅳ) sewage epidemiological
surveys and privacy, (eg the privacy of waste-water).
After the breakout of new corona infection, active
discussions are started on how to use personal data
in an emergency. This paper discusses the use of
personal data and privacy protection in crisis situations such as the new corona infection, and what
kind of suggests can be obtained from the viewpoint
of “economics of privacy”. In Japan, privacy and security protection issues are discussed exclusively
from the viewpoint of a legal framework. In europe
and the U.S., policy discussions are examining how
policy decisions on data protection affect stakeholder
trade-offs from an economic perspective. In this paper, I introduce the “economics of privacy”, which is
not familiar in Japan, and discuss the usefulness of
economic analysis of privacy in crisis situations.
The EU Law Enforcement Directive (Directive
(EU) 2016/680, LED), which governs data protection
in the police and criminal justice sectors, has a
framework for the adequacy decisions for international data transfers to third countries, territories,
and international organizations outside the EU (Art.
35 LED). The UK’s LED adequacy decision process
was initiated for the first time in 2021, and discussions may begin on Japan in the future.
This article gives an overview of the relationship
between the Judicial Police Directive and EU Member States’ law. As an example, it explains the relationship with national legislation in Germany and describes the supervisory authorities’ powers. This is
because it is necessary to observe the Member State
Law’s implementation regarding the “essentially
equivalent” level for LED. Moreover, it overviews
the requirements for international data transfers, introduces criticisms of the lack of LED adequacy decisions, and confirms the recommendations of the
European Data Protection Board (EDPB) (2021/01
Recommendation). Based on the above analysis, I
would like to comment on the necessity of action in
This paper deals with cyber supply chain security
policy in the United States.
First, the objectives of the policy are to ensure
the confidentiality of information in the supply chain,
integrity (genuine and unaltered IT/OT products
and services), resilience, and quality.
Second, this paper points out that U.S. policies ensure confidentiality primarily through NIST’s information security management standards for organizations/contractors, and achieve integrity and quality
mainly through procurement rules.
Third, this paper also points out the challenges.
The implementation rate of such standards by federal agencies is low, and it is pointed out that the reason is the lack of procurement rules. Therefore, this
paper points out that, for supply chain security policy, it is important to raise awareness through information security management standards and to make
it mandatory through procurement rules.