perspective on privacy, information technology and company/governmental surveillance in japan

7/27/2019 Perspective on Privacy, Information Technology and Company/Governmental Surveillance in Japan

1/13


2/13

Luther and Radovic: Perspectives on Privacy, Information Technology and Company/GovernmentalSurveillance in Japan

Surveillance & Society 10(3/4) 264

In order to offer an understanding of the studys main objective, this paper first provides an overview of the literature related to Western versus Eastern perspectives regarding the concept of privacy andhighlights the assumption made by some scholars that privacy is not a major concern among the Japanesedue to their cultural philosophies. It then introduces this studys central assertion that because of thedecrease in privacy due to the increased usage of sophisticated surveillance technology by governmentsand companies, a shift in attitudes might be taking place in Japan regarding privacy issues. This is

followed by a presentation of the specific research questions that guided the study and a description of thefocus groups and interviews that were conducted with Japanese participants as a means to shed light onthe questions. Garnered insights are then presented and discussed.

East Versus West on the Concept of PrivacyIn his influential book on privacy, Alan Westin defined privacy as the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them iscommunicated to others (1967: 7). This definition has since been adopted and broadened to argue thatindividuals should have reasonable expectations of having the ability to express ideas, make decisions,and carry out actions without intrusion by others, especially those in authority positions. It comes from theWestern perspective where autonomy of the individual is stressed and stems from the concept of individualism where notions of individual freedom, pursuit of happiness, and an open, but limited

governing system are valued (Lipset 1990; Curry and Valois 1999).

The word privacy was introduced into the Japanese lexicon in its katana rendering puraibashii duringthe 1950s and did not see widespread usage until the 1960s when the word gained public recognition dueto an invasion of privacy lawsuit that was brought against well-known author Yukio Mishima (Horibe1992). Although it is currently used in everyday language, the intrinsic meaning that the word holds for ordinary Japanese citizens is still a murky area of knowledge. Scholars have tended to present culturally

based theoretical arguments that privacy does not have a similar denotation in Japan as it does in Westernsocieties. In contrast to Western thoughts on individual privacy that have evolved from influentialEuropean philosophers such as Rene Descartes and Immanuel Kant who made individual reasoning of central import, in the East, Buddhism and Confucianism are said to have played primary roles in shapingideas on individual privacy.

In the Buddhist tradition, individual privacy is tied to egotism and is thus viewed as something that needsto be curtailed or even eradicated (Ess 2005; Kitiyadisai 2005). According to Kitiyadisai, in Buddhism,

[H]uman beings have no rights in the sense that we are not born with automaticallyendowed human rights such as privacy rights and protection. The Buddhist precautionreflects the fact that manmade rules and laws would inevitably be in conflict withinthemselves as these are created to serve human avarice.

(2005: 19)

In Confucianism, the dissolution of self is not espoused, but rather the idea of maintaining the self withinthe hierarchical structure of the group. Whereas in the West individualism is emphasized and people are

defined by who they are as individuals, in the Eastern Confucian-inspired philosophy people areunderstood in terms of how they fit in with the group and the roles they play within the group. Under thiscollectivistic orientation, individual needs are subordinate to group needs and deference toward authorityfigures is valued (Hofstede 2001; Yamaguchi 1992). Individual privacy is thus viewed as something thatis inconsequential.

Japan has been influenced by both Buddhism and Confucianism. The Buddhist teaching of self-denial andthe Confucian philosophy that stresses social hierarchy and stipulates individuals should make decisionsand carry out actions for the good of the group have been found to be traditionally embraced in Japanese


3/13



society. In Japan, social relationships are held up to be of utmost importance and group dependency isnurtured. Researchers (Capurro 2005) examining privacy issues have used these understandings of theConfucian roots of Japanese culture to argue that individual privacy is not a significant concern inJapanese society. If the Self is to be denied in Japanese society, then the notion of protecting the Self against intrusion by others becomes nonsense (Capurro 2005).

Hiramatsu (1993) asserts that the Japanese lack of concern with privacy emanates from the tradition of rice cultivation in Japan, where for many centuries people had to rely on the community for their ownlivelihood. Mizutani, Dorsey and Moor (2004) argue that because of the close proximity to others inwhich the Japanese have traditionally lived, with only thin walls and doors separating individuals, anaccepted understanding has been nurtured that what is overheard or learned of others is not to beacknowledged or repeated. They bring in the concept of restraint or enryo to further explain thisunderstanding. In Japanese society, enryo has a major place in Japanese relations. It entails the traditionalJapanese value of showing reservation toward intruding on another persons space or imposing on other

peoples goodness. Demonstrating enryo is a sign of deference toward others. Thus, with thisdowngrading of individual privacy, the creation of legislation in Japan to protect privacy is thought tohave been brought about due to external influences, more specially, Western influences (Ess 2005; Oritoand Murata 2005). As Orito and Murata write, Japanese culture makes it difficult for ordinary Japanese

individuals to understand how and why they should protect privacy beyond what the law requires.Therefore, Japanese privacy protection seems to be merely superficial (2005: 8).

It is asserted in this study, however, that this assumption needs to be further explored, especially given theincreasing capabilities and encroachment of new technologies that allow more careful and unobtrusivemonitoring of individual thoughts and behaviors. Perhaps with the recent usage of surveillancetechnology, even those coming from an Eastern philosophy of Self as secondary to group, such as theJapanese, are expressing thoughts on privacy that are counter to this cultural expectation. A review of theliterature on how new technology has been increasingly used to observe and track individuals buttressesthis argument that the extent to which governments and companies can monitor the lives of individualsmight be shaping a change in attitudes toward privacy even among those coming from an Eastern culture.

Technological Surveillance and Individual AttitudesSeveral researchers have focused on the rise of surveillance in the United States by both privatecorporations and the government. For example, surveying 103 organizations, Hoffman, Hartman andRowe (2003) found that nine out of ten companies in the United States check their employees e-mail andinternet activities. The majority of those are monitoring on a consistent basis and say that such monitoringis not based on necessity or suspicion. This practice of monitoring in the workplace has especially been onthe rise since the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States (Allen, Coopman, Hart and Walker 2007). The2007 American Management Associations (AMA) survey of 304 companies shows that since 2001, thenumber of companies that use software to block employee access to certain websites has increased by 27

per cent (American Management Association 2007).

Due to concerns for security, litigation and productivity risks, many American companies now also

monitor employees telephone and voice-mail use, and use video surveillance to counter theft and GPStechnology to track employee movement (American Management Association 2007; Riedy and Wen2010). New sophisticated products, such as Metron MBA, provide managers even with graphicalrepresentations of communication patterns in their organizations by tracking who is talking to whom and

by which means. The product enables employers to identify key people in the company and also to track anomalous employee behavior (eTelemetry 2007). According to AMA (2007), one fourth of employershave fired workers for misusing e-mail and nearly one third have fired employees for misusing theinternet.


4/13



Some of the early research on employee monitoring in the United States showed that monitoring in theworkplace did raise workers concerns for erosion of their privacy (Botan 1996). Performing a secondaryanalysis of a dataset from 1990, Botan and Vorvoreanu (2005) reported that many employees expressedanger about surveillance, thinking that it was unproductive and unnecessary and that it violated their

privacy rights. The employees believed that such monitoring reduced their loyalty to their organization,increased stress at work, and reduced enthusiasm about even going to work (Botan and Vorvoreanu 2005).

More recent surveys, however, suggest employees in the United States are becoming more accustomed toemployer surveillance. Surveying 53 employees from several organizations, Stanton and Weiss found thatonly a minority of those who were monitored found the monitoring negative in some way. Some of themactually appreciated it as they could show their employers that they were performing good work andreported receiving a sense of security due to video cameras (2000: 434). Zirkle and Staples (2005)interviewed current and former employees of Funtime Toys about the companys video surveillance of employees and found that the majority of the employees did not think of it as a deterrent, believing thatthe company did not use the footage except in the cases of theft. In another study, Allen, Coopman, Hart,and Walker (2007) found that 85 per cent of the 154 employees they interviewed either echoed their organizations justifications for the use of surveillance or thought it was acceptable. Only 17 directlymentioned privacy invasion.

DUrso (2006) writes that employee monitoring has become a part of todays American organizationallandscape and that society in general has accepted it. Nevertheless, resistance to employee monitoring stillremains. Workers consider inappropriate the installation of monitoring devices in restrooms and break rooms (Zirkle and Staples 2005). In addition, they consider that boundaries should exist, with care takennot to use technology in an inappropriate manner, such as using it to monitor employees for purposes of

building legal cases against select employees (Allen, Coopman, Hart and Walker 2007).

Employee monitoring has been made easier on American companies as there are no federal or state laws prohibiting companies from monitoring their employees (Riedy and Wen 2010). With the U.S. PATRIOTAct of 2001, federal legislation with a national security focus has further expanded the ability of employers to electronically monitor the workplace. It has allowed employers to grant law enforcement

permission to intercept communications on the employers computer systems (King 2003).

The PATRIOT Act has also greatly increased the governments ability to conduct surveillance byallowing it to monitor electronic communication of citizens without warrant or cause in cases to protectlife and limb (DUrso 2006; King 2003). Ventura, Miller and Deflem (2005) note that the Federal Bureauof Investigations intrusive web-based technology, Carnivore , has allowed the bureau to wiretapcomputers of individuals and access data at a pace that does not allow consideration of protection of individual liberty and privacy.

The type of company and governmental monitoring that has taken place in the United States has also taken place in Japan. In fact, Japanese companies are the leaders in creating innovative surveillance technologyand implementation (Murakami Wood, Lyon and Abe 2007). Surveillance of individuals has been on the

increase in Japan. Unbeknownst to many in the public, cameras and sensors have been placed at key areasof public spaces including widely used streets, train stations, and shopping malls (Abe 2004). Post 9/11,

biometric surveillance systems have also been placed at Japans international airports by the Japanesegovernment.

Similar to what has occurred among U.S. companies, Japanese company surveillance of employees hasalso become more commonplace, with companies installing electronic monitoring systems, includingvideo cameras, to allow them to track employee phone calls, e-mail, internet activities, and movements.Following the United States lead in its fight against terrorism, the Japanese government has also


5/13



implemented technology-driven measures to monitor individuals living in Japan (Abe 2006). Governmentsectors can now more easily collect personal information of individuals living in Japan, and integrate thecollected data with data collected by private corporations to create comprehensive profiles (MurakamiWood, Lyon and Abe 2007).

Much of the governmental and company actions have taken place without any public debate (Murakami

Wood, Lyon and Abe 2007). Could such a lack of debate be due to apathy brought forth because of cultural reasons? Research (e.g, Abe 2009; Mizutani, Dorsey and Moor 2004; Nakada and Tamura 2005;Orito and Murata 2008) on how the Japanese public has reacted to usage of new technology to monitor communication and behaviors have tended to remain at the theoretical level and have concentrated onunderlying cultural reasons, with little focus on examining the actual thoughts of the Japanese. This studyhoped to begin to tap into the current perspectives that the Japanese have regarding privacy and companyand governmental monitoring by giving voice to the Japanese through in-depth interviews and focusgroups.

The questions that guided this study were as follows:

RQ1: How do the Japanese define privacy?

RQ2: Is the ability of corporations to electronically monitor the communication and behaviors of their employees a major concern for the Japanese?RQ3: Is the ability of the Japanese government to collect private information and monitor the

behaviors of its citizens using new technology a major concern for the Japanese?

Method

A phenomenological approach (Pollio, Henley and Thompson 1997) was used in this study in that themain focus was to understand how Japanese individuals were experiencing the social world in which theylive. Rather than observing behavior, the interest was in hearing the verbally expressed thoughts of theindividuals. Both focus groups and long interviews were conducted in order to acquire an understanding

of the perspectives offered by the participants of this study regarding their lived experiences with privacyand surveillance.

Selection of participantsThe focus groups and interviews were conducted in two stages. For the first stage, the primary investigator asked a university professor in north central Japan to provide the name of a student who would be willingto recruit student participants for the study. Using a snowball method, the recommended Japanesegraduate student was contacted and asked to not only participate, but also to recruit others to participate.That student asked three of his friends who, in turn, asked other students to participate. As a result of thiseffort, two focus groups were conducted with graduate students. One focus group had two females andfive males, while the other had three females and four males. Ages of the graduate students ranged from23 to 29. Six reported coming from rural areas of north central Japan and the remaining eight reported

coming from a mid-size city in north central Japan. These two initial focus groups were carried out in2008. To gather insight from non-students and to receive representation from other areas of Japan, thesecond stage of the study entailed long interviews and a focus group with working Japanese professionalsthat were conducted in 2010.

To recruit the professionals, the leader of a Japanese sports-related association who lives in a large citylocated in southern Japan was asked to provide the names of a couple of association members who might

be interested in participating in the study. The two members who were recruited, in turn, asked their acquaintances to participate. The five working professionals who agreed to participate were made up of


6/13


7/13



After an initial reading of the transcripts to garner a general understanding of the participants thoughtsand experiences, the transcripts were again critically read with notations made of emerging themes and

patterns through the process of induction. This deep reading process was repeated. In the end, thenotations made were analyzed and any relationships between the themes were then identified. Even withthe differences in the data collection time periods, method (focus group vs. interview), and participantdemographics, consistencies were found in the derived themes.

Findings

PrivacyThe narrative text showed similar thought patterns that existed across the individuals. For the participants,privacy was not a word that they normally considered. When asked what meaning the word held for them, many first responded by saying that it was a question that was difficult to answer. When asked togive their free-flowing thoughts regarding the word, they provided interpretations that tended to be at thevery personal level, rather than the societal level.

Privacy was closely tied with the notion of keeping secrets. One male student replied: I really do notmind people who are distant from me to know about my private affairs, but what I really care about is

people who are close to me finding out. The right to have secrets is how I interpret the word privacy. Afemale student responded: I think of it as not wanting my private information in my diary, for example,to be seen by my parents. The male life insurance salesman stated, I really do not think about it thatmuch, but I guess personal secrets come to mind. Ive never really thought about it and its not a word Iusually use. The male distribution company employee responded, I think of it as things I dont want mywife to know about and things my wife doesnt want me to know about. With such interpretations of theconcept of privacy, when it came to a companys electronic monitoring of employee communication and

behaviors, the participants perceived it as being less about invasion of privacy; rather, they saw it as beingmore about what these company actions were conveying to the employees.

Company Monitoring of Communication and BehaviorsWhen delving into questions pertaining to how they felt about companies monitoring the communicationand work behaviors of their employees through electronic means, consistencies in responses again came tolight. The participants generally expressed an understanding of why a company would want to monitor their workers, but also expressed a level of discomfort with it.

When first considering the subject matter at hand, participants frequently used the Japanese word shouganai or shikataganai . The words convey the idea that it cannot be helped or that it is inevitable.These words were particularly used in relation to company monitoring of website access, with several of the working professionals acknowledging that their company has policies against usage of companycomputers. During the focus group with professionals, the male accountant stated that at his company,workers are allowed only one hour to access the web as they wish. This hour had to be used during lunchor after work hours. The male automotive company worker also shared the fact that his company recently

put in place a filtering system so that access to only certain work-related websites would be allowed. All

other sites were blocked.

In terms of the monitoring of phone calls and e-mail messages, the participants voiced the opinion thatthey could understand the desire of companies to monitor such communication in order to maintainworker productivity and avoid incidents of hacking. Uneasiness, however, was also expressed. The malelife insurance salesman stated that a business call might be misinterpreted as a private phone call:

Sometimes, it might appear that you are using the phone for private use but the purpose of the call might be to deepen communication between company employees and their


8/13



customers or future customers. I really wouldnt like a company monitoring the calls,especially if the company were archiving the phone calls.

Pertaining to e-mail messages, one female student said she would feel strange if her company wereexamining her e-mail messages. Another female student also expressed discomfort, especially knowingthat the messages were being stored. The female ward office worker, during her interview, shared the

following thought: At the basic level, it is like phone calls, we as employees know we shouldnt be usingthe company computer for personal purposes, so we want the company to believe in us.

During the focus group with professionals, the male automotive company employee stated that themonitoring of e-mail messages and phone calls would create a bad work environment and in the end,would not be very practical. Following this statement, the male accountant in the focus group said, Ithink that workers cannot continuously work a long day without personal breaks, so I think companiesshould understand that. I think it would reduce trust among the employees toward their company. Thefemale law office worker chimed in, I agree with what they both have said. I too think that a companysmonitoring of communication would reduce employee trust in the company.

This concern with companies nurturing distrust was more vehemently expressed when the question

regarding company monitoring employee actions through camera recordings was posed. The female writer responded during the focus group session with professionals, I would absolutely hate that. It really wouldcome across as surveillance. The female law office worker followed this by stating, Yes. I would reallyhave resistance toward that type of monitoring. The male distribution company employee agreed adding,If my company were to do that, I would vigorously protest.

During his interview, the photographer responded,

I would find it fatiguing. I wouldnt like that at all. If there is a camera on me, I dontthink I could concentrate on my work. Every time I got up to go to the bathroom, it wouldappear as if Im not doing my work. I think it would impact on my ability to work effectively.

A female student during one of the student focus group sessions stated,

I would feel like I couldnt breathe if I had the company always observing me. Having mysupervisor observe me in person and having a video camera tracking my moves I believeare two different things. It really would suggest to me that I am not being trusted.

A male student agreed stating, I actually think it would be hard to work in such an environment.

In one of the student focus group sessions, one male student aptly summed up the sentiments that had beenarticulated by both the professionals and the students:

In Japan, we dont have much break times or vacation days. We also work overtimewithout fail, so I have a problem with a company that expects no private time for itsemployees to monitor employee behavior and impose rules about employees usage of

phones and computers. It shows a lack of respect for and a distrust of employees.

Although this distaste for the electronic monitoring of employees by their companies was clearly apparentamong the focus group and interview participants, a similar distaste did not exist when it came togovernmental monitoring of Japanese citizens.


9/13



Governmental Monitoring of Communication and Behavior Across all of the participants, support for governmental electronic monitoring existed. In response to the

broad question of how they feel about the government collecting data on its citizens for national security purposes, the participants tended to believe that in these recent times, it has become a necessity. One malestudent stated,

Actually, I dont think there is any country that does not gather information on its citizens.If they are out there, Id like to know about them. Maybe developing nations that rely onother nations might not be gathering that type of data, but developed nations that havetheir own military forces probably all engage in citizen monitoring.

A female student described it as inevitable.

When asked about their views pertaining to the various ways that the government can collect information,similar responses from the participants were found for collection of all forms of information (phone calls,e-mail messages, website usage, camera captured movements, financial records). A male student during astudent focus group session stated,

I dont really have a sense that the government is close at hand, so even if it werecollecting information on me, I really wouldnt mind. Its not like people close to me willknow about the information. It would be people I dont know who would be surveillingme, so I really dont care.

During the focus group session with professionals, a male accountant responded, I think if thesurveillance is used to prevent major harmful acts to society like terrorism, then I would actually say

please do so as much as possible. The female writer in the same focus group session stated, I think it isunavoidable if it is for security purposes. During her interview, the female ward office worker similarlystated, I dont really care about the government collecting data on me if it is for security purposes. Themale photographer in his interview said he thought it was necessary, but expressed concern about thegovernments handling of the data: I dont really care as long as the government manages the information

well. If the information were leaked, I would worry about it. Collecting the information is okay if it is for national security and to protect us.

When it came to government surveillance, an almost welcoming response was heard. For example, inregard to the government secretly accessing financial information, one male student responded, Iwouldnt mind. I would say please feel free to have access. Pertaining to the same area of surveillance,during the focus group with professionals, the male distribution company employee stated, I think it isunavoidable. I would feel fine with showing everything I have. Im not doing anything wrong, so I dontcare. Especially if it is going to reduce crime or other terrible acts in Japan, I would say go ahead. Thefemale writer in the same focus group session followed with, I agree. Im perfectly fine with it. Inregard to governmental installation of cameras in public places, during the focus group with professionals,the male automotive company employee stated, I think its actually a good thing. If criminals are being

caught, Im fine with it. The female law officer worker agreed stating, I think it doesnt make much of adifference in my everyday life, so I dont mind.

Thus, none of the participants who took part in the focus groups or who were interviewed voiced anyopposition toward the idea of the government conducting electronic surveillance of their lives. The onlyconcern that was raised was with regard to how the data would be handled. They wanted some assurancethat the government would be careful with the collected data so that their information would not beleaked.


10/13



Discussion

Although several studies have been conducted on how those in the United States view surveillanceactivities carried out by companies or the government, with regard to Japan the research has tended toremain at the theoretical realm. The overarching assumption is that because Japan is a collectivistic nationand because privacy is not a concept that has actual substance in that nation, surveillance is not an intrinsicconcern among the Japanese. The purpose of this study was to explore whether or not this assumption hascurrency, especially given the fact that the means of electronically monitoring communication and

behaviors of citizens have become sophisticated and have increased in recent years. To carry out thisstudy, focus group sessions and interviews with members of the Japanese public were carried out.

In carefully examining the experiences and perspectives that were expressed during the group sessions andinterviews, it became evident that the Japanese participants were very much supportive of governmentefforts to implement surveillance activities in the name of national security. This support, however, wasnot apparent when it came to companies monitoring employee communication and actions. Instead,opposition to such monitoring was voiced.

At first glance, it might appear then that one of the findings from this study is refuting the claims of

theorists who have contended that the Confucian and Buddhist inspired culture of Japan that does notrecognize individual privacy is nurturing an acceptance of electronic monitoring and data collection bythose in authority positions. After all, the participants clearly expressed disdain at the notion that acompany would conduct electronic surveillance on its employees. When closely analyzing the narratives,however, it comes to light that it is not really a concern with invasion of privacy that is driving thisdisdain. First of all, when asked about the concept of privacy, the participants provided interpretations thatwere more at the personal level of keeping secrets from those who were close to them. The interpretationslacked any societal meaning or implications. The concept of privacy did not come across as holding a trueintrinsic value. Second, the derision toward the notion that a company would electronically monitor employees was not being derived from a concern with privacy rights. Rather, it stemmed from the ideathat they felt the monitoring was signaling to the employees a sense of distrust the company had in itsemployees.

This emphasis on electronic monitoring as a symbolic representation of a lack of company trust could possibly be explained in cultural terms. In Japan, companies are often thought to be an extension of aworkers family. During the post-WWII war period, the vertical structure of Japanese society wasemphasized. The relationships that were created within the company setting were familistic in nature, witha hierarchy in place where those in positions of power were assumed to take on paternalisticcharacteristics; guidance and protection were offered to employees in return for their productivity(Fukutake 1989). Thus, loyalty was mutually expected. Researchers (Doi 2004; Hamada 2005) have notedthat this familistic ideology that can be found in Japanese companies is nurtured through amae or anindulgence or dependence on others. Amae sprouts at the family level and continues to the workplace.

Amae promotes a sense of belonging, comfort, and trust; it is said to be key in building familism within acompany. Therefore, with regard to companies electronically monitoring employee communication and

behavior, such actions are perhaps not considered a concern in terms of invasion of privacy, but rather thought of as problematic because it demonstrates to employees that there is a breakdown in the familisticstructure where reciprocal trust should be a given.

This cultural explanation of individual reactions to company surveillance fits well with the theoreticalmodel of uchi (insider with whom one has strong emotional bonds), soto (outsider with whom one hasregular contact, but no intimate relationship), and tanin (outsider with whom one never or seldom ever hascontact) (Adams, Murata and Orito 2009; Murakami Wood, Lyon and Abe 2007). From an employee

perspective, a company can be residing either within the uchi or soto zone, for scholars have recently


11/13



maintained that the boundaries between these zones are not fixed, but are fluid. Adams, Murata and Orito(2010) argue that a liminal zone exists between the uchi and soto that allows a shifting of boundaries totake place between these two realms. With the vertical relational structure in Japanese society thatcultivates strong connections between company employees and their superiors, the company could exist ineither the soto zone or be allowed to move in closer to the individual via the liminal zone depending onsituational circumstances. Within such a context, employee surveillance by company superiors would be

seen as problematic to employees. To the employee, such monitoring would place a psychologicaldistance between the employee and the company, and would signify a breakdown of mutual trust, thusresulting in the company moving further away from the inner zone of uchi .

It should be pointed out, however, that with Japans recent economic downturn and the associated pressures from increased globalization the familistic structure has weakened to a certain extent in Japan.Within the Japanese workplace, the seniority-based hierarchy has been destabilized and the long-termemployment system has experienced steady erosion (Conrad 2010 Suzuki, Ito, Ishida, Nihei andMaruyama 2010). This shift in Japans social structure, therefore, could be an alternative explanation tothe cultural one regarding participants viewing company monitoring as a sign of employer distrust.Perhaps the negative viewpoint is undergirded by feelings of resentment toward companies that can nolonger guarantee job security and lifetime employment.

The focus group and interview participants unconditional acceptance of governmental monitoring mightalso be explained in social structural terms. It might very well be that with the increased governmental andlaw enforcement actions designed to counter national security threats and criminal activities in Japan(Leheny 2010; Leonardsen 2010), individuals are more open to governmental monitoring in the interest of self and family protection.

Then again, cultural explanations regarding the acceptance of governmental surveillance can also beoffered. As scholars (Capurro 2005; Hofstede 2001) have pointed out, Japan comes from a Confucianculture where society is best conceived as being vertically integrated, with deference given to authorityfigures and with the country and community coming before individual needs. Country comes first,followed by company, then family, ending in self (van Wolferen 1989). The idea that ones government is

carrying out actions in the best interest of the nation still tends to have a solid foundation in Japan. Assuch, any measures that the government presents as being in the interest of public safety would have ahigh likelihood of finding public acceptance. Moreover, the Japanese also tend to be risk aversive(Hofstede 2001). Uncertainty and conflict are avoided. Thus, if electronic surveillance by the governmentwere presented as curtailing harmful acts or reducing uncertainty, the Japanese public would be morewilling to accept such acts.

The theoretical model of uchi , soto , and tanin could also be seen as playing a role in the acceptance of governmental surveillance. To the individual Japanese, with the rare or never existing personal contactwith the government, the government would be situated within the tanin zone. As such, a vast

psychological distance between the two entities would exist, resulting in little individual concern withgovernmental surveillance measures. One of the narratives that came to light through the interviews and

focus groups in this study was that the participants viewed governmental monitoring as more directedtoward outsiders and not themselves or their close relations. They perceived it as targeting those whowould be considered societal deviants (i.e. criminals and terrorists) and not upstanding citizens such asthemselves. Thus, unlike company surveillance that was viewed as having direct implications on their work habits and their relationship with their company, little personal impact was seen with thegovernments surveillance activities.

To further explore the notions presented in this paper, a survey designed to tap into perspectives on theconcept of privacy and views regarding surveillance by companies and the government could be


12/13



conducted. Within that survey, items that pertain to Japanese societal changes as well as cultural valuescould also be included in order to examine if relationships do indeed exist between these factors andelectronic surveillance viewpoints.

Given the technology-driven and marketing-driven increases in corporate surveillance of consumer activities (Gates 2007; Pridmore and Zwick 2011), another area that can be explored in conjunction with

the suggested survey is an exploration of how Japanese individuals are experiencing consumer surveillance. Although it was not the focus of this present study, during the focus group session with the

professionals, within the context of companies monitoring employee web-surfing activities, a couple of the participants did mention their unease with corporations tracking their online activities in general. Themale automotive company worker stated that it made him feel uncomfortable that marketers were

placing cookies on his computer. He added, It should be my decision to have my information shared.The female law office employee agreed and said, When I got an online notification that a new book cameout that I might be interested in buying, I first thought it was useful, but then later, it bothered me that theyknew I would be interested in the book. Thus, delving further into such thoughts and other perspectivesregarding electronic scrutiny of consumer behavior might contribute to a better understanding of whatfactors are shaping aversions or acceptance of certain types of surveillance.

Hopefully the results of the suggested future studies together with the findings from this present study will provide a fuller understanding of how the Japanese approach issues of privacy and surveillance for suchknowledge is critical when considering the possible policies or laws that might be needed in the futureregarding data gathering and privacy protection in Japan.

AcknowledgmentsThis study was made possible by a research grant to the first author from Fulbright: Japan-U.S. Educational Commission.

ReferencesAbe, Kiyoshi. 2009. The Myth of Media Interactivity: Technology, Communications and Surveillance in Japan. Theory, Culture

& Society 26(2-3): 73-88. . 2006. Technologies of Surveillance. Theory, Culture, Society 23(2-3): 265-67. . 2004. Everyday Policing in Japan: Surveillance, Media, Government, and Public Opinion. International Sociology 19(2):

215-31.Adams, Andrew A., Kiyoshi Murata and Yohko Orito. 2009. The Japanese Sense of Information Privacy. AI & Soc 24: 327-341.Allen, Myria Watkins, Stephanie J. Coopman, Joy L. Hart and Kasey L. Walker. 2007. Workplace Surveillance and Managing

Privacy Boundaries. Management Communication Quarterly 21(2): 172-200.American Management Association. 2007. 2007 Electronic Monitoring & Surveillance Survey.

http://www.amanet.org/training/articles/2007-Electronic-Monitoring-and-Surveillance-Survey-41.aspx . (A ccessedFebruary 15, 2011).

Botan, Carl. 1996. Communication Work and Electronic Surveillance: A Model for Predicting Panoptic Effects. Communication Monographs 63(4): 293-313.

Botan, Carl and Mihaela Vorvoreanu. 2005. What Do Employees Think About Electronic Surveillance at Work? In: Electronic Monitoring in the Workplace: Conversations and Solutions , ed. John Weckert, 123-46. Hershey, PA: Idea GroupPublishing.

Capurro, Rafael. 2005. Privacy: An Intercultural Perspective. Ethics and Information Technology 7(1): 37-47.Conrad, Harald. 2010. From Seniority to Performance Principle: The Evolution of Pay Practices in Japanese Firms since the

1990s. Social Science Japan Journal 13(1): 115-135.

Curry, Richard O. and Karl E. Valois. 1991. The Emergence of an Individualist Ethos in American Society. In: AmericanChameleon: Individualism in Trans-national Context , eds Richard O. Curry and Lawrence B. Goodheart, 20-43. Kent,OH: Kent State University Press.

Doi, Takeo. 2004. Amae: A Key Concept for Understanding Japanese Personality Structure. In: Japanese Culture , eds Robert J.Smith and Richard K. Beardsley, 132-39. London: Routledge.

DUrso, Scott C. 2006. Whos Watching Us at Work? Toward a Structural-Perceptual Model of Electronic Monitoring andSurveillance in Organizations. Communication Theory 16: 281-303.

Ess, Charles 2005. Lost in Translation?: Intercultural Dialogues on Privacy and Information Ethics. Ethics and InformationTechnology 7(1): 1-6.

eTelemetry. 2007. eTelemetry Announces Metron EBA, Enabling Real-time Enterprise Behavior Analysis from the Network.http://www.etelemetry.com/pdf/MetronEBA_Final.pdf . (A ccessed February 22, 2011.)
http://www.amanet.org/training/articles/2007-Electronic-Monitoring-and-Surveillance-Survey-41.aspxhttp://www.amanet.org/training/articles/2007-Electronic-Monitoring-and-Surveillance-Survey-41.aspxhttp://www.etelemetry.com/pdf/MetronEBA_Final.pdfhttp://www.etelemetry.com/pdf/MetronEBA_Final.pdfhttp://www.etelemetry.com/pdf/MetronEBA_Final.pdfhttp://www.amanet.org/training/articles/2007-Electronic-Monitoring-and-Surveillance-Survey-41.aspx


13/13



Fukutake, Tadashi. 1989. The Japanese Social Structure . 2nd ed. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.Gates, Kelly. 2007. Communication Research and the Study of Surveillance. The Communication Review 10: 277-293.Hamada, Tomoko 2005. The Anthropology of Japanese Corporate Management. In: A Companion to the Anthropology of Japan ,

ed. Jennifer Robertson, 125-52. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Hiramatsu, Tsuyoshi. 1993. Protecting Telecommunications Privacy in Japan. Communications of the ACM 36(8): 74-77.Hoffman, W. Michael, Laura P. Hartman Mark Rowe. 2003. Youve Got Mail and the Boss Knows: A Survey by the Center

for Business Ethics of Companies Email and Internet Monitoring. Business and Society Review 108(3): 285-307.

Hofstede, Geert H. 2001. Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Holtzman, David H. 2006. Privacy Lost: How Technology is Endangering Your Privacy . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Horibe, Masao. 1992. Data protection and the Individual. In: The Internationalization of Japan , eds Glenn D. Hook and Michael

A. Weiner, 284-300. New York: Routledge.King, Nancy J. 2003. Electronic Monitoring to Promote National Security Impacts Workplace Privacy. Employee Responsibi lities

and Rights Journal 15(3): 127-147.Kitiyadisai, Krisana. 2005. Privacy Rights and Protection: Foreign Values in Modern Thai Context. Ethics and Information

Technology 7(1): 17-26.Leheny, David. 2010. Terrorism Risks and Counterterrorism Costs in Post-9/11 Japan. Japan Forum 22(1-2): 219-237.Leonardsen, Dag. 2010. Crime in Japan: Paradise Lost? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1990. Continental Divide: The Values and Institutions of the United States and Canada . New York:

Routledge.McCracken, Grant D. 1988. The Long Interview . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Mizutani, Masahiko, James Dorsey and James H. Moor. 2004. The Internet and the Japanese Conception of Privacy. Ethics and

Information Technology 6: 121-28.Murakami Wood, David, David Lyon and Kiyoshi Abe. 2007. Surveillance in Urban Japan: A Critical Introduction. Urban

Studies 44(3): 551-68.Murata, Kiyoshi and Yohko Orito. 2010. Japanese Risk Society: Trying to Create Complete Security and Safety Using

Information and Communication Technology. SIGCAS Computer and Society 40(3): 38-49. Nakada, Makoto and Takanori Tamura . 2005. Japanese Conceptions of Privacy: An Intercultural Perspective. Ethics and

Information Technology 7(1): 27-36.Orito, Yohko and Kiyoshi Murata. 2008. Socio-cultural Analysis of Personal Information Leakage in Japan. Journal of

Information, Communication & Ethics in Society 6(2): 161-71. . 2005. Privacy Protection in Japan: Cultural Influence on the Universal Value. Proceedings of ETHICOMP 2005 .

Linkoping, Sweden: Linkoping University.Pollio, Howard R., Tracy B. Henley and Craig J. Thompson. 1997. The Phenomenology of Everyday Life . Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Pridmore, Jason and Detlev Zwick. 2011. Marketing and the Rise of Commercial Consumer Surveillance. Surveillance & Society

8(3): 269-277.Riedy, Marian K. and Joseph H. Wen. 2010. Electronic Surveillance of Internet Access in the American Workplace: Implications

for Management. Information & Communicat ions Technology Law 19(1): 87-99.Salter, Sarah. 2010. Storage and Privacy in the Cloud: Enduring Access to Ephemeral Messages. Hastings Communications and

Entertainment Law Journal 32(3): 365-407.Stanton, Jeffrey M. and E.M. Weiss. 2000. Electronic Monitoring in their Own Words: An Exploratory Study of Employees

Experiences with New Types of Surveillance. Computers in Human Behavior 16: 423-40.Suzuki, Munenori, Midori Ito, Mitsunori Ishida, Norihiro Nihei and Masao Maruyama. 2010. Individualizing Japan: Searching for

its Origin in First Modernity. The British Journal of Sociology 61(3): 513-538.van Wolferen, Karl. 1989. The Enigma of Japanese Power . New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.Ventura, Holly E., J. Miller and Mathieu Deflem. 2005. Governmentality and the War on Terror: FBI Project Carnivore and the

Diffusion of Disciplinary Power. Critical Criminology 13: 55-70.Westin, Alan F. 1967. Privacy and Freedom . New York: Atheneum.Yamaguchi, Susumu. 1992. Collectivism Among the Japanese: A Perspective from the Self. In: Individualism and Collectivism:

Theory, Method, and Applications , eds Uichol Kim, Harry C. Triandis, Kagitcibasi Ciqdem, Choi, Sang-Chin and GeneYoon, 175-88. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zirkle, Brian L. and William G. Staples. 2005. Negotiating Workplace Surveillance. In: Electronic monitoring in the workplace:Conversations and solutions , ed. John Weckert, 79-101. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

perspective on privacy, information technology and company/governmental surveillance in japan

Documents