Japan Proposes Next Phase of Centralized Surveillance

June 16, 2012

Print Version

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

Although moving slower in some areas than others, there is little doubt that the plan to number, track, and trace every human being on the planet via biometric data and other digital means is moving forward in every country in the world.

The Japanese have had a mandatory national UID system in place since 2002, under the Basic Resident Register (BRR) program.

Under the BRR, each individual must provide their name, birthdate, gender, and physical address to municipal governments who, in turn, issue the citizen a UID.

However, a new initiative, called My Number Bill, was introduced in February 2012 that would streamline the information sharing process between government tax, social security, and emergency mitigation agencies. This is merely the next phase toward the goal of the Japanese government to centralize already-collected information about each one of its citizens and to expand this program to contain even more data.

The information collected on Japanese citizens under their current system will be fed into a nationwide computer database known as the Juki-net, which is made up of 3,200 municipal governments. The Juki-net serves as the common data sharing database between the municipal governments and, to some extent, the central government.

Under the current setup, citizens can opt to obtain a National ID Card which will contain “integrated circuit chips.” However, there are no opt-out possibilities for the program.

Yet the “My Number Bill” will be taking the Juki-net system a step further. If this bill passes, as is likely, the Juki-net will not only be a conduit between municipal and central governments, but also to various government agencies that administer systems such as social security, taxes, disaster mitigation, and other programs.

Not only that, but because the new and improved Juki-net will be issuing new UID numbers, it will also serve as the common link between the individuals’ records of income, payments, pension benefits, health care, and a host of other “services.”

Of course, the private sector is not far behind. As the line between governments and corporations is completely erased, the next step is allowing market-oriented capitalization on citizens’ private data. This much is necessarily the case in almost every country in the world, regardless of how sophisticated identity programs may be.

Thankfully, it appears that most Japanese are opposed to the Juki-net, even in its current form. However, as is the case the world over, the opinion of the people, in the absence of concerted and uncompromising political organization, means virtually nothing to those actually controlling the destiny of the country.

As Rebecca Bower of Electronic Frontier Foundation writes:

The Juki-net became a major source of controversy in Japan when it was launched. A newspaper opinion poll conducted just before implementation found that 86 percent of respondents were afraid of data leakage or improper use of information, while 76 percent thought implementation should be postponed. Several lawsuits challenged the new system, charging that it constituted a violation of the right to privacy guaranteed by Article 13 of the Japanese Constitution. Protests were mounted as well; 70 municipal assemblies and 29 mayors passed resolutions demanding the government postpone Juki-net’s implementation. In one city, whose mayor made it possible for citizens to opt out, 839,539 citizens went to city offices to register for non-participation.[1][3] Following a Supreme Court ruling that found Juki-net to be constitutional, the citizens who’d requested to opt out were enrolled anyway.

As one can see, even in the face of protests and concerns expressed by the vast majority of the population, the plan still went forward according to schedule anyway. Unfortunately, this is not likely to change if the will of the people and the will of the oligarchy remain in their current state of mobilization.

It should be noted, of course, that the “My Number Bill” does not contain provisions that will require biometric identification. However, the similarity of the Japanese UID to programs such as the one currently underway in India cannot be ignored. After all, seeing the term “UID” crop up in such distant countries at the same time should lead one to believe that the national ID, UID, and biometric ID programs are much more global in scale that what the general public is being told.

But while the UID in India, a country whose culture is much different than that of the Japanese, was initiated essentially all at once complete with iris and palm scans, facial photographs, and ID cards, the program in Japan is clearly being implemented with much more stealth.

As I have stated on many occasions: what, at first, might not be advantageous to announce in one fell swoop is usually introduced by methods of gradual exposure.

First, the program is introduced as only a number used by different municipal governments. Although the populace is unhappy at first, their resolve soon gives way and they adjust relatively quickly. The next stage is set to further centralize the database and expand the amount of information it contains. Then combining the authority of the state with the convenience and “advantages” of the private sector soon follows. Once this occurs, the level of hacking, identity theft, and other forms of privacy violations (always advertised as having been committed by individual citizens) will become so rampant that something clearly must be done.

Enter biometrics.

The method of incrementalism is key to understanding the agenda behind such technology and the methodology behind its implementation. The same roadmap either has been or is being followed in countries like India, Germany, Argentina, Belgium, Colombia, Spain, Peru, and Italy.

Yet there is virtually no country that is not attempting to develop and implement its own version of the UID, even if the attempt may still be in its infancy. For instance, it was only due to very large public outcry that the UK abandoned its open push for a national ID program.

Although the United States has officially abandoned the method of openly advocating for a biometric ID system, there are repeated efforts from both the Executive and Legislative branches to create and introduce such a system. However, what the U.S. government no longer attempts in the open can easily be seen in the shadows via programs such as S-COMM, NGI, IDENT and other DHS-related ideas.

There should be little doubt that the “My Number Bill” being introduced in Japan is merely one more step in the global march for total control over every individual on the planet. The police state control grid is not unique to one country or even one continent. It is global.

With this in mind, the Japanese and, indeed, the rest of the world, have a choice – remain glued to our television sets or get off the couch and free ourselves.

It’s really that simple.

[1] Midori Ogasawara, "ID Troubles: The National Identification Systems in Japan and the (mis) Construction of the Subject" (Master’s Thesis, Queen’s University, 2008), 103 [online], available at http://qspace.library.queensu.ca/handle/1974/1222

Read other articles by Brandon Turbeville here.