From the Perspective of the Right to Communication Movement (Calling for Endorsements from Organizations and Individuals)
Signature Deadline: July 13
We are seeking signatures of endorsement from organizations and individuals who support the statement below. Please fill out the form below. At a later date, only your names will be published on this page.
https://pilot.jca.apc.org/nextcloud/index.php/apps/forms/s/kbJDrm62AtE6wijCGyxZCr82
For the reasons outlined below, we oppose the amendment bill to the Personal Information Protection Act (hereinafter referred to simply as the Amendment Bill) currently under deliberation in the Diet.
The intent of this Amendment Bill lies in the provision that “consent from the individual is not required for the provision of personal data, etc., to third parties, or for the acquisition of publicly available sensitive personal information, when such data is used solely for the creation of statistical information, etc.” The direction of this bill—which eliminates the requirement for “consent from the individual”—is a first step toward further eroding the safeguards that are currently barely in place, and we must remain vigilant. JCA-NET opposes this provision, which, far from protecting personal information, instead actively contributes to undermining privacy protection itself.
To begin with, the Personal Information Protection Act does not recognize the right to possess one’s own personal information (hereinafter referred to as “one’s own information”) as a fundamental human right. The right to possess one’s own information is an inviolable fundamental right held by each of us as the rightful owners of that information. The Personal Information Protection Act, while ostensibly promoting the protection of personal information, also serves as a law intended to introduce a legal framework that favors the use and exploitation of such information by third parties other than the individual concerned. This Amendment Bill aims to promote such third-party use and exploitation, thereby infringing upon our fundamental human right to personal information.
Human beings are creatures who live through communication with others. Therefore, personal information—which forms the basis of communication and serves as the information we use to determine for ourselves “who we are”—should be recognized as a fundamental human right. The right to one’s own information is a universal right that cuts across all Constitutional provisions relating to fundamental human rights; it is a right that cannot be taken away or infringed upon. In other words, one’s own information should be understood as an inviolable, perpetual right—not only in the present but also in the future. The use of such information without the individual’s consent, as intended by the Amendment Bill, violates this principle regardless of whether safeguards are in place.
In today’s commercial investments and government policies, where analysis using big data and AI is becoming dominant, the vast amounts of data collected without requiring consent become a mechanism for arbitrarily defining who a person is, regardless of their own will. As a result, individuals are incorporated into classification and discrimination systems against their will, and the personal information that rightfully belongs to them is effectively taken away. For example, various types of information—such as name, gender, age, nationality, address, and medical information—all belong to the individual; yet, based on these, a construct of who one is can be formed independently of one’s will, sometimes to one’s disadvantage or in violation of one’s rights. Such information has the potential to misrepresent one’s identity, and the disadvantages of allowing its use without consent are clear.
Contrary to the bill, we argue that “consent from the individual” must be made more effective than ever before for all personal information held by the government and the private sector. The current personal information protection system relies solely on verbal regulations through various documents—such as complex and convoluted laws, regulations, and guidelines—and as a result, “consent from the individual” itself has become a mere formality. To make “consent” effective, it is necessary to place checks on the use of personal information by the government and the private sector not only through legislation but also through technological means. For example, it is essential to develop a variety of privacy technologies—ranging from those already in practical use to those still to be developed—such as requiring the government and private companies to hold only encrypted personal information, which can only be accessed by decrypting it with a decryption key held solely by the individual. A technology policy that neglects or restricts advancements in these areas—while solely promoting the development of technologies for the bulk collection and utilization of personal information—is itself a policy that infringes on human rights, and a fundamental shift away from such policies is essential.
It is clear that under this proposed Amendment Bill, Japan’s Personal Information Protection Act will no longer satisfy the EU’s GDPR “adequacy determination.” We also fear that this Amendment Bill will act as external pressure to render the EU’s GDPR as ineffective as Japan’s own laws. Amid the fierce global struggle over personal information—between its free use and human rights—we wish to express deep concern and sound the alarm that this Amendment Bill risks contributing to the trend of legalizing the current efforts to weaken the GDPR, which is currently under deliberation, as well as human rights violations worldwide.
June 28, 2026
Related Information (in Japanese)
https://jca.apc.org/jca-netの取り組み/個人情報保護法改正案反対関連情報/
This English text is a machine translation (DeepL) that has been proofread. The Japanese statement is the official version.