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.

抄録全体を表示

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.

抄録全体を表示

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 attribution.

抄録全体を表示

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 right.
　This article analyses the plan to reform of the right to demand disclosure of identification information of the sender.

抄録全体を表示

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 infectious diseases.
　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).

抄録全体を表示

新型コロナ感染を契機に、個人情報の非常時における活用のあり方について活発な議論が開始されている。本稿は、新型コロナ感染という危機状況における個人情報の利活用とプライバシー保護のあり方について、「プライバシーの経済学」 という視点からどのような示唆が得られるか論述している。わが国ではプライバシーやセキュリティ保護のあり方については、専ら法制度的枠組み整備の観点から議論されることが多い。欧米では、経済学的視点から、データ保護に関する政策決定が利害関係者のトレードオフにどのような影響を与えるかが議論されている。本稿では、日本では馴染みのない「プライバシーの経済学」を紹介し、新型コロナのような危機状況におけるプライバシーの経済分析の有用性について論述する。

抄録全体を表示

警察・刑事司法分野におけるデータ保護について規律している刑事司法指令（以下、LEDとする） は、EU域外の第三国・領域・国際機関への越境移転について十分性認定の枠組み（LED35条）がある。2021年に初めてイギリスに対するLED十分性認定手続が開始され、今後日本についても議論が始まる可能性がある。 本稿は、刑事司法指令とEU加盟国法との関係について概観したうえで、一例としてドイツにおける国内法制との関係を説明し、特に監督機関の権限について詳述する。なぜなら、「本質的に同等」（essentially equivalent）の水準がどの程度であるのかについて、LEDの加盟国法における実現を見る必要があるからである。そのうえで、越境移転の要件を確認し、これまでLED十分性認定の不在についての批判を紹介し、欧州データ保護会議（EDPB）勧告（2021/01勧告）の内容を確認する。以上の分析から、最後に、日本における対応が必要かどうかについてコメントする。

抄録全体を表示

本稿は米国におけるサイバー・サプライチェーン・セキュリティ政策を扱うものである。
　第1に、政策の目的を確認した。その目的は、サプライチェーン上の情報の機密性、完全性 (IT/OT製品・サービスの真正性及び非改ざん性)、レジリエンス、及び品質の確保にあることを指摘した。
　第2に、政策をマッピングした。米国の政策は、まず、NISTによる組織／請負人に対する情報セキュリティ・マネジメントの要求により、主として機密性を確保し、次いで、調達ルールにより、主として完全性・品質を確保していることを指摘した。
　第3に、課題も指摘した。連邦機関のセキュリティ・ガイダンスの実施率は低く、その原因として、調達ルールの未整備にあることが指摘されている。そのため、情報セキュリティ・マネジメントの指針による意識向上と、調達ルールによる義務化の両輪が、サプライチェーン・セキュリティ政策として重要であることを指摘した。

抄録全体を表示