アーカイブを使って、できる限りページを元に戻しましたけど、ニュース投稿のバックアップを入手したら、ニュース投稿も元に戻したい。今のところご理解下さい 。

m(_ _)m


The cryptocurrency market in Japan has seem many ups and downs since the rise of Bitcoin and its various Altcoin offshoots over the last decade.

There was a time when Japan was regarded as an up-and-coming leader in cryptocurrency legislation. In 2017, Japan declared Bitcoin legal tender. Japanese banks began to openly consider the use of blockchain technology for their own services. Shops and restaurants across the country began accepting crypto, while Bitcoin ATMs and exchange platforms appeared one after the other.

But over time, the situation began to change. In 2018, the Financial Services Agency began to pressure exchanges to drop support for privacy coins like Monero and ZCash. This escalated into a full ban in July of that year, which coincidentally aligned with the launching of PayPay, a centralized and corporate controlled cashless payment system. Bitcoin ATMs began to slowly disappear around the same time, and businesses accepting crypto began to wane as well. In 2019, the National Police Agency spent nearly 3 billion yen on internet surveillance tools, including software to monitor popular cryptocurrency blockchains and their transactions.

What started as a decentralized technology enabling peer-to-peer finance between individuals has instead become a sterile corporatized market, surveilled and restricted by the very institutions it was made to circumvent. Japanese users who wish to purchase privacy coins could still register with overseas exchanges. But considering the willingness of Japanese ISPs to cooperate with government requests for Site Blocking, they could very easily restrict access to foreign exchanges in the near future. Even if they didn’t, all transactions originating from Japan would be subject to Police surveillance. And the case of Coinhive and Moro-san has shown that the Japanese Police are willing to crack down harshly on anybody who even dabbles in privacy coins.

And all of this strikes us as a terrible waste of potential. Which is why we feel it’s necessary to tip the balance of power, however slightly, back towards the individual.

On November 24th, 2020, v1.5.0 of “Bisq” was released. Bisq is a decentralized, peer-to-peer cryptocurrency exchange allowing individuals to freely trade cryptocurrency without the need for permission from any centralized entity. By routing all traffic through the Tor network, it provides a layer of privacy and anonymity for traders, while an automated escrow and robust arbitration system discourages fraud.

More importantly, v1.5.0 is the first version of the Bisq client to be fully localized into Japanese. And because Bisq allows permissionless trades between individuals, it allows Japanese users to trade in privacy-respecting cryptocurrency while shielding themselves from the brunt of the Police’s surveillance powers. While Bisq alone is not enough to guarantee total privacy or anonymity, it is another useful tool in the toolbelt for the privacy-conscious Japanese citizen.

A peer-to-peer currency is meaningless if it’s bottlenecked through a centralized marketplace. We encourage all Japanese cryptocurrency traders to use Bisq, and free themselves from the arbitrary limitations of corporate exchanges.


In the second year of the Reiwa Era, Japan is facing unprecendented change. Along with the arrival of a new Prime Minister, the nation is also being promised a new “Digital Agency” that will cut through the red tape of the old bureaucracy and modernize government for the betterment of its citizens.

But will it truly better the lives of citizens? Or will it only enhance the power of an already powerful government?

One of the policy goals of this “Digital Agency” is to expand the use of the already unpopular MyNumber system, which consolidates the personal and financial information of citizens into a single database under constant government surveillance.

In recent years, we have also seen the creation of Chinese-style Social Credit score systems such as “JScore”, which offer an inescapable Panopticon in exchange for a few paltry virtual points or discount coupons. Though JScore is a private venture, it is already known that Japan’s “Digital Agency” will lean heavily on the private sector. The possibility for the integration of JScore into the MyNumber system is not only possible, but likely.

Finally, the cooperation of certain Japanese agencies… most notably the Cabinet Intelligence Research Office and the Directorate for Signals Intelligence… with foreign intelligence agencies shows that not only is total surveillance of the Japanese internet happening, it is largely done at the behest of foreign powers.

The likelihood that all of these things to be integrated and expanded upon under the “Digital Agency” creates the potential for a total surveillance state under which the citizens’ right to privacy will be violated as never before.

That potential is already in the process of being realized. It was only one year ago that the Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications wanted to request Japanese ISPs to actively block websites under the pretense of stopping manga piracy. Now the Ministry has yet another “interesting proposal” to offer.

On May 23rd this year, Japanese wrestler Hana Kimura tragically ended her own life. The media was quick the seize upon the story, making hateful internet comments the sole reason for Hana Kimura’s passing. Popular anger was mobilized, and then exploited to lobby for amendments to laws governing the Disclosure of Sender Identification Information. These laws provide liability protection to service providers and online platforms when requested to disclose personal information of their users in response to lawsuits.
今年の5月23日に、女子プロレスラー木村 花さんは悲しいことに自ら命を絶ってしまいました。マスコミは早急にこの事件に付け込み、木村さんの自殺を全部オンライン中傷コメントのせいにしました。これを口実に世論を利用し、政府が発信者情報開示に関する法律への改正を働き掛けました。この法律は、情報の流通によって権利の侵害があった場合について、プロバイダーの損害賠償責任の制限そして発信者情報を開示する権利を定めます。

Under new proposals, internet service providers and platform operators would be requested to not only maintain logs of user IP addresses and timestamps of user activity, but also to disclose phone numbers used for Two-Factor Authentication. Lawyers in favor of these amendments even speak of automated infrastructure to more quickly and easily harvest phone numbers and other identifying information on request from providers.

Online slander can certainly cause problems and even harm to individuals, but increased surveillance is not an acceptable solution. Indeed, any such surveillance power is likely to be abused under the umbrella of a future “Digital Agency”, with the definition of “slander” expanded to include government critics and independent journalists.

As we have often said in the past, relying on third parties to defend your rights is almost the same as having no rights at all. They only exist as far as your ability to defend them yourself, and the right to privacy is no different. If the Japanese government wishes to collect identifying information from online platforms, then our only choice is to use platforms that cannot provide any identifying information at all.

In the past, we have introduced a variety of software solutions to allow you to protect your own privacy online. This time、in response to the Caller Information Disclosure proposals, we wish to introduce “Session”.

Session is an open-source messaging application which uses decentralised storage servers and an onion routing protocol to send end-to-end encrypted messages with minimal exposure of user metadata. Session works to reduce metadata collection in several ways:
セッション はオープン・ソース、安全なメッセンジャーアプリです。分散型記憶サーバ、そしてオニオンルーティング・プロトコルにより、メタデータの暴露をできる限り防止しながら、終端間暗号化されたメッセージを通信します。

Firstly, Session does not rely on central servers, instead using a decentralised network of thousands of nodes.

Secondly, Session ensures that IP addresses cannot be linked to messages sent or received by users.

Thirdly, Session does not ask or require users to provide a phone number or email address when registering a new account. Instead, it uses cryptographic keys as the basis of an account’s identity.

Session has recently been translated into Japanese, and is available for download on a variety of platforms. Session is also part of a larger project, “Lokinet”, which provides more tools and infrastructure to help you protect your own privacy online. We are currently translating Lokinet documentation into Japanese, in hopes for a Japanese version on final release.

We encourage all Japanese internet users to follow the development of both Session and Lokinet, and begin embracing privacy protecting infrastructure now, before the “Digital Agency” fully rises to power.

アノニマスの見解 Ep.19:アンチファの正体

Hello everybody. And welcome back to ANONYMOUS NO KENKAI.

Sadly, the descent into chaos and madness that is the year 2020 only seems to be accelerating month by month. Things are getting particularly dire for our American neighbors across the Pacific, as violent mobs burn cities, topple statues, and shoot bystanders under the pretense of protesting for social change.

It would be a mistake to say it’s only America’s problem, however. The same madness plaguing their country is starting to seep into Japan, and that brings us to today’s topic… Antifa.

For our overseas audience, the information in this video may be familiar, if not obvious. But what’s common knowledge abroad isn’t necessarily well-known in Japan, and one of our goals here is to inform our Japanese audience about the wider world.

In fact, some of our Japanese viewers may have heard the name “Antifa” before. Others might recognize their flags and symbols. Groups working under the banner of Antifa or their ideology have actually existed in Japan for many years… and I would know. Speaking personally, I’ve participated in some of their events in the past, though it’s an association I both regret and denounce now that I know them better.

More recently, Antifa flags have been seen at the numerous “Black Lives Matter” protests across Japan, to the degree where it’s fair to assume that their presence is both welcomed and encouraged by the BLM movement, such as it is.

But who, or what, exactly is “Antifa”? The answer to that question is more complicated than it may seem, in no small part because of the willful deception practiced by Antifa members themselves. So to understand the truth, we’ll need to peel back the layers of rhetoric and propaganda, and weigh their words against their actions.

But it is worth briefly looking at that rhetoric, if only to dismantle it. So let’s start with the first and most common fallacy:

“Antifa just means anti-fascist, so anybody who opposes fascism is Antifa”

This idea is a smokescreen often used to deflect criticism away from the ideology or actions of Antifa groups. This falsehood serves two purposes; it implies that opposing Antifa is morally equivalent to supporting fascism (an attempt to shame or silence criticism), and it whitewashes other, less palatable elements of the Antifa ideology such as the use of preemptive violence, or revolutionary Socialism.

When people say “Antifa”, they aren’t referring to the idea of being against fascism. They’re referring to discrete groups of individuals wearing a certain set of symbols, engaging in particular tactics (typically violent or coercive ones). Being opposed to fascism and hating Antifa are far from mutually exclusive.

“Antifa isn’t an organization, it’s just a set of ideas”

This one is interesting in that it’s technically true, but is often used in a misleading fashion. It’s certainly true that Antifa doesn’t have a top-down hierarchical structure, with a leader at the top giving orders to their forces around the globe. Antifa actually operates in a cell structure, with individual groups operating independently of each other following a common ideology.

This defense is often used to associate criticism of Antifa with supposed “conspiracy theories”. Saying that Antifa is a group isn’t the same as accusing them of them being a secret shadow army of the global elites.

The truth of the matter is, while Antifa may not function as a unified group, their organization makes it easy for them to be manipulated by outside forces. Many Antifa cells rely on outside sources of income, and that support can come with strings attached, or be selectively given to groups that align with outside interests. So while Antifa cells may be structurally and operationally independent, they can still be steered in a particular direction by whoever’s providing them with funding and resources.

So, beyond the rhetoric, what is the common ideology that unites these disparate Antifa cells?

It’s important to note that the concept of “Antifa” has existed at various points in history. In Germany in the 1930s, in the UK in the 1980s and 90s, and in Europe and North America from the 1990s onwards, just to name a few. There are common elements to these different iterations of Antifa, but for this video we’ll be focusing on the modern-day version in America, and its would-be imitators in Japan.

Fundamentally, there are two main elements to modern-day Antifa’s ideology. The use of coercive violence, and revolutionary Communism or at least Socialism.

Antifa uses coercive violence, or threats of violence, to terrorize critics and ideological opponents into silence. Antifa justifies this policy by claiming that their targets are fascists and that preventing them from having a platform to speak on, even peacefully, prevents them from gaining influence in society.

On both points, however, Antifa’s logic doesn’t hold water, and the claim that their targets are “only fascists” is extremely facetious. The reality is, anybody who opposes or criticizes them is conveniently labeled “fascist” in order to preemptively justify the use of violence. Alternatively, when targets are mistakenly attacked, the incident is either quietly ignored by Antifa or the target is retroactively labeled fascist to save face.

This creates a circular logic where any and all violence by Antifa groups becomes automatically justified. “I only attack fascists. I attacked that man, therefore he’s a fascist. If you oppose me or defend that man, you’re a fascist and I can attack you too”.

There are numerous incidents of violence by Antifa in America that illustrate this practice, and we’ll outline a few here:

The Berkeley Bike Lock Basher

On April 15th, 2017, an Antifa-affiliated man named Eric Clanton participated in counter action against a conservative speaking event on the UC Berkley campus. During the event, he used a bicycle lock as a weapon in multiple unprovoked assaults, seriously injuring three people.

The Portland Flag Incident

On August 4th, 2018, Paul Welch (a Bernie Sanders supporter) went to a rally carrying an American flag. In spite of the fact that he had nothing to do with the alt-right or fascism, he was attacked by multiple Antifa members leaving him with a bleeding wound and a concussion. Incidentally, Portland is the territory of “Rose City Antifa”, a named and branded Antifa cell mentioned in the Project Veritas leaks we translated for this channel. When reached out for comment, Rose City Antifa did not respond.
2018年8月4日に、ポール・ウェルシュ氏(バーニー・サンダーズ氏の支援者)はアメリカ国旗を持ちながらデモに参加しました。ウェルシュ氏がオルタナ右翼やファシストやらと無関係であるにも関わらず、複数人のアンチファメンバーに襲撃され、頭部に重症を負い入院しました。ちなみに、このチャンネルに翻訳し投稿された「Project Veritas」の動画で述べられたとおりに、ポートランド市は「ローズ・シティ・アンチファ」という団体の支配地域です。ローズ・シティ・アンチファはこの事件に関するコメントを求められましたが応じませんでした。

The Attack on Andy Ngo

In June 2019, journalist Andy Ngo was assaulted by an Antifa mob in Portland as he was documenting their march. In addition to putting Andy in the hospital with injuries, Antifa members also stole film equipment from him after he fled the violence. Prior to the event, Andy had been targeted by threats of violence from Antifa, presumably to discourage him from reporting.

The “Minds IRL” Event
「Minds IRL」イベント事件

In August 2019, American political commentator and vocal critic of Antifa Tim Pool hosted a speaking event titled “Ending Racism, Violence, and Authoritarianism”. This event included left- and right-leaning speakers, and focused on encouraging conversation between different political groups instead of violence. Both the event and the venues hosting it were targeted by violent threats from Antifa, including a threat to burn the venue down that nearly led to it being canceled.

The Tucker Carlson House Call

In December 2019, the “Smash Racism DC” Antifa group posted the home address of FOX News anchor Tucker Carlson. Shortly thereafter, a group of Antifa members gathered outside his front door to threaten his family.

These are only a few examples, but they adequately demonstrate how Antifa operates. In all them, Antifa uses indiscriminate violence, or threats of violence, against journalists, critics, and even just random passersby. The idea that their violence is limited to “fascism” is pure propaganda.

Several mainstream media outlets in America, most of them overtly partisan, run cover for Antifa by framing their events as “protests” and blaming the violence on other groups. Other Antifa-supporting individuals will claim the violence is done by infiltrators and provocateurs.

But among Antifa, there’s a popular saying… “respect the diversity of tactics”. In other words, even Antifa members who don’t personally participate in violence will provide support and cover for those who do. Nonviolent groups and protestors who “respect the diversity of tactics” assist more militant Antifa members by shielding them from police, and selectively framing responses to Antifa violence as an attack on the protest event itself.

Many will also participate in what they call “Black Bloc tactics”, where people dress up in matching black outfits and masks, to make it harder to identify individuals who participate in violence, letting them vanish into the crowd.

The use of violence aside, there’s also Antifa’s overt support for revolutionary Communism or Socialism. While I’m personally not a fan of either Communism or Socialism, it’s the “revolutionary” part that’s the bigger problem. Antifa like to advertise themselves as “Resistance fighters”, saviours out to stop the rise of fascism.

What many people fail to realize is that Antifa’s ideology views any government, particularly capitalist governments, as enemies that need to be completely overthrown. Few of them are happy to talk about the chaos, death, and destruction that will result from the process of doing so.

In the wake of George Floyd’s widely publicized death in police custody, various groups including Black Lives Matter and Antifa took advantage of public anger to launch a campaign of destruction that would result in countless more victims than police violence could ever hope to create. While the tearing down of statues across America was a symbolic image that resonated with many, it was the wanton destruction of homes, business, and neighborhoods that showcased just how bloody and painful Antifa’s revolution would be for the average person in the street. Antifa, of course, has no time to talk about the little people crushed under the wheels of their glorious revolution.

Even fewer members of Antifa are happy to talk about their plans for after the revolution succeeds. Some naively believe that Antifa’s goal is to create a more humane society for everybody by toppling the pyramid of power run by the elites.

In reality, Antifa’s goal is only to displace the elites, not to abolish the pyramid. Once existing power structures are toppled, Antifa and their backers will fill the vacuum, creating a new power structure with themselves at the top. What would such a society look like? For a sample, one need look no further than Seattle’s “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” or “the CHAZ”.

On June 8th 2020, the CHAZ was established when Antifa and other far-left rioters drove the police out of the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Seattle, Washington and took over the police station. Following this, they built a set of big beautiful walls to keep foreign invaders out and handed out guns to loyalists to “keep the peace”. The results were very predictable.

In the space of a month, the CHAZ saw five shootings, two of them fatal, alongside other violence and abusive behaviour by CHAZ’s self-appointed militia. Antifa may have told everybody that they were protesting against fascism and police brutality, but as soon as they had control of even a small amount of territory, they immediately transformed it into a violent police state with themselves in charge. Expect more of the same if they ever succeed on a wider scale.

To be completely fair, it’s possible that some Antifa members want to oppose fascism but also oppose violence…and don’t “respect the diversity of tactics”. It’s also possible that naive or ignorant people participate in Antifa without fully understanding them. Again, I can point to myself as an example. To those people, our only advice is this. Look at the examples we’ve provided, look at the people around you, and ask yourself whether you want to be associated with a brand so deeply tied to violence and authoritarianism.

Back in 2008, Anonymous was started as a legal, peaceful, and largely fun set of protests against the Cult of Scientology. It later broadened into a global movement for freedom of expression online. But following Operation AntiSec in 2011, it began to morph into something else. Soon, groups of self-proclaimed hacktivists began to indiscriminately hack and threaten targets at random. Many lied and made up stories to justify their actions.

Around that time, we in Japan made a clean break from those other groups and their movement. We declared our adherence to legal, peaceful activities. We stood for the principle that creating victims and violating the rights of individuals is never justifiable. And we dedicated ourselves to creating tools and helping people communicate, instead of attacking and destroying.

Those who want to oppose fascism without creating victims, we invite you to break from Antifa, rebrand, and join us in condemning all forms of violence and authoritarianism by all groups, left or right.

And to all our viewers in Japan, remember this. The right to protest legally and peacefully is guaranteed in the Constitution, and should always be respected. But if you ever see these symbols in the ranks of the protestors, understand that it stands for violence and authoritarianism. It exists to exploit legal protests as cover for its campaign of terror.

If you’re a member of a protest and you see Antifa symbols, speak to your organizers about expelling them. If they refuse to expel Antifa, you may want to remove yourself from the protest completely. No matter what our politics may be, authoritarianism should always be our common enemy. Whether it comes in the form of State police violence or Antifa’s revolutionary violence, we can…and should…take a stand against it.

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

アノニマスの見解 Ep 18.5:香川ゲーム条例アップデート

Hello everybody. It’s rare for us to do a follow-up on a previous Anonymous no Kenkai, but in the time since we released our last video on the Kagawa Game Ordinance, some very interesting news has come out that needs to be shared. If you haven’t watched Episode 18 yet, you might want to pause this video and go watch that for the background information to understand what’s going on. But otherwise, let’s begin.

First, on April 16th, the Kagawa Prefectural Government website published an incident report about the loss of a shared computer in their offices. According to the incident report, a staff member reported the computer as missing after checking the equipment on March 17th. Although they searched for it and interviewed staff, they were unable to find it. The cause of the loss was listed as poor management, and the office decided to store shared computers in a locked cabinet in future. Why expensive equipment wasn’t already secured this way remains an unsolved mystery.

This incident doesn’t seem related or particularly important at first glance, but please remember that Kagawa’s Game Ordinance was approved on March 18th…one day after this computer went missing. This will be important later in the story.

Second, on April 13th, local news network “KSB” published a report based on a Freedom of Information request into the Game Ordinance’s Public Comment period. What they found was that of the 2269 supporting comments, many of them were exactly the same, right down to the use of spaces and line breaks. Most were simply one-line answers such as “I agree” or “I agree with the expectation of a bright future with the passage of the ordinance”. The bulk of these identical comments arrived within minutes of each other, one after the other.

The Kagawa Prefectural Office redacted the personal information of commenters, of course, to protect private information. But some of the information they left unredacted led to an even more interesting discovery.

Starting at 8:47am on January 31st and continuing on until 5:25pm on February 5th, the Prefectural Office received a series of one-line public comments supporting the Ordinance through the contact form on their website. Left unredacted was the header information from each submission, including the useragent string and IP address. Dozens of these messages had identical useragents, and all of them seemed to come from the same IP address… For anybody familiar with networks, this is obviously an internal address. In other words, they couldn’t come from the outside internet. They had to come from a device connected to the same internal network as the Prefectural Office’s webserver, which should only be accessible to Prefectural Office staff.

It’s incredibly interesting that a shared computer in that same office would vanish just one day before the Prefecture voted to pass the Game Ordinance. It’s even more interesting that members of the Review Committee would urge a quick vote due to the overwhelming number of supporting comments.

But the even with the stink of corruption hanging so heavily in the air around the Kagawa Prefectural Government, there’s little that can be done now that the Ordinance has passed. It would take a legal challenge in court to stop the Ordinance at this point, ideally on constitutional grounds.

Well, good news…

Just this month, a 17-year old boy in Kagawa Prefecture known only as “Wataru” announced plans to take Kagawa Prefecture to court over the unconstitutionality of and the human rights violations within the Game Ordinance. Namely, that it violates Article 94, the right to self-determination, among a half-dozen other constitutional violations. “Wataru” has retained the services of a well-known lawyer, and plans to crowdfund his legal fees. We’ll provide more information about the crowdfunding campaign as it becomes available.

We hope everybody viewing this can support Wataru’s case, either through crowdfunding or just by spreading the word. The Kagawa Game Ordinance needs to be struck down, and an opportunity like this for the Gamers of Japan, and the world, to Rise Up may never come again. Everybody, let’s make the most of it.

アノニマスの見解 Ep.18:香川県の静止する日

Hello everybody, and welcome back to Anonymous no Kenkai.

Sadly, 2020 has turned out to be a more difficult year than anybody expected. We hope all of you are safe and taking care of yourselves out there.

The Coronavirus has been dominating the headlines for weeks, and while it’s certainly newsworthy, it’s also made it easy for several other stories to get lost in the shuffle, one of which we’d like to address today.

In late 2019, the Kagawa Prefectural government proposed creating a bylaw which would set legal limits on the amount of time minors could spend playing video games. Under this proposal, children under 18 would be allowed to use their smartphones and play games for only one hour per day on weekdays, and 90 minutes on weekends. Additionally, Junior High School students will be forbidden from using their smartphones or playing games after 9pm, while High School students will have a curfew of 10pm.

We mentioned this briefly in our last video, and unfortunately in the time since then, the proposal has become law. On March 18th, the Kagawa Prefectural Assembly approved the proposal with a majority vote, to go into effect starting April 1st. Currently, the bylaw lacks any penalties for noncompliance, instead requesting that parents enforce it voluntarily.

Of course, the global COVID-19 outbreak drowned out most news on the topic, but there was still a strong reaction online in Japan, and to a lesser degree in the media. While there were numerous criticisms of the bylaw itself, more worrying were a series of suspicious irregularities surrounding the bylaw’s review committee and public comment period.

Firstly, the review committee drafting the bylaw apparently didn’t keep any record of the minutes of their meetings… an unusual oversight, given this is stardard practice for almost any governmental committee.

Secondly, during the public comment period, an unusually high number of comments came in; 2615 in total.

And in addition to being unusually high, a disproportionate number of the comments supported the bill… 2269 in total, over 85%. Only 334 comments opposed the bylaw. In contrast, among the 71 comments solicited from businesses inside and outside Kagawa Prefecture, 67 were opposed, with zero comments in support. Put together, all of these numbers cast doubts on the entire public comment process.

It didn’t take long for those doubts to feel justified. Reports surfaced online that a member of Kanagawa’s Kannonji City municipal government, an associate of the Review Committee Chairman and supporter of the bylaw, handed out forms to his friends and colleagues, asking them to check “support” or “oppose” boxes before filling out their opinions. The Representative reportedly collected these papers and delivered them to the Prefectural government himself. The entire process not only unfairly narrowed the matter down to a simple yes/no vote, it also implied pressure to agree with the City Representative handing out the paper. In fact, one paper showed signs of an “oppose” vote being crossed out and changed to “support”.

Even more concerning was a letter received by the digital news outlet Netorabo, published on their Twitter account. In the letter, an employee from a company in Kagawa Prefecture claimed their boss asked to use the names of employees to send pre-written public comments in support of the bylaw. The authenticity of the letter remains unconfirmed, but if true it would explain the unusually high number of comments received.

Considering all of the above information, it certainly seems as though some people in Kagawa Prefecture were very eager to have this bylaw passed by any means necessary. But the question remains, why? What is it about video games that has Kagawa Prefecture’s politicians so worried?

The answer to that question comes with a name… Susumu Higuchi, Director of the government-run Kurihama Addiction Center. Doctor Higuchi’s main area of research is treating alcoholism, but he’s branched out so-called “gaming addiction” as well. Higuchi is a frequent collaborator with the World Health Organization, and was one of the voices supporting their decision in May 2019 to add “gaming disorder” to their International Classification of Diseases. Doctor Higuchi’s opinions on this so-called “gaming disorder” come up frequently among supporters of Kagawa’s bylaw, and it’s fair to say that his research is the foundation upon which it was built.

Interestingly, the WHO’s connection to this matter has some sinister implications, given how blatantly supportive of China they’ve been lately. As we noted in our last video, Kagawa’s bylaw is almost a carbon copy of a similar law passed in China last year. Seeing China, the WHO, and the Kagawa Prefectural government walk in lockstep in this matter is worrying, even if there’s not necessarily reason to believe they’re overtly coordinating at this time. But even putting the WHO and China aside, there’s more than enough to criticize in Kagawa’s bylaw itself.

For one, there isn’t broad agreement in the medical community that “gaming disorder” is even real, and the research on it is far from conclusive. In 2019, critics of the decision to add “gaming disorder” to the ICD cited fears that doing so would only spark a moral panic. If we look to Kagawa as an example, that criticism seems very valid.

But beyond that, the bylaw represents an unwelcome intrusion by government into the private lives of citizens. Does the Kagawa Prefectural government believe parents aren’t capable of making their own decisions without government instruction? If the bylaw has no penalties, and parents are expected to enforce it voluntarily, why should the bylaw even exist? Why should legal activities have arbitrary time limits set by the government?

Will penalties be added to the bylaw in the future? This could create an opening for even more authoritarian government overreach into the private lives of citizens. And with Kagawa setting this precedent, other Prefectures may find it easier to create similar laws of their own.

Will software or hardware makers be asked to modify games or smartphones to comply with the bylaw? The ability to track users by age and usage time would create more opportunities to expand the surveillance state.

Lastly, why is this bylaw so narrowly focused on games and smartphones? If children watch TV or read comics, is this more acceptable than doing the exact same activity on a phone? If so, why?

It is interesting to note how this law only seems to target new and alternative media…favoring established legacy businesses like TV stations and book publishers over their online rivals. In an era where young people in Japan are favoring YouTubers over TV stars, and independent creators over corporate mouthpieces, is this bylaw an attempt to prop up legacy media companies?

The fact is, no matter what motivations are behind this bylaw, it’s a worryingly authoritarian encroachment on the freedom of Kagawa’s citizens. The government has no business mandating how parents are meant to raise their children, and they have no right to place arbitrary limits on otherwise legal activities. This bylaw needs to be challenged in court and overturned as soon as possible, before it becomes the new normal.

If you’re a resident of Japan, in or out of Kagawa, the best thing you can do is talk about this problem with as many people as possible. If you’re outside Japan, spreading awareness of Kagawa’s draconian new bylaw with others can still help. There are many out there who don’t know about this, or if they do, they don’t fully understand just how authoritarian the Kagawa Prefectural government is being. It may not be the most important thing in the world compared to the Coronavirus, but it still deserves to be talked about. And if ever there was a time for Gamers to Rise Up, it would be now.

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

アノニマスの見解 Ep.17:資本主義ふりをする中国

Hello everybody, and welcome back to ANONYMOUS NO KENKAI

It’s been far too long since our last episode, but there’s been no shortage of projects to keep us busy, and my English-language Bitchute series, “No One Cares” has been eating up a lot of my time as well. But a topic has finally emerged that needs our attention, because today we’re going to talk about China. More specifically the Communist Party of China, and their foreign policy.
お久しぶりです。前回の動画から随分と長い間が経ってしまいました。プロジェクトが山のようにあるおかげで、いつも忙しくなってしまいます; 特に、英語のBitchuteシリーズ「No One Cares」には多くの時間費やしてしまいました。とはいえ、ついに我々の注目に値する新たなトピックが現れました…「中国」です。具体的に申しますと、「中国共産党」、そして彼らの「外交政策」についてです。

China made headlines several times throughout 2019, for a variety of reasons. Their Social Credit system has earned our attention in previous videos, and earned revulsion and horror from people the world over. China’s behaviour in response to protests in Hong Kong has also earned the world’s attention and criticism, even if more in the independent media than the mainstream.

But it was actions regarding their financial stake in foreign businesses that made the most waves. In October of 2019, two major incidents caught the public’s attention. First, the Chinese government demanded an apology from the NBA when General Manager Daryl Morey of the Houston Rockets tweeted in support of Hong Kong protestors, causing China to cut off broadcast of their games as punishment. Almost within the same week, Activision Blizzard punished E-Sports player Blitzchung after he spoke in support of Hong Kong independence during a Hearthstone tournament livestream.
しかしながら、先程述べた問題よりも中国における対外投資の方が、実際のところ最も注目を引きました。2019年10月に、2つの事件が世間の注目を集めました。ヒューストン・ロケッツのダリル・モーリー・ゼネラルマネジャーが香港デモを応援するようなツイートを投稿しました原因で、中国政府は米NBAに謝罪を要求しました、そして罰としてNBAゲームの放送を停止しました。その週の後になって、ハースストーンの世界大会に、eスポーツプレイヤーBlitzchungは同じく香港デモを支持する声明のせいで、米ゲーム大手のBlizzard Entertainmentからペナルティを受けました。

In both cases, Chinese investment in a foreign company was used as leverage to pressure them into censorship in line with Chinese policy. In essence, China exported its censorship to other countries through its foreign business ties. The phenomenon became public enough that it garnered a response from President Trump, and even an episode of South Park.

Of course, this is hardly new. It’s already common knowledge that Hollywood has been designing its movies to maximize marketability in China for several years. Google briefly planned to design a censored search engine for the Chinese market, before (at least ostensibly) abandoning the plan in 2018 due to internal protests.

But even considering that, the recent growth of Chinese foreign investment (particularly in the video game industry) has been notable. As of late 2019, the Chinese entertainment giant Tencent has acquired stakes in over a dozen different gaming companies ranging from 5 to 100%, including well known names like Riot, Epic, Ubisoft, Activision, and Discord. Early 2020 even saw Japan’s Platinum Games accept a capital investment from Tencent as the basis of a partnership. While Platinum’s CEO assured fans that the partnership had no effect on the independence of the company, the news nonetheless raised some eyebrows.

And with good reason. Chinese investment in the gaming sphere has come with several strings attached in the past. Tencent’s 5% stake in Ubisoft, for example, came in exchange for being a silent partner with no option to expand its voting rights. But in Novermber of 2018, Ubisoft tried to change the visual elements of its game Rainbow Six Seige globally in line with Chinese standards. This was quickly reversed after fan backlash, but regardless Tencent’s lack of voting rights in the company didn’t seem to have any effect on its ability to dictate changes.
そして、不安を感じる理由は十分にあります。これまでに、ゲーム産業における中国から条件付き投資の例は数あります。例えば、TencentがUbisoftの5%の株を取得した時、Tencentを経営における議決権の一票として数えない、従って経営方針に口出ししない「サイレント・パートナー」として投資することを条件として株主として認められました。それにもかかわらず、2018年11月にUbisoftは「レインボーシックス シージ」というゲームのビジュアルをグローバルに中国の政策にかなうように変更しようとしました。ファンからの反発のおかげで決定は撤回されましたが、Tencentはサイレント・パートナーであるにもかかわらず、それでもUbisoftの決定を左右できるに見えます。

In July of 2019, Taiwanese game maker Red Candle was forced to pull their latest game offline after the Chinese government revoked the business license of their Chinese distributor. The reason? The game featured an image of a Winnie the Pooh meme mocking President Xi Jinping.
2019年7月に、中国政府は中国国内のとある流通業者の事業免許を取り消した後、台湾のゲームスタジオRed Candleの最新ゲームの発売を完全に停止しました。その原因は、習近平国家主席を「クマのプーさん」に見立て嘲笑うといった内容のミームがゲームの中に仕込まれていたことです。

But why does any of this matter? Well, game fans certainly don’t want to see their favorite games censored by China. But even people who’ve never played a video game have reason to be worried.

In 1978, China’s economic reform was hailed as a first step in making the country more free. The theory was that economic incentives would encourage the government to allow greater liberty for all. The degree to which this has been successful is open to debate, but it all hinges on the assumption that China’s motives for participating would be just to make more money.

But what if that wasn’t the main reason? Money, after all, is just an abstraction for access to resources. Control over resources equals power. And if there’s one thing an authoritarian government wants a monopoly on, it’s power. I would argue China’s real motive for participating in the global economy was more about exerting power over others; make as much money as possible through State controlled companies, and then invest that money in foreign businesses, or attract them into the country. Afterwards, the threat of withdrawing those resources can be used to manipulate those companies into toeing the Chinese line.
とはいえ、中国の《真意》とは一体何なのでしょうか? マネー(お金)は基本的に資源へのアクセスの抽象的目安にしか過ぎません。資源の支配権こそが権力への鍵なのです。そしてまた、独裁政権は飽くなき権力の独占を渇望するものです。世界経済に参加する中国の真の動機は、「他の国にも中国内の権力を及ばせる」ことであると考えられます。国営企業を利用しできる限り利益を得て、さらに対外の企業に投資することで、中国市場に惹きつけます。そして、その時に「投資の撤退」という選択肢が、対外企業を中国政府の方針に従わせるのです。

And if we use Hollywood and the gaming industry as an example, it’s obviously working. Large companies often cite the need to access the Chinese market to ensure future growth. And for small game studios, employees speaking off the record have admitted that access to the Chinese market can be the difference between staying afloat or going under.

Some would argue that this isn’t exclusive to China… and they’d be right. Any nation with enough market power can play the same trick, and some have. And no matter who’s doing this, it’s a problem. It uses the economy as a weapon to subvert the free will and agency of individuals, and left unchecked it also undermines the sovereignty of nations. Japan is already starting to imitate Chinese Social Credit with things like Line Score and J-Score, and the recent move by Kagawa Prefecture to set legal time limits on playing video games sounds uncomfortably similar to a Chinese law passed just last year. And the last thing any country needs to do is be more like China.

So what can we do about it? There are no easy answers, of course, but there are a few things we can at least keep in mind. As individuals, we can withdraw our financial support from companies that bend the knee to China, and give our support to companies that resist. On the national level, countries should keep their sovereignty and independence in mind when crafting trade policy. The United States, for example, has been criticized for engaging in a trade war with China… but the fact is, US trade restrictions can actually help smaller nations wean themselves off dependence on the Chinese economy. Japan in particular would do well to use this opportunity to shift away from China and cooperate with other nations in the region instead.

Companies caught in this conflict have an ever harder decision to make. Money is the lifeblood of a business, and few would voluntarily choose to make less of it. But chasing short-term profit makes it easier to be manipulated into self-destructive choices by bad actors. And if the only way for a company to succeed is to play by the CPC’s rules, then perhaps the only winning move is not to play at all.

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

アノニマス:文化庁著作権課へ、コメントの求めに応えて、「OnionShare v2.2」

In early October, the Copyright Division of the Agency for Cultural Affairs put out a request for public comment to let the public give them feedback about their hard work to protect the content industries of Japan.


This hard work includes:
-proposals that would violate Article 21 the Japanese constitution
-proposals that would make sharing link URLs a criminal act
-proposals that would make taking screenshots a criminal act
-proposals that would make copy-pasting the content of news articles a criminal act
…and so on. We’d like to thank the Agency for their hard work. Great job.

…などなど。 文化庁の良い大人の皆さん、かねてより上記の「苦労」に関しては、まっ・・ことにご苦労様です!よくできました!!(笑)

Since the Agency for Cultural Affairs has been kind enough to ask the public for our views, we have no choice but to respond with our honest opinion. Our comments and criticisms can be broadly divided into six areas: strictness, public domain and fair use, unfairness, antiquated laws, legal issues, and issues with the government’s basic stance.

さてさて、ちょうど文化庁著作権課がご親切にもパブリックコメントを募集していましたので、これを機に我々も率直な意見を述べる以外、もはや選択肢がございませんっ!・・・というわけで、今回我々が提示する論題は次の6ヶ条となります。すなわち、1:厳格過ぎる法適用 2:パブリックドメインと公正使用(フェアユース)3:不公平 4:時代遅れの法律 5:法的問題 そして6:政府の基本スタンスとの問題です。

-Currently News content can be taken down due to copyright violation, but can’t news reporting be made an exception?
-A link itself is not a copyrighted work, and “Leech Sites” do not actually host any copyrighted content.
-The act of posting copyrighted content is not always necessarily an infringement of that content.-Since the infringing act of posting copyrighted content ends once the material has been uploaded, linking to that content after the fact cannot be considered a crime in itself.
-If a balance isn’t maintained between the public good and the private profit of corporations, this law will be seen as unfair by the Japanese people and lead to a weakening of respect for the law in general.


2:Public Domain and Fair Use
-Can news reporting be considered an exception? Can images, audio, and text from news not be made part of the public domain?
-We would like parody provisions like those in France to be included.
-Before expanding copyright protections, we would like you to think about the length of copyright terms and the lack of Fair Use provisions in Japan.


-Won’t allegations of infringement by large corporations, government agencies, or religious groups be used as a tool to suppress the speech of citizens?
-It seems as though these copyright laws are written not from the point of view of the citizen, but rather excessively back the position of large corporations, governments, religious groups, and rights management agencies.
-There seem to be many criticisms of site blocking, access restriction, and Leech Site countermeasures by well-informed people.


4:Antiquated Laws
-Because the spirit of copyright law was written in a time before the Net, they need to be reconsidered and amended to be in line with the reality of the present day.
-Hyperlinks form the basis of the internet, and this may negatively effect the free exchange of information and freedom of the internet.


5:Legal Issues
-While a Request for Injunction against alleged infringers exists under Patent Law, rules regarding such for indirect infringement do not exist in Copyright Law.
-Based on the precedent of alleged infringers ignoring Requests for Injunction, similar Requests to Leech Sites will be difficult to enforce under present circumstances.
-The Leech Site countermeasures shown in the current Draft Proposal to Revise the Copyright Act for Exceptions Regarding the Registration of Programming Books call into question whether the legal system is unified and consistent.


6:Issues with the government’s basic stance
-The fundamental problem with pirated works is their upload, and so download should not be such a main area of focus.
-Furthermore, since downloading was criminalized, criminal penalties were enacted, and the requirement for formal charges from a victim was removed in 2009, there has not been one single arrest. This calls into question the effectiveness of these measures.
-On the other hand, strengthening regulations on downloading restricts the internet freedoms of the public, and atrophies their ability to use the internet.


In light of the above concerns, we would like to strongly urge the reconsideration of the download criminalization proposals.


We would also like to urge the public to submit your comments to the Copyright Division of the Agency for Cultural Affairs at the following address. The deadline for these submissions are October 30th, so don’t delay.

However, we can’t just end with asking the government to protect our rights. It is always important to cultivate the power to protect them ourselves. Towards that end, we would like to announce some good news. In March of this year, we announced “OnionShare”, a file sharing program using the Tor network. Just this month, OnionShare has released an important update.


As of version 2.2, OnionShare can now be used as a simple web host for Hidden Service sites inside the Tor network. By hosting an index.html file and associated content on your own system using OnionShare, you can quickly and easily create a Hidden Service website.


We urge all people to take advantage of this update. And remember…only you can protect your own freedom and privacy online.


アノニマスの見解 Ep.16:検閲屋からAdpocalypseまで

Hello everyone, and welcome back to ANONYMOUS NO KENKAI

It’s been a while since the last episode. 2019 has been an eventful year, and we’ve been busy with various projects. But at long last, it’s time to talk about something very close to home…YouTube.

It’s no secret that the platform has many problems, and the ones feeling the worst of it are the Content Creators. ContentID and malicious copyright strikes were already problems for a long time, but recently YouTube has been much more aggressive about Demonitization. Japanese viewers are almost certainly familiar with the problem…it’s so ubiquitous it’s mentioned by VTubers and non-political Japanese YouTubers alike.

Of course, in typical YouTube fashion, Demonitization is neither reasonable nor balanced. Videos are inexplicably demonetized for the smallest infractions, or sometimes no infractions at all, while certain channels can blatantly break the rules and suffer few or no consequences.

At the same time, the YouTube algorithm seems to promote large, corporate content more while burying small independent Creators. Meanwhile, the Media around the world seems to routinely demonize YouTubers, casting them in the most negative possible light at every opportunity.

But is all of this unrelated, isolated cases? Or could there be a common thread connecting these problems, and if so, what is it? This is a puzzle with many pieces, and before we can put them together, we first need to study them individually.

A lot of what we want to talk about here won’t be new for our English-speaking audience. This topic has actually been covered extensively by a variety of English language channels. But it isn’t covered so extensively in Japan, or at least not that I’ve seen, so it’s important to provide this information for local viewers.

When talking about the YouTube situation, we need to understand five different groups; YouTube itself, Content Creators, Corporate Advertisers, The Media, and the NGO/Activists (or “the Censors” as we’ve referred to them in a previous video). All of these actors have their own goals, but as we’ll see, many end up pushing in the same direction.

First, YouTube and the Content Creators. Many people think YouTube’s main purpose is to operate a video platform, but they’d be wrong. YouTube’s main purpose is to sell advertising space. The Creators are only useful to YouTube by giving them free content to advertise on, and attracting an audience to advertise to. This was more or less confirmed by a Washington Post report, where a former YouTube moderator claimed “our responsibility was never to the creators or to the users, it was to the advertisers”. Certainly, Content Creators can earn a small percentage through the Partner Program (unless they get demonetized), but in general the Creators are volunteer labor for YouTube’s bottom line.



Second, the Advertisers. Their goals are simple…they want to sell their products. YouTube provides them with a big audience of potential customers, but there’s one problem…not all of this content is “family friendly”. Having their ads appear next to controversial content creates the risk of bad press, which damages their brand. So they want to maximize their advertising benefit while minimizing their risk.

Next, the Media. Whether print, broadcast, or digital media, they’re the dying remnants of an old era. Based on an informal survey, both online and off, Japanese people below a certain age seem far more likely to get their entertainment from YouTube than anywhere else, and I imagine that pattern will hold globally. While the Media does often USE YouTube, they don’t generally make content FOR YouTube, which makes it difficult for them to compete directly with Content Creators. Media companies have huge budgets, hundreds of staff, and expensive equipment…but in many cases, they’re outperformed by individuals with nothing more than free software and a webcamera. Independent Creators are also usually better at making a closer, more authentic personal connection with their audience, something that old-guard Media companies can’t easily do.

Finally, the Censors…working through NGOs and activist groups. As discussed in ANONYMOUS NO KENKAI 13, these are people fixated on identity politics who want to force their worldview on others against their will, and for all opposing viewpoints to be silenced. They have connections inside YouTube and the Media, and exploit both to deplatform opponents and critics alike.

So how do all these pieces fit together? What’s the chain of events that led us to the present situation?

First, it starts with the Censors. For whatever reason, they decide a target needs to be deplatformed. This target could be an individual, or a group, but the tactics are the same. Using their contacts in the Media and NGOs, the Censors carry out a smear campaign of their target.

One famous example is Pewdiepie. Just one naughty word during a stream was enough for him to become the target of every major newspaper, branding him a neo-Nazi or worse. Another example is the so-called “Alternative Influencer Network”, or AIN. The AIN is a network of YouTubers outlined in a report by Rebecca Lewis, member of a left-leaning NGO called “Data & Society”. The report suggests that the “far right” uses this network of alternative media and opinion YouTubers to spread propaganda and radicalize people online.
有名な例は人気ユーチューバー「Pewdiepie」です。彼がゲーム実況ストリームの中の単なる1つの下品な発言のせいで、主要新聞に「ネオナチス」や「レイシスト」というレッテルを貼られました。他の例はいわゆる「オルターナティブ・インフルエンサー・ネットワーク」(別名:AIN)。AINは左翼系NGO「Data & Society」の会員「Rebecca Lewis」が作った報告書に述べられている政治的ユーチューバーのネットワークです。Lewisの報告によれば、このネットワークは人々を右翼系団体に採用するため、そして極右思想の宣伝するために使われていると思われます。

Naturally, the AIN report is plagued with bad data and massive leaps in logic. It made connections between YouTubers that didn’t make sense, and grouped all opposition to progressive talking points as “far right” for the purpose of problematizing it. The report was carefully analyzed and debunked by Software Engineer Mark Ledwich in a Medium post in late 2018, but by that point the damage had already been done, and arguably the AIN had fulfilled its purpose.
当然、AIN報告書は誤ったデータや論理の飛躍だらけです。Lewisは関係の全くないユーチューバーを無理やりにお互いに結び付けて、問題にするために広範囲の異なった批判の意見を「極右過激派」という誤ったラベルを貼りました。AIN報告書はソフトウェア・エンジニア「Mark Ledwich」のMediumブログで徹底的に分析され、暴露されました。とはいえ、その頃には、被害は既に与えられてしまっており、AINの本当の目標は達成されました。

While these sorts of tactics are seen less often in Japan, they do exist…Huffington Post Japan posted an article in early August talking about the “Intellectual Dark Web”, an almost identical smear campaign against academics who dared to disagree with liberal orthodoxy. HuffPo Japan ridiculously claims the members of this “Dark Web” are a “Dark Renaissance” that stands in opposition to human rights and democracy…claims that are as laughable as they are false.

Censors in the Media and NGOs push these smear campaigns, but the Media in general has every reason to help them. To mainstream Media, popular YouTubers are their competitors on this new platform. As such, every YouTuber that gets shut down decreases the market share of that competition. Business is war, after all.

Once the Censors and the Media have pushed their smear campaign far enough, eventually the Advertisers take notice (or are made to notice). Wanting to minimize the risk of brand damage, the Advertisers threaten to pull funding from YouTube if their ads appear next to all the “far right” content they’re hearing about in the news. Whether these reports are true or not, whether they’re fair or not is unimportant. The only thing that matters to them is brand image.

As major brands are a big source of income for YouTube’s advertising market, the site is quick to respond to their complaints. The rules suddenly become stricter, and channels find themselves mass demonitized for reasons that are hard to understand. This is what’s called an “Ad-pocalypse”…a name that should be familiar to English YouTubers, but may not be so familiar to Japanese audiences. An article on the site “Nuts & Freaks” is perhaps the best Japanese-language write up of the subject, and I encourage all viewers to read it to better understand this phenomenon.

While it sounds like YouTube is a victim in all of this, the fact is YouTube also has an interest in helping this process along…and not just because of the Censors within their own ranks. With thousands upon thousands of videos uploaded to YouTube daily, the supply of advertising space on the site is huge, which keeps the market value of advertising low. Reducing the supply of available advertising space means driving the market price of that advertising up…something YouTube would definitely be interested in.

Similarly, smaller independent YouTubers are harder to control and more likely to do or say something controversial, which upsets Advertisers. But big corporate channels don’t have that problem. And so the YouTube algorithm favors big corporate “family friendly” content while shutting out the smaller Creators, in order to keep the Advertisers happy.

In fact, YouTube may be going a step further in their desire to control their platform…by propping up YouTubers of their own creation. A YouTuber by the name of Jennelle Eliana has recently become wildly and inexplicably popular, getting thousands of views, likes, and followers seemingly out of nowhere. Many YouTube users have reported finding themselves automatically subscribed to Jennelle Eliana without having done so themselves.
実は、YouTubeは自身のプラットフォームをより直接的に管理するためにさらに一歩進めているのかもしれません・・・、Youtube運営側が自ら創ったユーチューバーを支援することによって・・・。というのも、最近「Janelle Eliana」という名前のアメリカ人ユーチューバーが、驚くほど早く人気になっています。短期時間にもかかわらず、異様に多くの視聴数や「いいね」、そして登録者数まで上がっています。多くのYouTubeユーザーがアカウントは何の確認・承諾なしに、自動的にJanelle Elianaのチャンネルと登録されたと述べました。

There’s too much to go into here and now, but in a nutshell it appears that YouTube is artificially generating Jennelle Eliana’s popularity…and given that YouTube is one big black box system, it’s certainly possible. But if it’s true, it would finally give YouTube total control over the ad space on their platform. And it would finally complete the transformation of YouTube from an open platform for the average everyman…into Cable Television 2.0.
話が長く成るので、今回は詳しい説明を割愛させてもらいますが、手短に言えばJenelle Elianaの人気は人工的に生じさせられている可能性が十二分にあります。YouTubeのアルゴリズムはブラックボックス・システムなので、視聴者の反応データを簡単に改ざんできます。でも、もしこれが本当の話であれば、YouTube上の広告スペースの完全な支配の最終段階の到達を意味します。そして、ようやくYouTubeの変化は完了されます。民主的ユーザー生成コンテンツのプラットフォームから、単なるケーブルテレビの第二世代に変化されるでしょう。

At the end of the story, once all the dominos have fallen, everybody has gained something. The Censors deplatform their targets. The Media weakens their competition. The Advertisers protect their brands. And YouTube drives the price of ad space up while reducing the risk of rogue users. The only party who loses in this scenario is you…the users and the Content Creators.

Of course, there will always be cases of demonetization that aren’t based on smear campaigns from the censors. Some Content Creators will take things too far on their own, and YouTube or Advertisers will respond on their own. But at the same time, the cycle of activist smears leading to Adpocalypse has happened too often to ignore.

So what do we do? In truth, the source of this problem is simple…YouTube’s near total monopoly over the video hosting space online. A monopoly that’s only made possible by the deep pockets of Google, or rather Alphabet Inc. And by the daily use and attention of us, the users and Content Creators.

The most painfully accurate thing said to me about YouTube was this: “the worst thing Google ever did is convince us that hosting video online was free”. At great expense, Google has provided us free space to host our videos, free services, and even free money in the form of the YouTube Partner Program. In exchange, they set our standards so high that no other company on Earth can possibly satisfy them.

Any competitor to YouTube will be unable to afford the same quality of service. So unfortunately, if we want to weaken Google’s grip on power we need to learn to settle for less.

PeerTube, a decentralized alternative we’ve promoted, does not offer advertising space or monetization for users. Individual instances need to pay for hardware or hosting, and for domain registration.

But what PeerTube does offer is true creative freedom and autonomy. No advertisers can complain about you, no YouTube staff can delete your channel. You and you alone control your experience online. That’s a price worth paying.

If you’re a Content Creator on YouTube, consider learning how to set up a PeerTube instance, or else creating an account on one that exists. If you’re a user, make the effort to seek your favorite Creators on alternative platforms, or encourage them to expand to those platforms if they haven’t already. For those who move to decentralized alternative networks, make the effort to support them financially if you can.

It won’t be easy, and it won’t happen overnight. But if real change is ever going to happen at all, it needs to start with you and me from the bottom up.

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


(1) 2018/08電気通信事業法及び国立研究開発法人情報通信研究機構法の一部を改正する法律(平成30年法律第24号)の施行に伴う省令の制定について(NICT法の一部改正に伴う識別符号の基準及び実施計画に関する規定整備関係)

(2) 2018/09/26国立研究開発法人情報通信研究機構の中長期計画の変更案に対するサイバーセキュリティ戦略本部の意見(案)

(3) 2018/11/01国立研究開発法人情報通信研究機構法附則第八条第四項第一号に規定する総務省令で定める基準及び第九条に規定する業務の実施に関する計画に関する省令案に係る意見募集の結果新旧対照表

(4) 2019/01/25国立研究開発法人情報通信研究機構法(平成11年法律第162号)附則第8条第2項に規定する業務の実施に関する計画の認可申請の概要

(5) 2019/02/01IoT機器調査及び利用者への注意喚起の取組「NOTICE」の実施https://www.nict.go.jp/press/2019/02/01-1.html

(6) 2019/02/14IoT機器調査及び利用者への注意喚起の取組「NOTICE」で使用するIPアドレスについて
(7) 2019/06/28IoT機器調査及び注意喚起の実施状況について



ポートスキャンを仕掛けているのは、ポート番号で21(FTP)、22(SSH)、23(TELNET)、80(HTTP)、443(HTTPS)、その他では 8000、8080 です。単発ではなく、短時間に集中的&連続的にスキャンしているようです。

Let’s imagine a scenario together. Imagine a world where, in a crowded urban metropolis, nobody locked their doors. As a result, burglaries are skyrocketing. This problem could easily be solved by everybody just locking their doors, but for some reason they don’t.

Why not? Maybe they’re too lazy, maybe they’re stupid, or maybe their just don’t believe they’ll be targeted. Whatever the reason, the problem isn’t getting better.

The police, of course, are overwhelmed. They put out notices asking people to lock their doors, but it doesn’t have much impact. So finally, they come up with a more extreme plan.

The police hire people to go door to door in every neighborhood, testing each door to see if it’s locked. If they find an unlocked door, they enter the house and leave a warning note. They then write down a list of all the addresses that don’t lock their door and keep it at the police station.

Naturally, this plan has one problem…entering somebody’s house without permission or a warrant is illegal. But the police solve that by having the government pass a law that makes it temporarily legal for the police to perform “specified access” to unlocked houses.

Does this sound like a terrible idea filled with potential for abuse? We agree! Unfortunately, Japan’s NICT does not.

The National Institute of Information and Communications Technology announced a plan in February of this year, called NOTICE…”National Operation Towards IoT Clean Environment”. NOTICE is a plan to improve the national level of IoT security. Unfortunately, many hundreds (if not thousands) of IoT devices are either poorly secured, or not secured at all. Many use default passwords, which makes them easy targets for malicious programs like 2016’s Mirai virus.
情報通信研究機構(NICT)が今年の2月に、「NOTICE」という計画を実行しました…”National Operation Towards IoT Clean Environment”。NOTICEは日本国内のIoTセキュリティーを高めるための計画です。残念ながら、多くのIoTデバイスにはセキュリティ上の脆弱性があり、さらにはセキュリティー対策自体が全く施されていないデバイスすら存在します。多くのデバイスはパスワードがデフォルトのまま設定されており、ウィルスにとっていいカモになっています(例えば2016年のMiraiウィルス)。

The NICT wants to encourage better security practices, which is good. Unfortunately their method of doing this is very bad. Under NOTICE, the NICT plans to run brute-force dictionary attacks on all IoT devices in Japan, testing default passwords to try and access them. If the attack is successful, they will notify the owners and advise them to change their password. It’s also likely they’ll be keeping records of which devices were successfully accessed.

Of course, this plan had one problem…the type of brute-force attack the NICT wants to use under NOTICE is considered unauthorized access, and is illegal under Japanese law. Which is why, in 2018, the Japanese government created amendmends to the Telecommunications Business Law and the National Research and Development Institute of Information and Communications Technology Law. These amendments stipulated a class of “specified access” as an exception to unauthorized access, essentially making it temporarily legal for the NICT to perform unauthorized access to private networks.

There are thankfully some limits on the NICT’s new “specified access” powers…for now. Legal targets are limited to those that meet the criteria set forth by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The NICT’s brute force attacks will employ only passwords less than 8 characters, those used in past cyber attacks, and those using only identical or consecutive characters. Sadly, these limitations are of little comfort. More on that later.



While the goal of improving Japan’s network security is commendable, the NICT’s plan under NOTICE may have a number of unintended consequences.

Firstly, legalizing government hacking of private networks opens to door to abuse by other branches of government. We already know that CIRO and the Japanese Directorate for Signals Intelligence are monitoring the Japanese internet, and cooperating closely with America’s NSA. There’s potential that they might be tempted to deputize the NICT to perform “specified access” to a private network on their behalf, protected by the legal shield created by the 2018 amendments.

The ability of the NICT to successfully contact the owners of private network to warn them is also an issue, as is the likelihood that those owners might not notice (or might ignore) this contact. As a result, the NICT will end up maintaining a list of unsecure IoT devices in Japan…a list that will itself become a target for hackers, who will have faster and easier access to victims. In this way, the NICT might make Japanese networks less secure rather than more.

Finally, the limits on the “Specified Access” exemption is no guarantee of limited powers. The Japanese government has a long history of creating “temporary” or “limited” powers, and then expanding or extending them after the fact when they find a reason to do so. As far as the Japanese government is concerned, a promise and 100 yen couldn’t buy a can of coffee.

To be clear, the goal of improving IoT security is a good one, and we certainly encourage all users of IoT devices to stop using default passwords. One visit to Insecam-dot-org and you’ll see why it’s dangerous to leave network devices unsecured. But the plan under NOTICE is not a good solution, and will very likely create more problems than it solves.

So what can we do about it? Well, one thing network operators can do is block the NICT from accessing their networks entirely. In fact, the NICT has helpfully provided a list of the IP addresses they’re using under NOTICE, and which ports they intend to scan. If they find some or most of their “specified access” attempts being blocked outright, that might send a message to the NICT about the popularity of NOTICE.

A list of these IP addresses, as well as a timeline of information about NOTICE, are provided above. Please feel free to use this information as you see fit.

And for the love of God, please change the passwords on your IoT shit.