アノニマス:違法ダウンロード対象拡大に対抗する措置、「Onion Share」

“You shouldn’t break the law”.

For the most part, we can agree with that.
We also think you also shouldn’t create insane laws.

Since last year, the Japanese government has been aggressively trying to restrict Communications Secrecy and Freedom of Expression on the Internet. In April 2018, the government partnered with NTT Communications to monitor communications and block access to certain websites, violating Article 21 of the Japanese Constitution. In response, we helped to provide a Japanese version of the Onion Browser for iOS.

Then, in August of the same year, the government proposed allowing rights holders of copyrighted works to use Denial-of-Service attacks against suspected pirate sites, a reckless expansion of corporate power. In response to that, we announced the release of the Japanese version of Signal, an encrypted communications tool.

But as expected, the Japanese government has continued to expand its power without any concern for the negative consequences. In early 2019, the Agency for Cultural Affairs proposed expanding the scope of the Copyright Act, which only covers music and video, to include comics, photographs, and all copyrighted written material as well. To be clear, the Copyright Act is the law which treats illegal downloading as a criminal offense. Those arrested can face 10 years in prison.

This law is already excessive to begin with. But expanding its scope to cover photographs and written works makes it significantly worse. The simple act of downloading a photograph from a blog and posting it on social media, or copy-pasting the content of a news article would become a criminal act. The Cultural Council’s Subcommittee on Copyright has even explicitly stated that merely taking a screenshot would be considered criminal copyright infringement.

These things are daily activities for Internet users, and making them serious crimes is nothing short of criminalizing use of the Internet itself. The Japanese government has made promises that these laws will only be used for serious and repeated copyright offenses. But the Japanese government has made many promises in the past.

When they used Penal Code Article 37 to justify violating Communication Secrecy, they promised it would only be limited to child pornography sites. When they expanded the use of Article 37 to include manga and anime pirate sites, they promised it would be limited in scope. Now they have expanded it to cover screenshots and the copy-paste function, and still they promise not to abuse power. Each promise was abandoned as soon as it became inconvenient. This time will be no different.

The government says these laws are necessary to protect the economy. But that is an obvious lie. Even publishing company executives have spoken out against the government’s plans, claiming that they did not wish to go this far. In spite of that, the government has been working hard to push these new laws, even going so far as to present slanted and misleading information to lawmakers to justify their case. The Agency for Cultural Affairs heavily edited their report to emphasise supporting opinions while minimizing or even omitting dissenting ones. In spite of the fact that positive opinions were in the minority, the report presented them as the majority.

If even the copyright holders do not support these laws, and the government has to manipulate information to support them, perhaps these laws aren’t meant to help the economy at all. It seems much more likely these laws will be used to justify more surveillance and information control by the government. Restricting the ability of people to copy and share information makes it harder to them to see through propaganda and discover the truth. Free expression and free information have always been the enemy of authoritarian control.

Fortunately, these proposals did not succeed. But only this time. They will be back, and it is necessary to prepare countermeasures against rising censorship of the internet. To that end, we have another software release to announce.

Earlier this year, we helped translate a program named “OnionShare” into Japanese. OnionShare is a file-sharing program that routes all data through the Tor network. Files are hosted on a temporary Hidden Service address, and can be freely uploaded and downloaded via the Tor Browser, all while bypassing surveillance and site blocking. OnionShare can be used privately between two individuals, or publicly to allow a file to be shared widely among many users.
今年の初めに、我々は「オニオンシェア」というソフトの日本語版を翻訳に協力していました。オニオンシェアはTorネットワークを通してデータを送るファイル共有ソフトです。共有されるファイルは一時秘匿サービス(Hidden Service)でホストされ、検閲や監視をすり抜けながら、Torブラウザでダウンロードすることができます。2人切りのユーザーの間にファイル共有の場合も、世界中の人々に広く共有する場合も、オニオンシェアは役立つことでしょう。

To use OnionShare in Japanese, it’s necessary to change the settings after installation. After downloading the program from this address, install the program and execute it. After OnionShare has finished connecting to the Tor network, click on the gear icon in the top right corner. Then choose 日本語 from the Language drop menu in the bottom left of the settings window and click Save. After you restart the OnionShare program, the UI will be changed into Japanese. We will release a more detailed user guide in the future, but this is enough for basic operation.
日本語でオニオンシェアを利用するため、インストール後に設定を変える必要があります。このアドレスからオニオンシェアをダウンロードしたら、インストールして実行して下さい。オニオンシェアは自動的にTorネットワークと接続します。接続が完了したら、右上の歯車アイコンをクリックします。そして設定画面の左下に、「Preferred language」ドロップメニューから日本語を選択し、「Save」をクリック。次にオニオンシェアを再起動する時に、UIは日本語になります。いずれ、もっと詳しいユーザーガイドを発行したいと思いますが、とりあえず基本操作にはこれで十分でしょう。

Previous software releases work together very well with OnionShare. The Tor Browser for PC or Android, or OnionBrowser on iOS, can all access an OnionShare address. And with Signal, even sharing a link to an OnionShare address can be done secretly.

This is not the end of our work. We will continue to translate and distribute privacy protecting software as long as Communication Secrecy is under threat. As to the Japanese government, we urge you…stop making these stupid fucking laws. Please.





日本人に自己弁護をする機会を与えずに、日本のマンガとアニメ産業を脅かすなんてひどい、と我々は思ってます。だからこそ我々は英文で、日本の人々がOHCHRまで送れるために、同文の手紙を作りました。OHCHRはWordドキュメントファイルのみを受け入れますので、このファイルをダウンロードして、あるいは内容を自分が作ったWordファイルにコピペして、そしてこの問い合わせメールアドレスまで送って下さい: crc@ohchr.org


To whom it may concern,

I am writing to with regard to the Draft Guidelines on the implementation of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (OPSC). I would like to preface my submission by praising the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR) for working to oppose child exploitation, child pornography, and child abuse in all its forms the world over. The victimization of children should be neither forgiven nor forgotten, and the good intentions of all involved in the OHCHR are worthy of praise.

That being said, I note with great dismay that the content of the Draft Guidelines contain some worrying language that I feel must be addressed. Namely on Page 14, Sections 56 through 59, which I will quote in their entirety below:

“56. Child pornography is defined in article 2 OPSC as “any representation of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities, regardless of the means used, or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes”. The qualification “by whatever means” reflects the broad range of material available in a variety of media, online and offline. It includes, inter alia: visual material such as photographs, movies, drawings and cartoons; audio representations; any digital media representation; live performances; written materials in print or online; and physical objects such as sculptures, toys, or ornaments.

57. The Committee urges States parties to prohibit, by law, child sexual abuse material in any form. The Committee notes that such material is increasingly circulating online, and strongly recommends States parties to ensure that relevant provisions of their Criminal Codes cover all forms of material, including when the acts listed in article 3.1(c) are committed online and including when such material represents realistic representations of non-existing children.

58. The Committee is of the view that “simulated explicit sexual activities” should be interpreted as including any material, online or offline, that depicts or otherwise represents any person appearing to be a child engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit conduct and realistic and/or virtual depictions of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Such depictions contribute to normalising the sexualisation of children and fuels the demand of child sexual abuse material.

59. Moreover, for the reasons explained in paragraph 63, any representation of the sexual parts of a child, including realistic images of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes falls under the definition of this offence. Where it may be complicated to establish with certainty if a representation is intended or used for “primarily sexual purposes”, the Committee deems it necessary to consider the context in which it is being used.

While the intentions of the OHCHR are admirable, I am concerned that the potential ramifications of these Sections have not been thoroughly considered. While it is perfectly understandable, and highly admirable, to encourage member states to enact laws that protect the rights of children, it is not at all clear why the the OHCHR wishes to criminalize “virtual depictions” by the same standard as material that victimizes actual human beings.

My concerns are twofold: firstly, it diminishes the gravity of real human victimization by placing it on the same level are virtual representations of the same, which necessarily entail no actual human suffering. Secondly, it presents a very real danger of threatening hard-won rights in the areas of free speech and creative expression. The zeal of many to protect the vulnerable can often, unfortunately, cloud their judgment with regards to the long term ramifications of their decisions, and laws that restrict creative expression in entirely virtual creative mediums invite abuse by those with power to abuse their position.

Additionally, while Section 58 of the OPSC makes the definitive statement that “[realistic depictions of non-existing children] contribute to normalising the sexualization of children and fuels the demand of child sexual abuse material”, the OHCHR offers neither sources no evidence to support this claim. On the contrary, in 2012 the “Sexologisk Klinik” in Denmark authored a report for the Danish government on the subject of “animated child pornography”, in which they found that “there are no scientific studies to illustrate whether the possession of fictitious child pornography…may lead individuals to commit sexual assault on children”1. In other words, one of the core assumptions of this section of the OPSC would appear to be begging the question. Given that the OHCHR is seeking to criminalize otherwise perfectly legal acts that neither produce real victims as a primary effect, nor definitively inspire further victimization as a secondary effect, this is a worrying lack of due diligence.

It should be noted, in February of 2016 the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) held a review of the Japanese government’s efforts to implement the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. During this review, one of the issues for discussion between CEDAW and a delegation from the Japanese Government was “Banning the sale of video games or cartoons involving sexual violence against women ”2.

In response to this issue, Ms.Kumiko Yamada of the Japanese Women’s Institute Of Contemporary Media Culture made a powerful and admirable rebuttal3. While this rebuttal was written in Japanese, it has very kindly been translated into English by user “u/RyanoftheStars” in the KotakuInAction subreddit on Reddit4. While her comments were regarding the CEDAW, I feel that portions of her rebuttal are highly relevant to the OPSC, and to illustrate my point I wish to paraphrase some of her comments below:

I am absolutely in agreement that the protection of the rights of children is important. On the other hand, I think it should be carefully and seriously evaluated whether the measures taken to ensure those protections are valid ones or not. If we are asked to consider whether “Protecting Children’s Rights” requires us to “Ban the Media Virtually Depicting Child Exploitation,” then we must reply that that is an absolute “no.”

The so-called child exploitation in manga, video games, and other virtual media is a made-up thing and as such does not threaten the rights of actual people; therefore, it is meaningless in protecting the rights of children.

It goes without saying that the sexual abuse of actual real people is an actual violation of their rights and should obviously be forbidden by law, and that it’s necessary to protect and support victims. However, the figures in manga, video games, and other virtual media are creative fictions that do not actually exist, and thus this is not a violation of any real person’s human rights. We should focus on attacking the problems that affect real children’s human rights as quickly as possible.

It is noted that on the other hand when it comes to “media that depicts child exploitation” a certain segment of people are going to find it unpleasant. Nevertheless, to ban expression and commerce unilaterally based on feelings of whether or not something is unpleasant, or viewpoints on what should be moral, is a practice not to be condoned. The basis for feelings about what is or is not repulsive, and moral viewpoints, will differ based on the individual or their region and that culture’s segmented local society. The basis for the values in Local Society A and the basis for the values in Local Society B are not necessarily going to match. Therefore it stands to reason to suddenly use one local society’s standards as the standards of a society as a whole would only prompt a massacre of discord in conflicting values among the people in the greater society.

If we are to aim for the smooth operation of society as a whole, then there might be workarounds we can implement so that a certain type of person can avoid suddenly running into “unpleasant expressions” they don’t want to see, but these should be limited to regulations in zoning and circulation only. We should not ban any media that depicts “unpleasant expressions” under content guidelines that enforce moral standards unilaterally on society.

As stated above, we cannot say that banning the sale of virtual media that “depict child exploitation” is valid, even if we were to agree that the goal of protecting the rights of children is correct.

There is nothing to be gained from regulating fictional child exploitation. However, while you’re trying to fix the rights of fictional characters, you’re leaving the human rights of real children in the real world left to rot. As well, the entire reason we have a media genre such as manga that developed to take on themes such as the sexual exploitation of children came from an attitude to tolerate “drinking the pure and the dirty without prejudice.” It’s because we had the freedom to express our views and with that to express the view of a world of humans that live and die, that there are pure and wonderful things and dirty and nasty things mixed with each other.

As a final comment, I would like to address a point regarding the content of this letter. It may be the case that multiple submissions will be received by the OHCHR with identical or similar phrasing. While I’m certain this may create the impression that the submissions are insincere duplications, this could not be further from the truth. In fact, Sections 56 though 59 of the OPSC present an existential threat to the livelihood of a number of artists and industries in nations (primarily Japan) that produce fictional and virtual material that may very well fall under the jurisdiction of the OPSC. However, in spite of the global nature of the OPSC’s scope, the OHCHR has refused to accept submissions in any languages aside from English, French, and Spanish. This is highly discriminatory against people in multiple nations around the world who are unable to communicate in these languages, and are thus unable to speak in their own defence in spite of the fact that they are directly threatened by the OPSC’s overly broad definitions.

Towards that end, this letter has been created as a collective effort by concerned residents of Japan to help give a voice to the voiceless. I would hope that, in future, the OHCHR will accept public comment with the same breadth of scope that they use to impose their views on others.

Thank you.



1https://jm.schultzboghandel.dk/upload/microsites/jm/ebooks/bet1534/pdf/bet_1534_bind_II.pdf (p.196-198)




アノニマスの見解 Ep.14:国連ロリ権利高等弁務官事務所

Well…here we go again…

In the last ANONYMOUS NO KENKAI video, we talked about how the Censors try to impose their views on others by force. Back then it was through corporate power via Sony, but this threat has another vector…government power. But before we get into that, I’d like us all to do a thought experiment together. Are you ready? Let’s go:

Hey, have you guys ever seen those fucking SAW movies? There’s like eight of them, and they’re all about people being kidnapped and tortured. It’s basically snuff porn. Seriously, it’s some sick fucking shit. People who enjoy watching this are almost certainly dangerous people, and probably future psycho killers.

Listen guys, I think we can all agree that..ah..”such depictions contribute to normalizing the glorification of torture and fuels the demand of snuff material”. So even though kidnapping, torture, and murder are all already illegal, we ought to ALSO make it illegal for anybody to have “any representation of abduction, torture, or murder, regardless of the means used” including “visual material such as drawings and cartoons; audio representations; any digital media representation; live performances; written materials in print or online; and physical objects such as sculptures, toys, or ornaments”.

Obviously, this would mean outlawing an impossible number of creative works. But these things glorify crimes, so nobody should ever want to see that anyway. And if they do, they’re probably sick fucks and don’t need rights or protections anyway.

If that sounded incredibly stupid to you, then welcome to being sane. Unfortunately, it’s a very small club. And getting smaller every day…

In February of 2019, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) issued a draft guideline of the “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child”, which according to their website exists to prevent human trafficking, child prostitution, child pornography, and underage exploitation. Sounds good, right? Who doesn’t like protecting children?

In typical fashion for these types of authoritarian censors, however, the OHCHR is using a good thing everybody supports as leverage to force in a bad thing that helps nobody. In this case, the poison pill is page 14, section 56, where they define “child pornography” as anything and everything that virtually depicts sexually explicit images of non-existing children.

Why? Apparently because the OHCHR thinks loli/ero art is a gateway drug to real life child abuse. Obviously everybody is countering that idea with the argument for free expression, and its an important argument that needs to be made. But I’d like to examine our earlier thought experiment in more detail to take an entirely different approach.

Part of the reason for choosing the SAW movies, and the example of kidnapping and torture for the thought experiment, was because of the difference in peoples’ reactions. Obviously most people have a much stronger emotional reaction to the idea of children being hurt, and arguably with good reason…it’s just a normal human reaction. So when the idea of virtual child abuse is brought up, it usually causes a similar knee-jerk emotional reaction. But the same doesn’t usually happen with depictions of violence in general, even sadistic violence like the kind you’d see in SAW. Most people would agree in the abstract that torture is bad, but the reaction is almost never as visceral. If you tried to ban all SAW movies for glorifying torture, I imagine you’d have a hard time getting as many people on board with the idea.

This is because the reaction is, fundamentally, an emotional one. And while our emotional reactions have their places, they cannot and should never be the basis for the creation of law. For laws to function well, they need to be logical principles that can be applied equally and fairly to all situations.

Once we strip away the emotional language of this Optional Protocol, what are we left with? “Virtual depictions of illegal acts that harm non-existing people must be illegal, on par with the real-life acts they depict”. If we apply this principle equally to all situations, we would end up with absurd results. Practically speaking, almost every work of fiction from any time period would be illegal by this standard. If this principle is meant to apply in the case of child exploitation, why not kidnapping? Why not murder, or torture? If the law isn’t going to be fairly applied across the board, should it even exist?
感情的になった言葉をはぎ取れば、選択議定書の原則はこれです:「架空の存在しない犠牲者が生じる犯罪行為の描写は、実際の犯罪と同じ基準で犯罪と見なさなければならない」 この原則を全ての状況に平等に当てはまれば、ばかげた結果が生じます。事実上、人類の歴史の中で作られた創作物は犯罪になるでしょう。この原則はバーチャル児童虐待の場合に適用するなら、何故バーチャル誘拐の場合に適用しないのでしょうか?また、バーチャル殺人やバーチャル拷問の場合は?全ての状況に平等に当てはまることができなければ、この法は本当に存在するべきなのでしょうか?

Supporters of the Optional Protocol might argue, as the OHCHR does, that virtual depictions of crimes would normalize them, and fuel demand for real crimes. My only response to this is…prove it. I don’t believe that this is true, and if the OHCHR isn’t offering any evidence to back that up I’m going to accuse them of begging the question. On the contrary, I’m going to argue that the majority of people are perfectly capable of understanding the difference between fantasy and reality. Our media and popular culture is saturated with fictional acts that would be illegal in real life, but media spotlight fallacy aside, people are not rushing out to commit these same crimes in massive numbers.

In spite of this, the Optional Protocol urges countries to enact laws that would criminalize otherwise legal activities that produce no victims. Where these laws might run against legitimate creative freedoms, the Protocol “deems it necessary to consider the context in which it being used”…an open invitation for the creation of censorship boards, further centralizing more power in fewer hands.

The sad thing is, this isn’t even the first time the UN has tried shit like this. Back in 2016, another UN Committee tried to ban the sale of manga or anime depicting sexual violence against women. This attempt was denounced by Kumiko Yamada of the Japanese Women’s Institute Of Contemporary Media Culture, and the most salient point she makes could just as easily apply to this current round of attempted censorship:

“…when it comes to manga that depicts sexual violence a certain segment of people are going to find it unpleasant. Nevertheless, to ban expression and commerce unilaterally based on feelings of whether or not something is unpleasant, or viewpoints on what should be moral, is a practice not to be condoned. The basis for feelings about what is or is not repulsive, and moral viewpoints, will differ based on the individual or their region and that culture’s segmented local society…Therefore it stands to reason to suddenly use one local society’s standards as the standards of a society as a whole would only prompt a massacre of discord in conflicting values among the people in the greater society…there might be workarounds we can implement so that a certain type of person can avoid suddenly running into “unpleasant expressions” they don’t want to see, but these should be limited to regulations in zoning and circulation only. We should not ban any manga that depicts “unpleasant expressions” under content guidelines that enforce moral standards unilaterally on society.”

We couldn’t agree more.

Of course, the real question is…what can we do about it this time? Well, fortunately the OHCHR is accepted comments from now until March 31st. Unfortunately, and very typically for these people, they refuse to accept any comments that aren’t in English, French, or Spanish. This is spite of the fact that the rules they seek to create will impact people the world over.

We decided that it was unfair to threaten the livelihood of people without giving them the opportunity to speak for themselves. So we’ve created a form letter for Japanese viewers to download, copy, and send to the OHCHR’s contact e-mail address. The OHCHR will only accept Word documents, so download our document file or copy-paste the text into a Word document of your own and attach it to an e-mail sent to this address.

If you’re an artist or a fan of manga, anime, or doujin culture in Japan, we urge as many of you as possible to participate. Without a strong reaction from the public, laws like these can easily slip through before you know it. And once they become written into law, they’re almost impossible to remove.

It’s also wise to prepare for the worst case scenario. Remember that centralization is the tool of the Censor. The decentralized privacy tools we promote are an important line of defense to preserve both creative and individual freedoms online. Don’t just wait for the government to save you, start taking action to defend your own freedom today.

And the next time somebody tries to create laws to protect the rights of fictional people, let’s remember that they may have an ulterior motive. If a law is truly needed, it should exist to protect the rights of real human beings. Any law that tries to go beyond that doesn’t exist to protect you, but to police your thoughts and beliefs. And those types of laws should always be opposed.

This was ANONYMOUS NO KENKAI. And until next time…MACHIUKENASAI.


SignalのAndroid版: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.thoughtcrime.securesms

SignalのiOS版: https://itunes.apple.com/jp/app/signal-private-messenger/id874139669

SignalのPC版: https://signal.org/download/











我々はLocalization Labに参加する世界中のボランティアと再び協力し、「Signal」というメッセンジャーアプリのAndroid版、iOS版、PC版において日本語の翻訳を完了しました。






BGM: CO.AG, “Cicada 3301”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b73t9SLss8k



Twitter: https://twitter.com/JapanAnon
マストドン: https://pawoo.net/@JapanAnon


アノニマス:サイトブロッキングに対抗する措置の第1段階、「Onion Browser」

Onion Browserのダウンロード:

Hello people of Japan. We are Anonymous.

In April, we announced our campaign against Site Blocking by the Japanese government. Since then, the situation in Japan has continued to deteriorate. On April 23rd, NTT Communications agreed to cooperate in blocking websites, in violation of the Right to Communications Privacy outlined in Article 21 of the Japanese Constitution.

More interestingly, NHK and The Intercept revealed the existence of several SIGINT organizations in the Japanese government, including the Directorate for Signals Intelligence (DFS) and the Cabinet Intelligence and Research Organization (CIRO). These groups routinely collect the private communications of Japanese citizens, in deep cooperation with the American National Security Agency, proving that the Japanese government has no respect for Communications Privacy.

NTT Communications and the Japanese government say they can be trusted not to abuse power, but their actions tell another story. In order to protect the Right to Privacy enshrined in the Japanese Constitution, it is necessary for every citizen to take matters into their own hands.

Which is why we are proud to announce that the first stage in our plan to provide secure communications to the Japanese people is finally complete. In cooperation with the Localization Lab, we and other volunteers around the world have fully translated “The Onion Browser” into Japanese.
というわけで、今回の動画では、日本の人々に安全な通信を提供する我々の計画の第1段階の完了、及びその内容を発表したいと思います。ネット上に「Translation Lab」という翻訳を主にたずさわるローカライゼーション団体があります。そしてこの団体に参加する世界中のボランティアと協力し、我々は「Onion Browser」の日本語への翻訳を完了しました。

“Onion Browser” is an iOS version of the Tor browser, allowing iPhone and iPad users to easily bypass site blocking techniques used by Japanese ISPs. It also provides a layer of protection against surveillance, restoring privacy to internet users.
「Onion Browser」はiOS版のTorブラウザアプリです。このアプリで、iPhoneまたはiPadのユーザーは容易にプロバイダーのサイトブロッキングを擦り抜けることができます。そしてこのアプリを介した通信はTorネットワークを介するので、監視に対する防衛にもなります。

While Apple devices are far from anonymous, the fact remains that iPhones and iPads are quite popular in Japan. Rather than make the perfect the enemy of the good, we will provide solutions that work for the present reality, and hope that Japanese users will embrace more privacy-respecting technology in the future.

The Japanese version of Onion Browser can be download for free from the iTunes App Store right now, and if you are an iOS user we encourage you to download it as soon as possible.
日本語版のOnion Browserは今すぐにでもiTunesのアプリストアから無料ダウンロードできます。iOSユーザーにダウンロードを強くお勧めします。

But this is not the end of our efforts. This is only the beginning. We will continue to translate software, and spread knowledge to the Japanese people so that neither government agency nor company can easily violate their Constitutional rights.

We are Anonymous
We are Legion
We do not Forgive
We do not Forget
Expect us.


Hello People of Japan.

We are Anonymous.

In March 2018, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga announced that, to combat the rise in manga piracy, the government was “considering all measures including site blocking”.

In early April, the Japanese government announced, in spite of the clear violation of Article 21 of the Japanese Constitution, that it would seek the cooperation of Japanese ISPs to block suspected pirate sites,

The government’s justification for this is to regard content piracy as a “present danger” under Article 37 of the Penal Code, which states “An act unavoidably performed to avert a present danger to the life, body, liberty or property of oneself or any other person is not punishable”.

Indeed, we can recognize a “present danger” here, but not in the form of manga piracy.

Government censorship, violation of Constitutional law, breach of communications privacy…these “present dangers” are right before us.

We do not speak in favor of piracy sites, nor do we defend them. That is not the reason we are speaking out on this issue.

But justifying government-ordered site blocking under Article 37 of the Penal Code is not only ludicrous, it’s also dangerous.

No matter what impact pirate sites may or may not have on the manga industry, the loss of profits can never be a considered a “present danger” in any way. Widening the definition of Penal Code Article 37 to such a ridiculous degree only invites further abuse, as other information and activities can easily be judged as more harmful than mere copyright infringement, and worth blocking.

The use of Penal Code Article 37 that allowed the blocking of child pornography sites raised concerns about a slippery slope of widening censorship. We were told that this was only a limited exception to Article 21, and there was no need for such fears. And yet now we are witnessing the slippery slope in action.

Even without a binding law, requests for voluntary cooperation to ISPs by the police or government are a form of pressure. The position of power government holds effectively coerces cooperation, making any such requests de-facto demands.

Further, asking ISPs to block access to certain sites encourages them to track the browsing habits of Japanese internet users more generally, which violates privacy of communications and expands the surveillance state.

We strongly condemn any site blocking requests from the government, and urge Japanese ISPs to refuse these requests and defend users’ Article 21 rights to privacy, and against censorship. These are actions we would expect from authoritarian countries like China and North Korea, not a Constitutional Democracy like Japan.

However, merely asking the government and ISPs to stop is not enough. It is necessary for Japanese users to secure their own privacy and freedom from censorship. To make this possible, we strongly recommend the use of Tor or a VPN. We will escalate our work to provide Tor and other VPN software in Japanese, as well as information on how to use this software to bypass site blocking.

We urge all Japanese internet users to begin using Tor and VPNs now. The more people can easily bypass site blocking, the more ineffective government censorship becomes. And as for the politicians who desire to violate their own Constitution in the name of censorship powers….

Please learn how to feel shame.

We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect Us.

分散的動画サイト「SPKOUT」 :日本語のユーザーガイド



アノニマスの見解 Ep.7: 分散型、非集中系

Hello again everybody

It’s been a while since the last ANONYMOUS NO KENKAI, and I apologize for the delay. Comiket kept us busy, but that’s behind us now, so we’re back to business as usual. Thank you to everybody who came out to our booth to visit us and pick up a book. Disconnect Volume 4 is now available as a free PDF download on our site, in English and Japanese, so go check it out.
前の「アノニマスの見解」からずいぶん時間が立って申し訳ない。コミケで手いっぱいだったが、もう終わったからいつものパターンに戻ります。チャノロジーのサークルに来てくれたみなさん、ありがとうございます。Disconnect Vol.4のPDF版、英語版も日本語版も、私たちのサイトから無料ダウンロードできますので、ぜひ見て下さい。

So what’s the topic going to be this time? Well, today we’re going to talk about “decentralization” and what it means for a free internet. We’ve already talked about the value of anonymity and the necessity of encryption, but decentralization is another very important pillar of internet freedom. But why? And what exactly does it mean?

Perhaps the best way to describe decentralization is to describe what it isn’t. And to talk about that, we need to look at few news stories.

1) nemuismywife: Near the end of August, a Japanese Twitter user (@nemuismywife) had his account suspended after he posted a “death threat” against a mosquito in his living room. As of the posting of this video, the account has not been restored and Twitter Japan has made no comment, in spite of the story being picked up by both the BBC and Yahoo News.
1) nemuismywife: 8月末に、「nemuismywife」という日本人のツイッターユーザーが冗談で「蚊へ死の脅迫」を投稿しました。すると、すぐに、アカウントは凍結されました。いまだに、彼のアカウントは凍結されたままです。このことは、BBCとヤフーニュースに取り上げられてるにもかかわらず、Twitterから声明が全くない。

2) Haruka Yume no Ato: In early September, it was announced that the pirate manga link index site “Haruka Yume no Ato” was shut down after a coordinated police raid in 8 prefectures. The owners and operators of the site are being investigated for violation of the Copyright Law, in spite of the fact their site hosts no content itself. Haruka Yume no Ato creates lists of links to sites outside Japan where pirate manga can be found, but apparently just hosting links to other peoples’ content is enough to get the police involved these days.
2) はるか夢の址: 9月初めに、海賊版マンガのリンク情報収集サイト「はるか夢の址」は警察に急襲され、閉鎖されました。サイトの内容には海賊版マンガが全くないにもかかわらず、所有者はダウンロード法違反の疑いで取り調べられてる。「はるか夢の址」は国外の海賊版マンガダウンロードリンクのリストを作るだけですが、それだけでも警察の目を引くのに十分ですね。

3) YouTube’s Sandbox: In the wake of America’s recent moral panic over Nazis, YouTube (owned by Google) created a system where selected users could flag “offensive” videos. These flagged videos would then have their comments and sharing features disabled, effectively isolating them without technically banning or censoring them.
3) YouTubeのサンドボックス: アメリカでの「ナチス復活」という茶番を受けて、YouTube(親会社Google社)は特定ユーザーがビデオに「不適切」というフラグを付けることができるシステムを作りました。フラグ付けてるビデオのコメントと共有機能は無効にされるので、厳密に言えば検閲されてないが、実際上は隔離されます。

Perhaps Google and their army of amateur volunteer moderators have nothing but good intentions. But mob justice isn’t known for being fair or accurate. Case in point, I present to you the video “Paint Colors in Reenacting”, a video by “Reenactor Guy”. The video is about how to paint props for World War 2 reenactment. In spite of it having nothing to do with neo-Nazis or racism, the video was flagged as “offensive” and isolated for several days.
Googleとそのボランティアモデレーターは善意にあふれているかもしれないが、暴徒による正義は公明正大とは言えない。例として、「Reenactor Guy」と名前のユーザーから「Paint Colors in Reenacting」のビデオを紹介したいと思います。WW2の戦闘を再現するために小道具の塗装する方法のビデオです。ネオナチまたはレイシズムと全く関係ないなのに、ビデオは「不適切」とフラグ付けられて、数日間隔離されてしまった。

It was eventually returned to normal, but only after Reenactor Guy appealed, and even then he was given no explanation or apology. But this isn’t Google’s first dance when it comes to content censorship.
後に元に戻されたが、Reenactor Guyが抗議した後だった。しかも、YouTubeから説明も謝罪もなかった。しかも、Google社の検閲はこれに始まったことではありません。

4) The Controversial Case of the Daily Stormer: Around the middle of August, a protest in Charlottesville, Virginia turned violent resulting in the death of one Heather Heyer. In the media storm that followed, a website called the Daily Stormer posted an article about the deceased that…upset some people.
4) 「Daily Stormer」の物議を醸す事件: 8月半ばに、アメリカのシャーロッツビル市の抗議デモが暴徒化して、Heather Heyerと名前の女性の死につながりました。マスコミの興奮のただ中で、「Daily Stormer」というサイトが死亡者に関する物議を醸す記事を載せました。

Now, the Daily Stormer is billed as a right wing neo-Nazi website. I’m not one to take labels at face value anymore, but having visited the Daily Stormer to investigate, I can say I’m not a fan of their content.
「Daily Stormer」は右派ネオナチサイトといわれます。私はレッテルを額面通りに受け取るのを好まない人ですが、Daily Stormerのコンテンツを直接経験して、嫌だと感じました。とにかく、特に好きというわけではない。

Neither, apparently, was their domain registrar. The Daily Stormer was given 24 hours to move or be delisted. They moved to Google’s domain management service, but just hours after they did, Google not only refused to serve them, but placed their domain on “client hold”. This meant that the Daily Stormer couldn’t activate or use their domain name, nor could they move it to another service. It’s been several weeks, and the Client Hold has not been released, with no sign that it will be.
ドメインネームの登録機関だってDaily Stormerを好まないみたい。Daily Stormerは、彼らに「24時間以内に他の登録機関に切り替えないとサイトをサービスから除く」と言われました。Daily StormerはGoogle社のドメイン管理サービスに変更したが、数時間後Googleはサービスを断っただけではなく、ドメインを凍結した。つまり、Daily Stormerはそのドメインを利用できず、そしてサービスを切り替えるもできなかった。それから数週間後、ドメインはまだ凍結してある、そしてGoogleが所有者に返還しようとしないみたい。

For many, this was great news. Neo-Nazi hate speech had been shut down on the internet. And that was a good thing…right?

Well, it’s a little more complicated than that. See, there are no apparent rules or limits on Google’s ability to use these “client holds”. If the Daily Stormer was breaking the law, it should have already been a police matter long before this. Does this mean Google just seized their domain because they didn’t like their content? Are there any limits to this power, or rules governing its use? If Google can do this to the Daily Stormer, who else can they do it to?
実は、事態はもう少し複雑です。まずはGoogle社がドメインを凍結する権力には規則や限界がありません。もしDaily Stormerが犯罪行為をしたら、警察はすでに関与するはず。つまり、GoogleはDaily Stormerのコンテンツを好まないというだけでドメインを凍結したということでしょうか?凍結権力には規則や限界は何ですか?GoogleはDaily Stormerにこんなことができるなら、他のサイトにも同じことできるのではないでしょうか?

5) China Bans Anonymous Posting: On Friday, August 25th, the Chinese government announced a new set of regulations that would force internet services to register all their users under their real names starting October 1st of this year. In justifying these regulations, the Cyberspace Administration of China cited a law from 2000 that specified what kind of content was forbidden on the Chinese internet, including “inciting hatred, spreading rumors, and insulting or slandering others”. Sounds familiar. The rules are broad and vague enough to cover nearly anything, which I’m sure is the point.
5) 中国での匿名禁止: 8月25日金曜日に中国政府は、ISPが今年の10月から実名でユーザーを登録する義務を負うという新しい法律を発表しました。この法律を正当化するのに、「中国サイバー管理部」は「ネット上の禁止事項」を指定する2000年からの法律を挙げました。禁止事項の中に、「ヘイトを引き起こすこと、デマを飛ばすこと、そして人を侮辱するまたは中傷すること」が入っています。聞き覚えがあるよね。もちろん、この法律は過度に広範そして曖昧だからこそ、全ての政府決定を正当化します。計画通りにね。

Now, it’s worth noting, the Chinese government has been attempting to ban anonymous speech and force real-name registration for years, with limited success. It’s also worth noting that the Daily Stormer is already back up, proving that internet censorship isn’t as easy as some would like. Yet.
注目されるのは中国政府は何年間もネット上の匿名性を禁じようとしてきたが、ほとんど成果がないことだ。さらにDaily Stormerもすでに戻ったことから、ネット検閲はそう簡単ではないと証明されます。今のところだけだが。

But it does point out the problem of centralization. Whether it’s corporations acting on their own, or following the orders of the State, internet services are vulnerable to control and censorship when they have a single, central point of failure. When one person, or a small group of people, have the power to control what you can or can’t see, that power will be abused. Maybe not today, but the mere fact that such power exists will eventually attract those who want to abuse it.

“But Anon, we need these powers to shut down Hate Speech and stop racists!”

Even if I agreed with that idea, there’s one problem with this. Any tools or laws that can be used to silence so-called “hate speech” can also be used to silence any other kind of speech. Once the power is created, there are no limits on how it can be used, or who it can be used against. History has shown us that Hate Speech Laws are often turned against their creators, and used to suppress criticism and free speech. Every time you support these laws, all you’re doing is tying a noose around your own neck.

So what’s the answer? Well, as I’ve said before, the best way to respond to an unjust law is to make it impossible to enforce. And the best way to respond to the threat of centralized services is to decentralize as much of the internet as possible.

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other centralized services rely on a central hub to function. If that central hub is compromised or disabled, there goes the entire service. By contrast, a decentralized system has no hub. Instead, it’s made of many individual nodes that can freely and voluntarily connect to each other. Even if one or more nodes are compromised, the rest of the network can route around them. And data shared by one node can be spread to all other nodes, making it difficult if not impossible to censor.

In fact, there are several examples of decentralized or partially decentralized services that already exist. One of the most famous examples of this is BitTorrent and its various clients, which have enabled file sharing for over a decade now. Mastodon and GNU Social, while not completely decentralized, are still federated, and provide some measure against total censorship that users like nemuismywife might appreciate. Similarly, Matrix and XMPP are chat protocols that can be run by anybody, and interoperate with other instances of the same software.

Many YouTubers are fleeing to alternative platforms, and one that’s caught my attention is BitChute. Instead of central servers like YouTube, BitChute uses WebTorrent, a browser-based torrent client that allows users to peer, seed, and share the content they watch straight from the browser. BitChute is still in its early stages, and not everything seems to be working quite as advertised yet, but it’s a promising start.

Finally, the most interesting. Of course everybody knows 2ch, Futaba, 4chan, and 8chan. Imageboards have been around for years, and while they were once seen as bastions of unfettered free speech, lately that illusion is starting to fade. Everybody probably knows about Hiroyuki secretly datamining 2ch for years, and that he’s doing the same thing to 4chan after buying it. Even 8chan isn’t immune to this, if the “8leaks” posted to endchan are anything to go by. Once again, centralization provides a single point of failure. And once again, the solution is decentralization. Enter NNTPChan. An open source imageboard that repurposes the News Network Transfer Protocol to share posts across multiple nodes. While each individual node is hosted on its own server, any post made on NNTPChan is quickly duplicated on all other nodes, making it nearly impossible to censor. NNTPChan can be accessed via Tor, the Invisible Internet Project, I2P, and the regular clearnet, but all posts are shared between all nodes regardless of source.
そして一番いいものを最後の楽しみにとっておきました。みんなは2ちゃんねる、ふたば、4chan、または8chanを知ってると思う。掲示板は長い歴史を持つ、そして言論の自由の保護領域と見られた時があったが、最近そのイメージは消えてなくなる。ひろゆきが2chにデータ・マイニングをしたことはよく知られてる、そして4chanを買ってからそこで同じことをやり始めました。endchanに掲示された「8leaks」によれば、8chanもユーザーを監視するという衝動を抑えられないみたい。再び、集中型サービスには単一障害点を生じさせる。そして再びに、解決法は分散化である。皆さんに、NNTPChanを紹介したいと思います。ネットワーク ニュース トランスファー プロトコル(NNTP)を利用して提出されたデータを様々なノードの間に共有するオープンソースな掲示板です。個々のノードはそれ自身のサーバー上にありますが、全ての投稿は全ノードに重複されますので、投稿を検閲することは不可能に近い。Tor、不可視インターネットプロジェクト(I2P)、あるいは表層ウェブからアクセスできます、でも投稿の源泉にもかかわらずすべてのユーザーはお互いに読めます。

All of these recommendations are just a starting point, and I encourage all of you to start looking into decentralized, open-source alternatives to as many online services as you can. Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and all the other centralized corporate platforms may be powerful, but they’re only as powerful as we collectively allow them to be. You don’t have abandon everything immediately, but if you start diversifying now, you make it easier for yourself in the future.

I’m a big believer in practicing what I preach, which is my I’ve already moved the entire ANONYMOUS NO KENKAI series to two new video platforms: Vid.me and Bitchute. I’ll continue to use YouTube for now, but I’ll also be uploading all videos to these platforms simultaneously. That way, the day Google goes too far and cracks down too hard, walking away from YouTube won’t be so difficult. When that day comes, I hope you’ll be joining me. But, as always, the choice is yours. Just remember…if you choose to keep the slave collar of big centralized services around your neck, don’t be surprised if it’s too late by the time you come to regret it.

This was ANONYMOUS NO KENKAI, and until next time…MACHIUKENASAI.