Abstract
Despite the absence of any explicit basis for the so-called “right to be forgotten” in Japanese data protection statutes, there is a basis in Japanese privacy case law that provides part of the substance of such a right. This was elucidated in a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Japan on January 31, 2017, regarding the issue of search engine liability. The Supreme Court held that, if certain substantive requirements are met, injunctive relief can be granted against a search engine operator to remove search results containing private facts. The level of protection provided for such a Japanese equivalent of the right to be forgotten, being subject to a heavily fact-specific balancing test formulated by this Supreme Court decision, can be roughly characterized as somewhat eclectically in-between the two ends of the spectrum represented by EU and US law respectively, in terms of how it seeks to strike a balance among the multiple competing interests including but not limited to privacy, the freedom of expression, access to information, and online platform business. This paper highlights the importance of such recent proactive judicial moves in Japan to curb algorithmic determinism, and also emphasizes the need to prepare for the mixed blessings of the next generation of self-learning algorithmic decision-making enabled by artificial intelligence (AI) and the latest smart information technologies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This report is partly based on the following works: Yamaguchi (2015a, b); presentations delivered at the University of Michigan Law School on Oct. 6, 2016, the University of British Columbia on Mar. 29, 2017, the Fudan University on May 28, 2017. English translation of Japanese text in this report is provided by the author, unless otherwise specified. Website information cited in the report was last visited on November 17, 2019. This work was partly supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 17K03501. The author hopes to express gratitude to Professor Junichi Hamada, Professor Franz Werro, and Ms. Claudia Hasbun for useful comments on the draft of this report, and to Mr. David Buist for carefully proofreading the draft. An earlier version of this report was published in “Japanese Reports for the XXth International Congress of Comparative Law (ICCLP Publications No.14)” in 2019, by the International Center for Comparative Law and Politics, Graduate School of Law and Politics, The University of Tokyo, Japan.
- 2.
CJEU, Case C-131/12 (May 13, 2014), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62012CJ0131; Official Journal of the European Union, C212, Vol. 57 (July 7, 2014), at 4–5. Regarding the long-debated issue of the territorial scope of the right of de-referencing, the CJEU finally held in Google LLC v. CNIL on September 24, 2019 that the operator of a search engine is not required to carry out a de-referencing on all versions of its search engine, but only on the versions of that search engine corresponding to all the Member States (Case C-507/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:772). On the same day, with respect to de-referencing of sensitive data, the CJEU held in GC and Others v CNIL that the prohibition or restrictions relating to the processing of special categories of personal data should be applied also to the operator of a search engine, under certain conditions (Case C-136/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:773).
- 3.
Case No. 2016 (Kyo) 45, 71 MINSHU 63 (Sup. Ct., Jan. 31, 2017). An unofficial translation of this decision in English is available at http://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=1511. For an analysis of this decision written by a research judge of the Supreme Court of Japan, see Takahara (2017).
- 4.
For a succinct overview of the post-World War II Japanese case law relating to privacy, see, e.g., Ashibe (Rev. by Takahashi) (2015) and Hasebe (2014); see also Yamaguchi (2006). The first judicial recognition of “privacy” as a private right came from a district court judgment in 1964. In the reasoning of the Tokyo District Court on Sept. 28, 1964 (“Utage-no-Ato” [After the Banquet] case), 385 HANREI JIHO 12, privacy was defined as the “legal guarantee or right that a private life shall not be unduly disclosed”. The Supreme Court judgments on Dec. 24, 1969 (Kyotofugakuren case), 23 KEISHU 1625, and on Apr. 14, 1981 (Referral of criminal record case), 35 MINSHU 620, have been later understood as recognizing privacy to be protected at the level of constitutional guarantee, but the exact term “privacy” appeared neither in the opinion of the Court in the former nor in the majority opinion of the latter. Article 13 of the Constitution of Japan provides that “[a]ll of the people shall be respected as individuals. Their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness shall, to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare, be the supreme consideration in legislation and in other governmental affairs”, http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail_main?id=174 [unofficial English translation].
- 5.
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, Vol. 59 (May 4, 2016), at 43–44.
- 6.
The OECD Guidelines were updated in 2013. See the original version in 1980, OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data (paras.7–14), http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/oecdguidelinesontheprotectionofprivacyandtransborderflowsofpersonaldata.htm.
- 7.
A tentative, unofficial English translation of this centerpiece Act of 2003 is available at, http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?id=2781&vm=04&re=01&new=1.
- 8.
Concerning a comparative analysis of the “sectoral” approach to regulate consumer data privacy in the United States, see, e.g., Solove and Schwarts (2018).
- 9.
- 10.
For example, for the public sector, Article 12 of the Act No. 58 of 2003 explicitly grants a “right” to request a disclosure of one’s personal information against the administrative organs of the Japanese national government to “anyone” regardless of one’s nationality or residency. For analysis of the possibility that this right could be used as an effective tool to check a mishandling of one’s personal information by the Japanese government even from anyone overseas, see, e.g., Yamaguchi (2014a).
- 11.
See, e.g., the judgment of the Tokyo District Court (June 27, 2007), 1978 HANREI JIHO 27. For an analysis of the legislative intent and judicial enforcement of these Articles of the centerpiece Act, see, e.g., UGA (2018).
- 12.
European Commission (2017, 2018); see Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/419 of 23 January 2019 pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequate protection of personal data by Japan under the Act on the Protection of Personal Information (Text with EEA relevance), Official Journal of the European Union, L 76, Vol. 59 (March 19, 2019), at 1–58.
- 13.
Article 709 of the Japanese Civil Code provides that “[a] person who has intentionally or negligently infringed any right of others, or legally protected interest of others, shall be liable to compensate any damages resulting in consequence.” Article 710 stipulates that “[p]ersons liable for damages under the provisions of the preceding Article must also compensate for damages other than those to property, regardless of whether the body, liberty or reputation of others have been infringed, or property rights of others have been infringed.” This unofficial English translation is available at, http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?id=2057&vm=04&re=01&new=1.
- 14.
Regarding a comparative analysis of Japanese law in terms of a distinction of civil law and common law countries, see, e.g., Beer and Ito (1996).
- 15.
For a quick overview of the post-World War II Japanese case law relating to the freedom of expression, see, e.g., Yamaguchi (2002).
- 16.
For the development of privacy law in Japan, see supranote 4.
- 17.
See the judgment of the Supreme Court on June 11, 1986 (Hoppo Journal case), 40 MINSHU 872, http://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=82 [unofficial English translation].
- 18.
This report translates “jinkaku-ken” as the “right to personality”, with the aim of conveying the nuance of the generic and elastic nature of this right, and to avoid leaving the impression that this right is exactly the same as the so-called “general right of personality” developed by German case law.
- 19.
Article 21 of the Constitution of Japan stipulates that “[f]reedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed” (paragraph 1), and that “[n]o censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated” (paragraph 2). This translation is available at the website, supra note 4. The courts may issue a “preliminary” injunction, as an “order of provisional disposition” (“kari-shobun-meirei” in Japanese) under the paragraph 2, Article 23 of “Civil Provisional Remedies Act” (Act No. 91 of 1989).
- 20.
- 21.
Kato (1989).
- 22.
Kato (1989), pp. 2630–2632.
- 23.
For an example of contentious cases in which injunctive relief was sought on the basis of the “right to personality” covering a mixture of multiple claims including defamation and privacy invasion, see the judgment of Supreme Court on Sept. 24, 2002 (“Ishi-ni-oyogu Sakana” [Fish swimming in Stone] case), 1802 HANREI JIHO 60.
- 24.
In the lengthy legislative process of the GDPR, the term “right to be forgotten” in Article 17 appeared in the European Commission’s draft on January 25, 2012, but was omitted in the European Parliament’s legislative resolution on March 12, 2014. After the CJEU ruling on May 13, 2014, this term reappeared in Trialogue negotiations, and was finally included as part of the right to erasure in Article 17 of the GDPR. The GDPR applies to EU member states from May 25, 2018.
- 25.
- 26.
- 27.
Concerning the “open justice” problem relating to preliminary injunctions, see, e.g., Shishido et al. (2015), pp. 76–77; see also Yamaguchi (2012). According to the statistics, there has been a continuing increase in Internet-related cases filed in the Tokyo District Court seeking preliminary injunctions. The number of such Internet-related cases was 607 (63.2%), out of the total number of 960 cases seeking orders of provisional disposition under the paragraph 2, Article 23 of the Civil Provisional Remedies Act (see supra note 19) in the Fiscal Year 2014, and it was 680 (64.9%) out of 1048 cases in the FY 2015. These Internet-related cases include not only motions for removal of articles, but also motions for disclosure of information to identify a sender under “Act on the Limitation of Liability for Damages of Specified Telecommunications Service Providers and the Right to Demand Disclosure of Identification Information of the Senders” (Act No. 137 of 2001; see infra note 44), etc. For detailed analysis of statistics and general trends, see Seki (2016).
- 28.
Some unpublished cases relating to the issue of search engine liability are gradually being included in electronic databases. This decision of the Tokyo District Court on Oct. 9, 2014, Case No. 2014 (Yo) 2002, is now available in D1-law.com database, ID No. 28252702.
- 29.
See, e.g., a judgment of the Tokyo District Court on Nov. 6, 2009, Case No. 2008 (Wa) 11998, available at 2009WLJPCA11068002 (claims for defamation, etc. to seek for injunctive relief and damages against Google Japan Inc.); a judgment of the Tokyo District Court on Feb. 18, 2010, Case No. 2009 (Wa) 25234, available at 2010WLJPCA02188010 (defamation claims for injunctive relief and damages against Yahoo Japan Corporation); a judgment of the Tokyo District Court on Dec. 21, 2011, Case No. 2011 (Wa) 25033, available at LEX/DB25490833 (defamation claims for damages and injunctive relief against Google Japan Inc. and Yahoo Japan Corporation); a judgment of the Kyoto District Court on Aug. 7, 2014, Case No. 2013 (Wa) 2893, available at LEX/DB25504803 (defamation and privacy infringement claims for damages and injunctive relief against Yahoo Japan Corporation). For an overview of such development of case law and self-regulatory regimes relating to obligations of search engine providers to remove search results in Japan, see, e.g., Uga (2016); Shishido et al. (2015), pp. 72–79; see also Yamaguchi (2015a), pp. 195–196.
- 30.
The decision of the Tokyo District Court on October 9, 2014 was affirmed in part and reversed in part by the decision of the same court in the proceeding of the objection on July 14, 2016 (Case No. 2015 (Mo) 53974, available at D1-law ID No. 28252703), which sustained the removal of only 3 articles which falsely indicated that the petitioner committed blackmail, out of 66 litigated articles; this was mainly because the court took into considerations that the petitioner published the relevant facts by himself. On appeal, this Tokyo District Court decision in 2016 was affirmed by the Tokyo High Court on January 12, 2017 (Case No. 2016 (La) 1295, available at D1-law ID No. 28252704), and by the Supreme Court on July 19, 2017 (Case No. 2017 (Ku) 141 & Case No. 2017 (Kyo) 2, available at D1-law ID No. 28252705).
- 31.
Case No. 2015 (Mo) 25159, 2282 HANREI JIHO 78; this Saitama District Court decision was handed down in the proceeding of the objection, and sustained the initial decision of the same court on June 25, 2015 (Case No. 2015 (Yo) 17).
- 32.
An unofficial translation of this Act is available at, http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?id=2592&vm=04&re=01&new=1. According to the fact of this district court’s decision, the petitioner had paid a fine of 500,000 yen [approximately 4500 US dollars] by a summary court’s order under summary procedure.
- 33.
Concerning the interest of not having rehabilitation hindered for those who with past criminal convictions, see the judgment of the Supreme Court on February 8, 1994 (Non-fiction “Gyakuten” [Reversal] case), 48 MINSHU 149, http://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=1300 [unofficial English translation]. In this tort case, the Supreme Court of Japan took the interest of so-called “passage of the time” into consideration, and formulated the multiple-factor balancing test to decide the availability of compensatory damage. The term “privacy” had never appeared in this judgment in 1994, but it was cited by the Supreme Court as its own privacy precedent in the judgment on March 14, 2003 (Nagara-gawa incident news-reporting case), 57 MINSHU 229, http://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=628 [unofficial English translation], etc.
- 34.
Case No. 2016 (La) 192, 71 MINSHU 82.
- 35.
See, e.g., Uga (2016), p. 31.
- 36.
Case No. 2016 (Kyo) 45, 71 MINSHU 63, 66 (Sup. Ct., Jan. 31, 2017).
- 37.
Case No. 2016 (Kyo) 45, 71 MINSHU 63, 65 (Sup. Ct., Jan. 31, 2017) (citing the judgments of the Supreme Court of Japan on Apr. 14, 1981 (Referral of criminal record case), 35 MINSHU 620; on Feb. 8, 1994 (Non-fiction “Gyakuten” [Reversal] case), 48 MINSHU 149; on Sept. 24, 2002 (“Ishi-ni-oyogu Sakana” [Fish swimming in Stone] case), 1802 HANREI JIHO 60; on Mar. 14, 2003 (Nagara-gawa incident news-reporting case), 57 MINSHU 229; and on Sept. 12, 2003 (University students list case), 57 MINSHU 973).
- 38.
71 MINSHU at 65–66. See also Takahara (2017), pp. 120–121.
- 39.
71 MINSHU at 66-67.
- 40.
See, e.g., the judgments of the Supreme Court of Japan, Feb. 8, 1994, and on Mar. 14, 2003, supra note 33. See also Takahara (2017), p. 121.
- 41.
For example, Yahoo Japan Corporation published a report of the Advisory Committee relating the search results and privacy, and a policy to respond the requests to remove the search results voluntarily on March 30, 2015, available at, https://publicpolicy.yahoo.co.jp/2015/03/3016.html [in Japanese]; see infra notes 45–48. As a subsequent development of case law, there has been a series of rulings of the lower courts which cited the balancing test by the Supreme Court decision on January 31, 2017 and dismissed the petitioner’s privacy claims for the removal of search results based on the right to personality; see, e.g., a decision of Nagoya High Court on Mar. 31, 2017, Case No. 2016 (La) 284, 2349 HANREI JIHO 28 (privacy claims against Google Inc.); a decision of Takamatsu High Court on July 21, 2017, Case No. 2017 (La) 11, 2354 HANREI JIHO 40 (privacy claims against Google Inc.); a judgment of Tokyo High Court on July 2, 2018, Case No. 2017 (Ne) 5296, available at D1-Law ID No. 28263456 (privacy claims against Yahoo Japan Corporation); see also a judgment of Tokyo High Court on Aug. 23, 2018, Case No. 2018 (Ne) 1104, 2391 HANREI JIHO 14 (citing the Supreme Court judgment on June 11, 1986 (Hoppo Journal case), 40 MINSHU 872, and the Supreme Court decision on Jan. 31, 2017, to dismiss defamation claims for removal of search results against Google LLC).
- 42.
CJEU, Case C-131/12, Official Journal of the European Union, at 5 (see supra note 2; emphasis added).
- 43.
See, e.g., Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 869-870 (1997).
- 44.
See, e.g., Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997); Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44, 51-52 (D.D.C. 1998); Garcia v. Google, 786 F.3d 733, 745-746 (9th Cir. 2015); Manchanda v. Google, No. 16-CV-3350 (JPO), 2016 WL 6806250, at ∗3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2016); see also Marshall’s Locksmith Serv. Inc. v. Google, LLC, 925 F.3d 1263, 1267-1272 (D.C. Cir. 2019); Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53, 64 (2d Cir. 2019). Regarding the issue of liability of online intermediaries in Japan, the scope of a statutory immunity for Internet service providers granted under “Act on the Limitation of Liability for Damages of Specified Telecommunications Service Providers and the Right to Demand Disclosure of Identification Information of the Senders”(see supra note 27) is much more limited, compared to the Communications Decency Act, Section 230, in the United States. Unofficial English translation of the former Act is available at, http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?id=2088&vm=04&re=01&new=1.
- 45.
See, e.g., Google France SARL (2014).
- 46.
See Google (2018).
- 47.
See, e.g., Soumusho [Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications], the Japanese Government (2015).
- 48.
Regarding the recent self-regulatory measures by the search engine operators, see e.g., Sogabe (2018).
- 49.
In Japan, it was a decision of the Supreme Court on Nov. 26, 1969 (Hakata-station TV film subpoena case), 23 KEISHU 1490, that explained the important role of news-reporting and news-gathering by mass media to serve the people’s “right to know” in democratic society.
- 50.
- 51.
See Tutt (2017).
- 52.
- 53.
- 54.
References
Ashibe N (2015) (Rev. by Takahashi K), KENPO [Constitutional Law], 6th edn., pp 119–127 [in Japanese]
Balkin JM (2015) The path of robotics law. Calif Law Rev Circuit 6:45, 46, 51–55
Balkin JM (2018) Free speech in the algorithmic society: big data, private governance, and new school speech regulation. U.C. Davis Law Rev 51:1149
Beer LW, Ito H (1996) The Constitutional Case Law in Japan, 1979 Through 1990, pp 5–6, 18–20
European Commission (2017) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: exchanging and protecting personal data in a globalised World (Brussels, Jan. 10, 2017. COM(2017) 7 final), pp 4, 8, 10, 16, https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=41157
European Commission (2018) International data flows: Commission launches the adoption of its adequacy decision on Japan (Press release)(Brussels, Sept. 5, 2018), http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-5433_en.pdf
Google (2018) “Google kara no Joho no Sakujyo” [Removal of information from Google] (Japanese language version) (2018), https://support.google.com/websearch/troubleshooter/3111061?hl=ja
Google France SARL (2014) Google’s letter on “Questionnaire addressed to Search Engines by the Article 29 Working Party regarding the implementation of the CJEU judgment on the “right to be forgotten”” (July 31, 2014), https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8syaai6SSfiT0EwRUFyOENqR3M/edit?pli=1
Greenleaf G (2012) Independence of data privacy authorities (Part II): Asia-Pacific experience. Comp Law Secur Rev 28:121, 126
Greenleaf G (2014) Asian data privacy laws: trade and human rights perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 264–265
Hamada J (2017) Joho-tsushin Seisaku no Aratana Dankai ni Mukete [Toward a new stage of information and communications policy research]. J Inf Commun Policy 1(1):3–8. [in Japanese]
Hasebe Y (2014) Privacy in the Age of Ubiquitous Computing. Percorsi Costituzionali 1:133
Igarashi K (2003) JINKAKUKEN GAISETSU [Law of personality], pp 2–13. [in Japanese]
Ishii K, Kanda T, Mori R (2015) Kensakukekka-sakujyo no Karishobunkettei no Toraekata to Kigyo wo fukumu Net-Joho no Sakujyogimu [Understanding of Preliminary Injunction to Remove the Search Results and Practice of the Removal of Information on the Net including Company Practice]. NBL 1044:7–22. [in Japanese]
Kanda T (2015) NET KENSAKU GA KOWAI [Frightend by the net search], pp 43–54. [in Japanese]
Kato K (1989) Saikosaibansho Hanrei Kaisetsu [Sup. Ct. Case Review] (Sup. Ct., June 11, 1986). HOSO JIHO 41:2621, 2632. [in Japanese]
Kimura M (2018) AI to Keiyaku [AI and Contract]. In: Yanaga M, Shishido G (eds) ROBOT, AI TO HO [The laws of robots and artificial intelligence], pp 157–158. [in Japanese]
Nishigaki T (2016) BIG DATA TO JINKO CHINO [Big data and artificial intelligence], pp 153–161. [in Japanese]
Recent Cases, 130 HARV. L. REV. 1530 (2017)
Scherer MU (2016) Regulating artificial intelligence systems: risks, challenges, competencies, and strategies. Harv J Law Technol 29:353, 356–357, 397–398
Seki N (2016) Heisei 27 Nendo no Tokyo Chiho Sibansho Minji dai 9 bu ni okeru Minjihozenjiken no Gaikyo [General Trends in Cases for Civil Provisional Remedies in Subdivision No. 9, Civil Division, the Tokyo District Court]. KINYU HOUMU JIJO 2044:30, 31–32, 34–35. [in Japanese]
Shishido G, Monguchi M, Yamaguchi I (2015) Internet ni okeru Hyogen no Jiyu to Privacy: Kensaku Engine wo Chushin toshite, [The Freedom of Expression and Privacy: With a Focus on the Search Engines]. JURIST 1483:ii–v, 68–80. [in Japanese]
Sogabe M (2018) “Internet jono Johoryutsu no Kiban” toshite no Kensaku-service [Search Service as “Infrastructure of Distribution of information on the Internet”]. Q Jurist 25:51–53. [in Japanese]
Solove DJ, Schwarts PM (2018) Information privacy law, 6th edn., pp 786–792
Soumusho [Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications], the Japanese Government (July 17, 2015) Houkokusho: Internet jo no kojinjoho riyoushajohotou no ryutsu heno taiou ni tsuite [Report: Concerning the Measures for Distribution of Personal Information and Users Information on the Internet], http://www.soumu.go.jp/menu_news/s-news/01kiban08_02000184.html [in Japanese]
Takahara T (2017) Saiko-sai Toki no Hanrei [Recent Cases of the Supreme Court]. Jurist 1507:119. [in Japanese]
Tutt A (2017) An FDA for algorithms. Adm Law Rev 69:83, 92–94
U.K. Parliament, House of Commons, Science & Technology Committee (Oct. 2016) Robotics and artificial intelligence, pp 16–26, https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmsctech/145/145.pdf
U.S. Executive Office of the President, National Science & Technology Council (Oct. 2016) Preparing for the future of artificial intelligence, pp 1–4, 13–14, 30, 37–38, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/whitehouse_files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/preparing_for_the_future_of_ai.pdf
Uchida T (2008) MINPO I [Civil Law I], 4th edn., pp 24–26. [in Japanese]
Uga K (2016) “Wasurerareru-kenri” nitsuite [Concerning the “Right to be Forgotten”]. Q Jurist 18:24–33. [in Japanese]
Uga K (2018) KOJINJOHOHOGO NO CHIKUJO KAISETSU [Commentary of personal information protection laws], 6th edn., pp 204–223. [in Japanese]
Yamaguchi I (2002) Beyond De Facto freedom: digital transformation of free speech theory in Japan. Stanf J Int Law 38:109, 114–119
Yamaguchi I (2006) Mass media and privacy in Japan: current issues, recent trends, and future challenges toward the “Ubiquitous Network Society”. J Korea Inf Law 10(1):171–181
Yamaguchi I (2012) Net Jidai no Meiyo Kison, Privacy Shingai to “Jizen Yokusei”: Hoppo Journal Jiken Hanketsu [Defamation, Privacy Invasion, and “Prior Restraint” in the Age of the Net: Hoppo Journal Case Judgment]. Q Jurist 1:50–58. [in Japanese]
Yamaguchi I (2014a) The checking value in “Information Privacy” concept: what lesson can be drawn from Japanese Law’s Eclectic approach in-between the U.S. and EU law in the smart media and IT environment?. Paper presented at the 9th World Congress of the International Association of Constitutional Law, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, June 19, 2014
Yamaguchi I (2014b) Protecting privacy against emerging “Smart” big data surveillance: what can be learned from Japanese Law? PERCORSI COSTITUZIONALI 1:193
Yamaguchi I (2015a) EU Ho ni okeru “Wasurerareru Kenri” to Kensaku Engine Jigyosha no Kojin Data Sakujyo Gimu (CJEU, Preliminary Ruling in Google Spain SL Case, May 13, 2014) [“Right to be Forgotten” in EU Law and the Search Engine Operators’ Obligation to Remove Personal Data]. In: Horibe M (ed) JOHOTSUSHIN HOSEI NO RONTEN BUNSEKI [Analysys of the Issues of information communication laws], Special Issue of NBL, No. 153, pp 181–196. [in Japanese]
Yamaguchi I (2015b) Internet ni okeru Hyogen no Jiyu [Freedom of Expression on the Internet]. In: Matsui S, Suzuki H, Yamaguchi I (eds) INTERNET HO [Intenet Law], pp 25–52. [in Japanese]
Yamaguchi I (2018a) Hyogen no Jiyu to Chosakuken: AI Jidai no “User Rights” Gainen to sono Check Kino [Freedom of speech and copyright: a concept of “User Rights” and its checking function in the age of AI]. Q Jurist 25:61. [in Japanese]
Yamaguchi I (2018b) Free speech, National Security, and privacy under stress of algorithmic surveillance: a comparative study of Japan and the United States. Paper presented at the 10th World Congress of the International Association of Constitutional Law, SungKyunKwan University, Seoul, South Korea, June 19, 2018
Yamaguchi I (2018c) Kokka Anzenhosho niokeru Algorithm niyoru Kanshi: Kenpo jo no Genron no Jiyu, Privacy to Platform Jigyosha no Yakuwari [Algorithmic Surveillance in National Security: Constitutional Free Speech and Privacy, and the Role of Platform Business Operators]. KENPO KENKYU 3:47. [in Japanese]
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Yamaguchi, I. (2020). A Japanese Equivalent of the “Right to Be Forgotten”: Unveiling Judicial Proactiveness to Curb Algorithmic Determinism. In: Werro, F. (eds) The Right To Be Forgotten. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 40. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33512-0_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33512-0_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33511-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33512-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)