|
Since March 11, 2011 it has been frequently
reported that YouTube videos containing footage or
comments unfavorable to Tepco or the Japanese goverment
have been removed within several hours of their posting.
Examples of offending YouTube videos include excerpts of
TV shows with controversial comments, footage showing
smoke emitted from the nuclear reactors, an ex-Tepco
employee speaking on his Fukushima experiences etc.
Also, "agents" would show up in engineers-only internet
forums, and interrupt with completely off-base
pro-nuclear politically motivated comments. Likewise,
Twitter accounts with too much content regarding nuclear
power and radiation issues have been disrupted.
More recently, "The Computer Network Monitoring Law" was
passed by the Japanese Parliament on June 17 2011
http://www.moj.go.jp/keiji1/keiji12_00025.html
This law make it possible for police to
obligate internet servers to store someone's
communication for three months for monitoring purposes
without obtaining a court warrant. Prof. Ibusuki of
Seijo Univ. Law Dept. comments that "The Computer
Network Monitoring Law" will enable the police to
monitor anyone's internet activity without restriction.
Although the above law is large in scope and appears on
the surface to be beneficial, i.e., targeted at
addressing cyber-attacks in general, some Japanese
commentators are suggesting that the law is
un-Constitutional, and at the very least the potential
for abuse is high, as the following makes clear.
Last Friday, July 15, the Ministry of Industry and Trade
(METI), Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, opened
a call for bids (tender) regarding the "Nuclear Power
Safety Regulation Publicity Project", for contractors to
monitor blogs and tweets posted about nuclear power and
radiation.
METI's procedures on bidding:
http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/info/tender/tenddata/1106/110624b/110624b.htm
Bottom of above webpage has links to pdf documents that
pertain to the conditions and responsibilities for the
Contractors.
In particular,
http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/info/tender/tenddata/1106/110624b/3.pdf
outlines the tasks that the Contractor will be expected to
perform.
Translated Summary:
The Contractor is required to monitor blogs on nuclear
power and radiation issues as well as Twitter accounts
(monitoring tweets is essential) around the clock, and
conduct research and analysis on incorrect and
inappropriate information that would lead to false
rumors, and to report such internet accounts to the
Agency.
When the Contractor becomes aware of such incorrect and
inappropriate information, it is required to publish
correct information in Q&A form on the website and
Twitter account of the Agency, after consulting with
experts and engineers if necessary. The Agency is to be
notified of ANY consultant experts and engineers in
advance.
The Contractor is required to keep the Agency well
informed on the internet accounts and keywords used in
the blogs and Twitter accounts that are posting
incorrect and inappropriate information. The Contractor
is required to maintain sufficient number of personnel
for around-the-clock monitoring. The Contractor is
required to submit report on internet accounts via CD-R.
The Contractor is expected to perform its duties from the
date of signing until March 30, 2012.
*Commentary:
Doctor Onoda who used to work in the Fukushima nuclear
plant and has lots of good information on his blog
http://onodekita.com/, gave the following estimates:
10 staff members (2000 yen/hour) x 24 hours x 210 days (7
months from August 1) = 100 million yen. Supervisors
will be paid much more and adding computer related costs
and other operational costs, the whole project will add
up to over 300 million yen. Dr. Onoda is sure that his
blog will be blacklisted soon.
* Additional commentary
Note that
http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/info/tender/tenddata/1106/110624b/3.pdf
which spells out the tasks to be performed by the
Contractor, does not state that blogs or Twitter
accounts which run afoul of METI's guidelines are to be
banned or frozen. The question is, will METI draw the
line at "clarifying" erroneous information, or in the
future, will it act to clamp down and suppress sources
of information that it finds inconvenient.
|