Luther, Catherine and Ivanka Radovic. 2012. Perspectives on Privacy, Information Technology and Company/Governmental Surveillance in Japan. Surveillance & Society 10(3/4): 263-275.
http://www.surveillance-and-society.org | ISSN: 1477-7487
Catherine Luther
University of Tennessee, USA. [email protected]
Ivanka Radovic
University of Tennessee, USA. [email protected]
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore Japanese notions of privacy and perspectives on electronic surveillance carried out by companies and the government. Prior research has suggested fundamental differences between Eastern and Western viewpoints on privacy. Theoretical-based arguments have been put forward that in Eastern nations such as in Japan, culture plays a major role in downplaying the significance of privacy. Given the increasing usage of technology for surveillance purposes, this study hoped to shed light on whether or not such theoretical arguments are reflected in or diverge from the perspectives expressed by members of the Japanese public.
Introduction
With the availability of sophisticated surveillance technology, concerns regarding invasion of privacy are increasingly being heard in many nations. Echoing Michel Foucault’s ideas of the panopticon schema or the social model in which authority figures are able to enforce social control through unyielding monitoring of the public, individuals are expressing an unease at the notion that every part of their lives can now be closely monitored by those holding power in society (Abe 2009; Holtzman 2006; Murata and Orito 2010; Salter 2010). Whether by the government or private corporations, institutionalized policing is regarded by these individuals as tantamount to an affront to the prized democratic tenet of individual freedom.
Certain scholars (e.g. Capurro 2005; Ess 2005; Nakada and Tamura 2005) have claimed, however, that this growing concern is more of a Western manifestation than an Eastern one. The underlying assumption of this argument is that cultural differences exist, making privacy less valued in the East, especially among those from East Asian nations. The Japanese are identified as one such group of individuals. Given the pervasiveness of technology that allows invasion of privacy to take place, however, a closer investigation is needed to determine if this assumption holds true. The purpose of this study was to provide a beginning to such an investigation by analyzing the thoughts of the Japanese with regard to privacy and how technology has allowed companies and the Japanese government to collect private information and monitor individual behavior.
In order to offer an understanding of the study’s main objective, this paper first provides an overview of the literature related to Western versus Eastern perspectives regarding the concept of privacy and highlights the assumption made by some scholars that privacy is not a major concern among the Japanese due to their cultural philosophies. It then introduces this study’s central assertion that because of the decrease in privacy due to the increased usage of sophisticated surveillance technology by governments and 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 the focus groups and interviews that were conducted with Japanese participants as a means to shed light on the questions. Garnered insights are then presented and discussed.
East Versus West on the Concept of Privacy
In 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 is communicated to others” (1967: 7). This definition has since been adopted and broadened to argue that individuals 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 the Western 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 during
the 1950s and did not see widespread usage until the 1960s when the word gained public recognition due to an invasion of privacy lawsuit that was brought against well-known author Yukio Mishima (Horibe 1992). 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 Western societies. In contrast to Western thoughts on individual privacy that have evolved from influential European 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 shaping ideas on individual privacy.
In the Buddhist tradition, individual privacy is tied to egotism and is thus viewed as something that needs to 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 automatically endowed human rights such as privacy rights and protection. … The Buddhist precaution reflects the fact that manmade rules and laws would inevitably be in conflict within themselves 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 within the 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 are understood in terms of how they fit in with the group and the roles they play within the group. Under this collectivistic orientation, individual needs are subordinate to group needs and deference toward authority figures is valued (Hofstede 2001; Yamaguchi 1992). Individual privacy is thus viewed as something that is inconsequential.
society. In Japan, social relationships are held up to be of utmost importance and group dependency is nurtured. Researchers (Capurro 2005) examining privacy issues have used these understandings of the Confucian roots of Japanese culture to argue that individual privacy is not a significant concern in Japanese 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 own livelihood. Mizutani, Dorsey and Moor (2004) argue that because of the close proximity to others in which the Japanese have traditionally lived, with only thin walls and doors separating individuals, an accepted understanding has been nurtured that what is overheard or learned of others is not to be
acknowledged or repeated. They bring in the concept of restraint or enryo to further explain this
understanding. In Japanese society, enryo has a major place in Japanese relations. It entails the traditional Japanese value of showing reservation toward intruding on another person’s space or imposing on other
people’s goodness. Demonstrating enryo is a sign of deference toward others. Thus, with this
downgrading of individual privacy, the creation of legislation in Japan to protect privacy is thought to have been brought about due to external influences, more specially, Western influences (Ess 2005; Orito and 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 the increasing capabilities and encroachment of new technologies that allow more careful and unobtrusive monitoring of individual thoughts and behaviors. Perhaps with the recent usage of surveillance technology, even those coming from an Eastern philosophy of “Self as secondary to group,” such as the Japanese, are expressing thoughts on privacy that are counter to this cultural expectation. A review of the literature on how new technology has been increasingly used to observe and track individuals buttresses this argument that the extent to which governments and companies can monitor the lives of individuals might be shaping a change in attitudes toward privacy even among those coming from an Eastern culture.
Technological Surveillance and Individual Attitudes
Several researchers have focused on the rise of surveillance in the United States by both private corporations and the government. For example, surveying 103 organizations, Hoffman, Hartman and Rowe (2003) found that nine out of ten companies in the United States check their employees’ e-mail and internet activities. The majority of those are monitoring on a consistent basis and say that such monitoring is not based on necessity or suspicion. This practice of monitoring in the workplace has especially been on the rise since the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States (Allen, Coopman, Hart and Walker 2007). The 2007 American Management Association’s (AMA) survey of 304 companies shows that since 2001, the number of companies that use software to block employee access to certain websites has increased by 27 per cent (American Management Association 2007).
Some of the early research on employee monitoring in the United States showed that monitoring in the workplace did raise workers’ concerns for erosion of their privacy (Botan 1996). Performing a secondary analysis of a dataset from 1990, Botan and Vorvoreanu (2005) reported that many employees expressed anger 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 to employer surveillance. Surveying 53 employees from several organizations, Stanton and Weiss found that only a minority of those who were monitored found the monitoring negative in some way. Some of them actually appreciated it as they could show their employers that they were performing “good work” and reported 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 company’s video surveillance of employees and found that the majority of the employees did not think of it as a deterrent, believing that the 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 directly mentioned privacy invasion.
D’Urso (2006) writes that employee monitoring has become a part of today’s American organizational landscape and that society in general has accepted it. Nevertheless, resistance to employee monitoring still remains. 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 taken not 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. PATRIOT Act 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 government’s ability to conduct surveillance by allowing it to monitor electronic communication of citizens without warrant or cause in cases to protect life and limb (D’Urso 2006; King 2003). Ventura, Miller and Deflem (2005) note that the Federal Bureau
of Investigation’s intrusive web-based technology, Carnivore, has allowed the bureau to wiretap
computers 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 technology and 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 areas of public spaces including widely used streets, train stations, and shopping malls (Abe 2004). Post 9/11, biometric surveillance systems have also been placed at Japan’s international airports by the Japanese government.
implemented technology-driven measures to monitor individuals living in Japan (Abe 2006). Government sectors can now more easily collect personal information of individuals living in Japan, and integrate the collected data with data collected by private corporations to create comprehensive profiles (Murakami Wood, 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 on underlying cultural reasons, with little focus on examining the actual thoughts of the Japanese. This study hoped to begin to tap into the current perspectives that the Japanese have regarding privacy and company and governmental monitoring by giving voice to the Japanese through in-depth interviews and focus groups.
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 the main focus was to understand how Japanese individuals were experiencing the social world in which they live. Rather than observing behavior, the interest was in hearing the verbally expressed thoughts of the individuals. 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 privacy and surveillance.
Selection of participants
The 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 willing to recruit student participants for the study. Using a snowball method, the recommended Japanese graduate 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 this effort, two focus groups were conducted with graduate students. One focus group had two females and five males, while the other had three females and four males. Ages of the graduate students ranged from 23 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 in 2008. To gather insight from non-students and to receive representation from other areas of Japan, the second stage of the study entailed long interviews and a focus group with working Japanese professionals that were conducted in 2010.
two females and three males. Two of the participants were from southern Japan, one from a large city and the other from a rural area, and the remaining three were from a large city in central Japan. Their ages ranged from 43 to 45 and their occupations were made up of the following: accountant, automotive company employee, law office worker, distribution company employee, and writer.
For the long interviews, the primary investigator’s former male Japanese colleague who lives in a mid-size city in northern Japan was first contacted for an interview and was asked to provide the name of another individual who might agree to be interviewed. The recommended individual, who lives in the same city as the initial contact, agreed to an interview. He then recruited one of his female acquaintances living in a rural area in northern Japan to participate in a separate interview. In the end, one female ward office worker, one male photographer, and one male life insurance salesman were interviewed. Their ages ranged from 42 to 48.
Focus Group and Interview Protocol
The focus groups with the graduate students were held in classrooms of a public university located in north central Japan. The focus group with the professional workers was held in a private room of a restaurant in the city of Tokyo. Long interviews were held in the homes of the individuals. The focus group sessions ran between 1.5 hours and 2 hours. The long interviews lasted between 1 hour and 1.5 hours.
Before each of the focus group and interview sessions, the facilitator/interviewer made every effort to set aside any of her preexisting ideas regarding the phenomenon under study. The sessions were conducted in Japanese. The facilitator/interviewer started by asking what meaning the word “privacy” held for them. This was then followed with prompt questions concerning the following areas:
-‐ Companies implementing several measures to electronically monitor the work habits of their
employees –
o Monitoring phone calls
o Monitoring e-mails
o Tracking internet usage (web site visits)
o Installing video camera
-‐ Government collecting data on citizens for national security purposes --
o Monitoring phone calls
o Monitoring e-mails
o Tracking internet usage (web site visits)
o Installing video cameras in public places
o Secretly accessing financial records
An effort was made to allow the participants to speak freely from their own perspective (McCracken 1988). Based on the responses, follow-up questions were asked to probe into responses. The facilitator/interviewer frequently recapped or paraphrased the responses in order to ensure that what was being expressed was correctly being interpreted by the facilitator/interviewer. All sessions were audio recorded.
Data Analysis Protocol
After an initial reading of the transcripts to garner a general understanding of the participants’ thoughts and 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, the notations made were analyzed and any relationships between the themes were then identified. Even with the differences in the data collection time periods, method (focus group vs. interview), and participant demographics, consistencies were found in the derived themes.
Findings
Privacy
The 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 to give their free-flowing thoughts regarding the word, they provided interpretations that tended to be at the very personal level, rather than the societal level.
Privacy was closely tied with the notion of keeping secrets. One male student replied: “I really do not mind 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.” A female 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 that much, but I guess personal secrets come to mind. I’ve never really thought about it and it’s not a word I usually use.” The male distribution company employee responded, “I think of it as things I don’t want my wife to know about and things my wife doesn’t want me to know about.” With such interpretations of the concept of privacy, when it came to a company’s electronic monitoring of employee communication and behaviors, the participants perceived it as being less about invasion of privacy; rather, they saw it as being more about what these company actions were conveying to the employees.
Company Monitoring of Communication and Behaviors
When delving into questions pertaining to how they felt about companies monitoring the communication and work behaviors of their employees through electronic means, consistencies in responses again came to light. 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 company computers. 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 lunch or 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 that they could understand the desire of companies to monitor such communication in order to maintain worker productivity and avoid incidents of hacking. Uneasiness, however, was also expressed. The male life insurance salesman stated that a business call might be misinterpreted as a private phone call:
customers or future customers. I really wouldn’t 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 were examining her e-mail messages. Another female student also expressed discomfort, especially knowing that 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 shouldn’t be using the 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 the monitoring 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, “I think that workers cannot continuously work a long day without personal breaks, so I think companies should understand that. I think it would reduce trust among the employees toward their company.” The female law office worker chimed in, “I agree with what they both have said. I too think that a company’s monitoring 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 would come across as surveillance.” The female law office worker followed this by stating, “Yes. I would really have 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 wouldn’t like that at all. If there is a camera on me, I don’t think I could concentrate on my work. Every time I got up to go to the bathroom, it would appear as if I’m 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 couldn’t breathe if I had the company always observing me. Having my supervisor observe me in person and having a video camera tracking my moves I believe are 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 been articulated by both the professionals and the students:
In Japan, we don’t have much break times or vacation days. We also work overtime without fail, so I have a problem with a company that expects no private time for its employees 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.
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 male student stated,
Actually, I don’t think there is any country that does not gather information on its citizens. If they are out there, I’d like to know about them. Maybe developing nations that rely on other nations might not be gathering that type of data, but developed nations that have their 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 a student focus group session stated,
I don’t really have a sense that the government is close at hand, so even if it were collecting information on me, I really wouldn’t mind. It’s not like people close to me will know about the information. It would be people I don’t know who would be surveilling me, so I really don’t care.
During the focus group session with professionals, a male accountant responded, “I think if the surveillance 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 is unavoidable if it is for security purposes.” During her interview, the female ward office worker similarly stated, “I don’t really care about the government collecting data on me if it is for security purposes.” The male photographer in his interview said he thought it was necessary, but expressed concern about the government’s handling of the data: “I don’t 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, in regard to the government secretly accessing financial information, one male student responded, “I wouldn’t 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 is unavoidable. I would feel fine with showing everything I have. I’m not doing anything wrong, so I don’t care. Especially if it is going to reduce crime or other terrible acts in Japan, I would say go ahead.” The female writer in the same focus group session followed with, “I agree. I’m perfectly fine with it.” In regard to governmental installation of cameras in public places, during the focus group with professionals, the male automotive company employee stated, “I think it’s actually a good thing. If criminals are being caught, I’m fine with it.” The female law officer worker agreed stating, “I think it doesn’t make much of a difference in my everyday life, so I don’t mind.”
Discussion
Although several studies have been conducted on how those in the United States view surveillance activities carried out by companies or the government, with regard to Japan the research has tended to remain at the theoretical realm. The overarching assumption is that because Japan is a collectivistic nation and because privacy is not a concept that has actual substance in that nation, surveillance is not an intrinsic concern among the Japanese. The purpose of this study was to explore whether or not this assumption has currency, 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 this study, 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 and interviews, it became evident that the Japanese participants were very much supportive of government efforts to implement surveillance activities in the name of national security. This support, however, was not 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 not recognize individual privacy is nurturing an acceptance of electronic monitoring and data collection by those in authority positions. After all, the participants clearly expressed disdain at the notion that a company 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 this disdain. First of all, when asked about the concept of privacy, the participants provided interpretations that were more at the personal level of keeping secrets from those who were close to them. The interpretations lacked any societal meaning or implications. The concept of privacy did not come across as holding a true intrinsic 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 idea that they felt the monitoring was signaling to the employees a sense of distrust the company had in its employees.
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 a worker’s family. During the post-WWII war period, the vertical structure of Japanese society was emphasized. The relationships that were created within the company setting were familistic in nature, with a hierarchy in place where those in positions of power were assumed to take on paternalistic characteristics; 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 noted that this familistic ideology that can be found in Japanese companies is nurtured through amae or an indulgence 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 a company. 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 familistic structure where reciprocal trust should be a given.
This cultural explanation of individual reactions to company surveillance fits well with the theoretical
model of uchi (insider with whom one has strong emotional bonds), soto (outsider with whom one has
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 to
take place between these two realms. With the vertical relational structure in Japanese society that cultivates strong connections between company employees and their superiors, the company could exist in
either the soto zone or be allowed to move in closer to the individual via the liminal zone depending on
situational 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 psychological distance between the employee and the company, and would signify a breakdown of mutual trust, thus resulting in the company moving further away from the inner zone of uchi.
It should be pointed out, however, that with Japan’s 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-term employment system has experienced steady erosion (Conrad 2010 Suzuki, Ito, Ishida, Nihei and Maruyama 2010). This shift in Japan’s social structure, therefore, could be an alternative explanation to the 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 no longer guarantee job security and lifetime employment.
The focus group and interview participants’ unconditional acceptance of governmental monitoring might also be explained in social structural terms. It might very well be that with the increased governmental and law 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 be offered. As scholars (Capurro 2005; Hofstede 2001) have pointed out, Japan comes from a Confucian culture where society is best conceived as being vertically integrated, with deference given to authority figures 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 one’s government is carrying out actions in the best interest of the nation still tends to have a solid foundation in Japan. As such, any measures that the government presents as being in the interest of public safety would have a high 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 government were presented as curtailing harmful acts or reducing uncertainty, the Japanese public would be more willing 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 contact
with 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 with governmental 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 directed toward outsiders and not themselves or their close relations. They perceived it as targeting those who would be considered societal deviants (i.e. criminals and terrorists) and not upstanding citizens such as themselves. 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 the government’s surveillance activities.
conducted. Within that survey, items that pertain to Japanese societal changes as well as cultural values could also be included in order to examine if relationships do indeed exist between these factors and electronic 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. The male 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 came out that I might be interested in buying, I first thought it was useful, but then later, it bothered me that they knew I would be interested in the book.” Thus, delving further into such thoughts and other perspectives regarding electronic scrutiny of consumer behavior might contribute to a better understanding of what factors 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 such knowledge is critical when considering the possible policies or laws that might be needed in the future regarding data gathering and privacy protection in Japan.
Acknowledgments
This study was made possible by a research grant to the first author from Fulbright: Japan-U.S. Educational Commission.
References
Abe, 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. (Accessed February 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 Group Publishing.
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: American Chameleon: 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.
D’Urso, Scott C. 2006. Who’s Watching Us at Work? Toward a Structural-Perceptual Model of Electronic Monitoring and Surveillance in Organizations. Communication Theory 16: 281-303.
Ess, Charles 2005. “Lost in Translation”?: Intercultural Dialogues on Privacy and Information Ethics. Ethics and Information Technology 7(1): 1-6.
eTelemetry. 2007. eTelemetry Announces Metron EBA, Enabling Real-time Enterprise Behavior Analysis from the Network.
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. You’ve 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. Culture’s 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 Responsibilities 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 Studies44(3): 551-68.
Murata, Kiyoshi and Yohko Orito. 2010. “Japanese Risk Society: Trying to CreateComplete Security and Safety Using Information and Communication Technology.” SIGCAS Computer and Society40(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 & Communications 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 Gene Yoon, 175-88. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
