GAFA is an acronym that refers collectively to Google LLC; Apple Inc.; Facebook Inc., which recently renamed itself Meta Platforms Inc.; and Amazon.com Inc.

These U.S.-based information technology (IT) giants also are known as “platformers” because they provide online platforms for internet search, electronic commerce and social media, among other functions.

Few people today are probably living totally out of the reach of the platformers, also called the “new rulers” because the sheer scale of their clout is comparable to that of sovereign states.

Some argue that the activities of these and other IT giants should exist within certain frameworks to protect individuals from them, just like many existing states have Constitutions that restrain governments from exercising their power to ensure people’s basic human rights will be guaranteed.

PLATFORMERS VERSUS STATES

We believe that this year, which marks the 75th anniversary of the Japanese Constitution taking effect, is a good time to hold in-depth discussions on what this data ocean called cyberspace should be like.

Facebook said last year that, in renaming itself Meta, it will be putting more effort into the “metaverse” business in the coming years.

The metaverse refers to a virtual online space where people have their avatars, or alter egos, appear on their behalf so they can talk to others around the world, shop for goods and accomplish other tasks. The company said the metaverse will be visited by billions of people in the future.

Tatsuhiko Yamamoto, a professor of constitutional law with Tokyo’s Keio University who is well-versed in the issue of artificial intelligence, said the vision released by Meta made him realize that a platformer could become mightier than a state.

“Our lives are shifting into a virtual space, where the rules are set by (Meta CEO Mark) Zuckerberg,” Yamamoto said. “He is the lawgiver of sorts. ‘Law’ that has not gone through democratic processes will be constraining us. That takes us to a totally different level of things where no other private authorities took us before.”

Early last year, Facebook and Twitter Inc. locked the accounts of Donald Trump, then the U.S. president, which were being used to instigate violence.

Apart from the question of whether they rightly did so, the development highlighted the dodgy reality wherein platformers could clash with freedom of expression, and with democracy by extension, under certain circumstances.

Their might derives from the vast reams of private information they acquire via the internet from all corners of the world.

They provide the basis for targeted advertising, credit ratings of individuals and other features, which could affect people’s free will and have a grave impact on their lives.

FOCUS ON RESPECT FOR INDIVIDUALS

Quick to address the dodgy situation was the European Union, which sees the protection of personal information as a basic human right.

The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, which took effect in 2018, has sometimes been dubbed a “declaration of human rights” of the 21st century.

The GDPR provides, among other things, for the right of citizens to learn what kind of private data a given business entity possesses about themselves and for the right to data portability, which allows them to have similar data transmitted to another business entity.

It also includes provisions on the right to object to profiling, or evaluation of personal profiles through automatic processing by a platformer, and the right to be forgotten, which allows the citizen to call for erasure of personal data that exists online.

There is also a trend toward stricter regulations in the United States, known as a bastion of freedom of expression.

Japan has yet to catch up with similar progress.

A passage in the government’s basic policy for the realization of a digital society, approved by the Cabinet late in 2020, said: “Efforts will be made to create a fair and ethical digital society, which will include allowing individuals to have autonomous control over information about themselves.”

That ideal, however, was not included in a package of laws on digital reforms enacted last May. The government explained it is “not appropriate to spell it out explicitly as representing a general right.”

Article 13 of the Constitution of Japan, considered to represent part and parcel of the supreme law, says all people should be respected as individuals. The right of individuals to control information about themselves on their own derives from there.

Tantalizingly enough, however, discussions over many years on the matter have yet to bear fruit.

CHECK AND BALANCE BETWEEN BIG POWERS

It was pointed out in the Lower House Commission on the Constitution late last year that private information could be used inappropriately and that democracy could be distorted by online spin control.

One commission member argued that protection of personal data should be given well-defined status in the context of the Constitution, whereas another said basic principles on data handling should be stated clearly in the Constitution.

Some believe no similar provision needs to be spelled out in the Constitution and it suffices for the law on the protection of personal information to expressly stipulate the right to control one’s own information.

In any event, there is a need more clearly to outline freedoms and rights concerning the handling of data when balancing that with the public’s right to know.

The platformers are, of course, commercial enterprises that should be granted freedoms and, therefore, not be placed under excessive regulations.

Nations, in the interim, need to work together to confront the issues posed by these gigantic, transnational businesses.

We should also not forget that the state has the potential to obstruct the human rights of individuals. Centralization and monopoly of data by the state would create a sci-fi dystopia.

We should, before everything else, place our focus on respect for individuals in seeking a point of check and balance between the big powers.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Jan. 1