2.2.1 - Definition of personal information2.2.2 - Definition of personal data2.2.3 - Definition of retained personal data2.2.4 - Definition of anonymously processed personal information2.2.5 - Definition of Personal Information Handling Business Operator (PIHBO)2.2.6 - Concepts of controller and processor2.2.7 - Sectoral exclusions
2.3.1 - Purpose limitation2.3.2. - Lawfulness and fairness of processing2.3.3. - Data accuracy and minimisation2.3.4. - Storage limitation2.3.5. - Data security2.3.6. - Transparency2.3.7. - Special categories of data2.3.8. - Accountability2.3.9. - Restrictions on onward transfers2.3.10. - Individual rights
3.1 - General legal framework3.2 - Access and use by Japanese public authorities for criminal law enforcement purposes3.2.1 - Legal basis and applicable limitations/safeguards3.2.1.1 - Compulsory investigation based on a court warrant3.2.1.2 - Request for voluntary disclosure based on an "enquiry sheet"3.2.1.3 - Further use of the information collected3.2.2 - Independent oversight3.2.3 - Individual redress3.3 - Access and use by Japanese public authorities for national security purposes3.3.1 - Legal basis and applicable limitations/safeguards
3.3.2 - Independent oversight
3.3.3 - Individual redress
(9)
On 30 May 2003, Japan enacted a series of laws in the area of data protection:
—
The Act on the Protection of Personal Information (APPI);
—
The Act on the Protection of Personal Information Held by Administrative Organs (APPIHAO);
—
The Act on the Protection of Personal Information Held by Incorporated Administrative Agencies (APPI-IAA).
(32)
Concerning its personal scope, the APPI applies only to PIHBOs. A PIHBO is defined in Article 2(5) of the APPI as "a person providing a personal information database etc. for use in business", with the exclusion of the government and administrative agencies at both central and local level.
(37)
The relevant categories for the sectoral exclusion in Article 76 of the APPI are defined by using a double criterion based on the type of PIHBO processing the personal information and the purpose of processing. More specifically, the exclusion applies to: (i) broadcasting institutions, newspaper publishers, communication agencies or other press organisations (including any individuals carrying out press activities as their business) to the extent they process personal information for press purposes; (ii) persons engaged in professional writing, to the extent this involves personal information; (iii) universities and any other organisations or groups aimed at academic studies, or any person belonging to such an organisation, to the extent they process personal information for the purpose of academic studies; (iv) religious bodies to the extent they process personal information for purposes of religious activity (including all related activities); and (v) political bodies to the extent they process personal information for the purposes of their political activity (including all related activities). Processing of personal information for one of the purposes listed in Article 76 by other types of PIHBOs as well as processing of personal information by one of the listed PIHBOs for other purposes, for instance in the employment context, remain covered by the provisions of Chapter IV.
(134)
Second, according to Article 62 of the Constitution, each House of the Japanese parliament (the Diet) may conduct investigations in relation to the government, including with respect to the lawfulness of information collection by the police. To that end, it may demand the presence and testimony of witnesses, and/or the production of records. Those powers of inquiry are further specified in the Diet Law, in particular Chapter XII. In particular, Article 104 of the Diet Law provides that the Cabinet, public agencies and other parts of the government "must comply with the requests of a House or any of its Committees for the production of reports and records necessary for consideration of investigation." Refusal to comply is allowed only if the government provides a plausible reason found acceptable by the Diet, or upon issuance of a formal declaration that the production of the reports or records would be "gravely detrimental to the national interest" (106). In addition, Diet members may ask written questions to the Cabinet (Articles 74, 75 of the Diet Law), and in the past such "written inquiries" have also addressed the handling of personal information by the administration (107). The Diet's role in supervising the executive is supported by reporting obligations, for instance pursuant to Article 29 of the Wiretapping Act.
