August 31, 2016
The National Police Agency issued a notification which allows police to secretly videotape citizens without a warrant, Akahata reported on August 31.
According to Akahata, the notice was issued on August 26. That is the same day the Oita Prefectural Police published an investigation report and issued an “apology” for the incident in which several police officers secretly taped people going in and out of the building which housed local civic organizations supporting a joint opposition candidate in the July Upper House election.
The notice does not express any regret for the secret recording in Oita while stating that it “damaged the public trust” when it was revealed that police officers placed a camera in the compound without the owner’s permission.
The notification stresses that video recordings are permitted as an “investigation on a non-compulsory basis” as long as it is conducted within “necessary limits” and in a “proper manner”. This claim arises from the NPA’s fundamental belief that secret filming without a court warrant will be approved if the police need to do so.
The official document imposes no restrictions on where or how long the police will be allowed to record the activities of targets. It also fails to describe how the recorded video will be used and what protective measures will be in place for those who are videotaped despite having nothing to do with any crime. The agency’s stance is tantamount to leaving any action to be permissible based on police judgment.
Regarding the NPA notice, lawyer Noro Kei, a member of the defense counsel for plaintiffs in the lawsuit over the Self-Defense Forces intelligence security unit monitoring ordinary citizens, noted, “Even for the purpose of police investigations, videotaping using a surveillance camera should be legally restricted as it would likely infringe on innocent people’s privacy.”
The lawyer referred to a Supreme Court precedent that allowed the police to film targets only if the authorities need to obtain evidence to stop an ongoing crime. “The NPA notification is deemed illegal because it does not assume the need to identify a flagrant offense and approves recorded surveillance without restriction. By following this notice, invasion of privacy will be unavoidable,” he said.
Past related article:
> JCP protests against secret filming of people by Oita police [August 10, 2016]
According to Akahata, the notice was issued on August 26. That is the same day the Oita Prefectural Police published an investigation report and issued an “apology” for the incident in which several police officers secretly taped people going in and out of the building which housed local civic organizations supporting a joint opposition candidate in the July Upper House election.
The notice does not express any regret for the secret recording in Oita while stating that it “damaged the public trust” when it was revealed that police officers placed a camera in the compound without the owner’s permission.
The notification stresses that video recordings are permitted as an “investigation on a non-compulsory basis” as long as it is conducted within “necessary limits” and in a “proper manner”. This claim arises from the NPA’s fundamental belief that secret filming without a court warrant will be approved if the police need to do so.
The official document imposes no restrictions on where or how long the police will be allowed to record the activities of targets. It also fails to describe how the recorded video will be used and what protective measures will be in place for those who are videotaped despite having nothing to do with any crime. The agency’s stance is tantamount to leaving any action to be permissible based on police judgment.
Regarding the NPA notice, lawyer Noro Kei, a member of the defense counsel for plaintiffs in the lawsuit over the Self-Defense Forces intelligence security unit monitoring ordinary citizens, noted, “Even for the purpose of police investigations, videotaping using a surveillance camera should be legally restricted as it would likely infringe on innocent people’s privacy.”
The lawyer referred to a Supreme Court precedent that allowed the police to film targets only if the authorities need to obtain evidence to stop an ongoing crime. “The NPA notification is deemed illegal because it does not assume the need to identify a flagrant offense and approves recorded surveillance without restriction. By following this notice, invasion of privacy will be unavoidable,” he said.
Past related article:
> JCP protests against secret filming of people by Oita police [August 10, 2016]
