Thinking about freedom of speech, personal information protection, human rights, dignity, and privacy through the privacy of the deceased

Karuizawa bus accident

It was a very tragic incident.

In this case, many media outlets published photos of the victim's face and social relationships. It seems that many people have concerns about privacy. For example, this article from the Asahi Shimbun记事

Toshihisa Sasaki's response to记事

The following are some representative examples.

Screen Shot at 2016 01-20-00.00.11 — [Figure 1] Toshinao Sasaki Twitter.. https://twitter.com/sasakitoshinao/status/688556116226121728

For better or worse, this incident appears to have caused many people to rethink their privacy.

Privacy of the deceased The issue is a good topic that highlights the difference between complying with the Personal Information Protection Law and protecting privacy, and the gap between human rights and privacy. At the same time, a situation like this, where stories of victims are increasingly being reported, is also a good opportunity to reconsider the relationship between "freedom of speech" and "privacy" as the media calls it.

Table of Contents

The conflict between "freedom of speech" and "privacy"

When such an incident occurs, media outlets rush to gather information from various sources and a "reporting" battle ensues. This may be because it is content that attracts high ratings. However, to what extent do media outlets consider the possibility that their reporting may violate privacy? They may talk about freedom of speech and the right to know, but aren't these things aimed at the three powers of law? In this case, the victim is essentially a private citizen. What public interest could justify the media's violation of that privacy? Have the media considered this? I would like to hear their views.

Various rights often interfere with each other, so a balance must be struck while taking into consideration various factors. If it is for news purposes, then anything should not be permitted, but since it is often reported as an "absolute right," I think we should be careful about that.Document

⁴

According to Attorney Mimura, "even if the poster's permission cannot be obtained, the use of videos and images posted on video sharing sites and social media is fully permitted if the use is for news reporting," and "similarly, photographs of faces posted on social media can be used without permission if the purpose is news reporting" (Mimura), so the gap is surprisingly deep. This is an issue that needs to be thoroughly discussed, and from the perspective of the idea that rights should be structured to protect those in a weaker position, it would seem that "private privacy rights" should be prioritized over "freedom of the press," but since no one wants to antagonize the fourth power, it seems that there are few people who are willing to confront this issue with sound arguments, which is a major problem.

"I was killed yesterday, but the humiliation that followed was even worse." https://t.co/TuxhJQvUnH #Privacy of the deceased
— Nat Sakimura (@_nat) March 14, 2016

Privacy and human rights of the dead

The Personal Information Protection Act protects information about living individuals. Therefore, data about deceased people is not protected. However, this does not mean that the data of deceased people should not be protected. The "privacy of the deceased" is an issue that has come to the forefront in recent years.

The privacy of the dead is difficult because it brings us back to the question, "Who is this for?"

⁵

However, since the dead also have dignity, the first priority would be the person themselves. However, when you think about it, it turns out that it is surprisingly difficult to derive privacy solely from human rights. After all, the dead do not have human rights. "Rather than the framework of 'rights,' we need to define a kind of fundamental existence that deserves 'respect.'"

⁶

It may be.

On the other hand, there is also a way to avoid this problem and solve it in a pseudo-way. For example, the corpse mutilation model seems to have legal interests such as the rights of the surviving family and not interfering with the possibility of verification by the police, so this is similar to this and tries to solve it as the rights of the surviving family. However, there is a possibility that the surviving family may violate the law, and if there are no surviving family members, this method cannot be used.

I believe that the right to privacy is the right to enjoy happiness by building the relationships one desires, by being seen as one would like to be seen (self-perception) and by being seen by others (other-perception) (see [Figure 2]). Naturally, even after death, a person will have ideas about how they would like to be seen. However, if one were to make everything public on the grounds that personal information is no longer protected after death, the relationships that were intended during one's lifetime would be destroyed.

Self-view, Other-view, and Privacy — [Figure 2] Self-view, other-view, and privacy

Third parties who see this may feel anxious and unhappy when they realize that the relationship they built during their lifetime will be destroyed when they die. One challenge is to protect this as a legal interest, and to make it a matter of human rights. #Privacy of the deceased I wonder if we can bring out that in people.

Another way would be to draw analogies from why wills are recognized. I would like to ask legal scholars to consider the above points and other similar points.　#Privacy of the deceased I'd like you to think about the problem for a moment.

Psychology and privacy

Regarding privacy, regardless of whether or not someone has died, I would love to hear from psychologists about the impact of maintaining relationships on a person's happiness. As I mentioned above, privacy is strongly related to maintaining relationships, but in order to draw protection for privacy from human rights regulations, the correlation between building and maintaining relationships and happiness must be made clear.

When we talk about privacy in Japan, it often becomes a matter of law. However, law is one of the techniques for realizing "something." First, we must clarify what it is that we are trying to protect. If we are to derive protection of personal information or privacy from the right to pursue happiness in Article 1 of the Constitution, we must clarify why protecting personal information is related to the pursuit of happiness, and why maintaining desired relationships is related to the pursuit of happiness. This is probably in the realm of psychology. I feel that in order to deepen the discussion of privacy, a much more interdisciplinary approach than we have now is required.

(postscript)

2017/11/14 7:33 AM