Police to request installation of security cameras on trains

Saturday 24th October, 07:21 AM JST

TOKYO —

Police decided Friday to request that 16 train operators in the capital region install security cameras on trains as measure to prevent groping and provide investigators with hard evidence of the crime often believed to result in wrongful convictions.

The Metropolitan Police Department in Tokyo along with the Chiba, Saitama and Kanagawa prefectural police will convey the request to East Japan Railway Co. and 15 other train operators on Monday at the Tokyo police headquarters, the police said.

The National Police Agency plans to set up a study group in fiscal 2010 on introducing security cameras on trains as some have raised questions about the idea in relation to cost and privacy concerns, but the four local police headquarters decided to move ahead, saying they hope the request to serve as a ‘‘catalyst’’ for a debate on the issue.

Police expect high-resolution cameras to be installed on the ceilings of train carriages, which they say may not be able to capture a groper’s hand movements but could provide information on who stood where inside the train when molestation occurred. They also believe the cameras would serve to deter crime, they said.

Cases of groping have sometimes led to questions about their investigation. In April, the Supreme Court acquitted a college professor accused of groping a high school girl on a packed Odakyu Line train, and called for ‘‘a careful judgment’’ in cases involving molestation because a victim’s deposition tends to serve as the only evidence.

The NPA has instructed police departments nationwide to make thorough efforts to gather evidence to back up a victim’s statements in cases of groping and to promote preventive measures.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 63 Total Comments Show All

Klein2 at 11:53 PM JST - 25th October

"If the goal is to catch molesters and public funds are to be used, the real issue for citizens is whether ceiling mounted cameras are the most effective technology/measure to achieve that goal. Since the police themselves admit that the cameras are not likely to be effective, perhaps the funds and effort should be redirected to measures like police officers being stationed in train cars, more train cars specifically designated for women, or public education in respect for members of the opposite sex?"

You are on the right track, but it is not that simple. The real issue is whether such measures are justified at all. Just because you CAN do something does not mean you should. In other words, not WHY NOT? but WHY?

If you go up to someone and say, "Do you want security or privacy?" The first thing they will say is "Gee, can't I have both?" The second thing they will say is, "Well security I guess." Given that POLICY DIRECTIVE, the government will then spend billions of dollars and take every last bit of privacy except that which people can reasonably secure through lawsuits and whatever else can avail them against a leviathan state. And the government will feel free to do whatever it can to stop the threat of even, say, a purse-snatcher. Not an ACTUAL purse-snatcher, but the threat of a purse-snatcher, because they know that a lot of people will just not care. After all, the public already chose to be more afraid of each other than they are of a faceless government machine.

You see, once you give a government permission to take away your rights, it will do it, and do so effectively forever. If one cannot understand the word UNREASONABLE, then the 4th amendment to the Constitution makes no sense anymore.

What is needed in this case is a panel of ombudsmen to look at this objectively and say gee... is it likely that the advantage of a few grainy pictures outweighs the actual and potential abuse of public rights? Unfortunately, if the state is making that decision, the outcome is certain.

Bushlover stated above that he thinks they are useless, but that objections against them are silly. In other words, they have high costs and no benefits, but they are still a good idea. (Do you recognize the logic? It is like saying, "People are afraid of Al Qaeda, so invading Iraq will not improve national security, but it is still a good idea.") I say that such measures have higher costs than might be imagined, and no benefits, so why would anyone think they are a good idea? The only answer is that they serve someone's interests, but not those of the public. You decide who benefits. You will probably come to the obvious conclusion.

The root of Winston Smith's despair in 1984 was not the daunting impassive power of the state, but the futility he confronted in the apathy of others. There are certainly many who don't care, and they want others not to care.
realist at 01:41 AM JST - 26th October

Cameras on the trains are an invasion of privacy. It will also spoil the fun of all the salarimen pervs on the Saikyo Line, who struggle to get on the right carriage so they can grope weach other.
gmfranc at 03:52 AM JST - 26th October

If I install a camera in my house with the intention of catching thieves and later have a party inviting guests who are taped by that camera, is it an invasion of the guests privacy if the cameras are not placed in intrusive areas (none in the bathrooms, etc.)? As a private citizen I have the right to install cameras on my property as long as they are not intruding on another's property and do not violate laws against decency (no shower cams, etc). Train companies are by law private citizens with these same rights and have nothing to do with the government or government conspiracies. They can install cameras on their trains if they want even without police urging. This article just provides an example of yet another poorly thought out proposal with questionable logic and cost-benefit. As a friend of mine once said "Never attribute absolutely to malice that which can be accounted for by simple stupidity", and lord knows the NPA has demonstrated a large volume of stupidity in recent years. The privacy rights being expressed by posters here (the right to remain unvideoed while on another person's property?) do not exist. Instead of being concerned about rights that do not exist, perhaps it might be better to propose cost effective alternatives to the police and to stand guard against true privacy violations by government such as installing cameras in legally public places like streets, parks, or government buildings, or such as wiretaps on people without cause or warrant, or such as IP tracking without warrant, etc.
Klein2 at 10:13 AM JST - 26th October

People should be able to move about in society without being tracked or traced for no reason. On the other hand, given probable cause to believe that someone is involved in a crime, appropriate means are justified. A long time ago, blanket arrests, so-called dragnets, were declared unconstitutional in the US. Reason? Infringing on the freedoms of many to find one or two bad actors is not a reasonable "search." Dubious solutions might be easy or cheap, but stopping a few gropers does not justify this. The camera idea is doubleplusungood.

The NPA is "requesting" this. This is not the idea of the train operators. Your statement below is also a gross oversimplification.

"The privacy rights being expressed by posters here (the right to remain unvideoed while on another person's property?) do not exist."

But you know, you are right. I have the wrong attitude. What I should be doing is taking taxis and flying in private jets. Public transportation? bah. Rubbing shoulders with sick poor people to protect some pandas and islands? Who cares about the slobs and proles riding the trains? I will pay the bucks for peace of mind. If the peasants want to shrug, they deserve what they get. What a pain sticking up for other people. I got mine.

See how that works? Now THERE is a model citizen for you.
Patrick Smash at 11:42 AM JST - 26th October

I wonder if crimes beyong groping can be investigated. How about all those illegal downloads on i-pods, or people having a beer on the train when there is a sign up saying not to? Flatulence in a confined space, looking at people in a funny way etc?

I don't like this sort of move when it is instigated by a police force that absolutely refuses to have cameras anywhere near its so-called interviews (interrogations) of suspects. If they believe in this technology for the protection of the innocent, why don't they tape their interrogations? We have every right to be suspicious..
gmfranc at 06:06 PM JST - 26th October

I believe I said it was a poorly thought out proposal with questionable logic and cost-benefit, so I'm unsure why you seem to feel that I support this proposal. If I haven't been clear enough or if my language has made it difficult for you to interpret my meaning, let me clarify - I think this is a boner of an idea ... bad, stupid, ill-conceived, illogical - somewhat like the NPA as a whole. However, I am also unsure how you have made the leap from a private citizen (train companies) installing cameras on private property (trains, platforms and stations) to unconstitutional police dragnets, and issues of class, environmental protection and personal victimization? The facts are that the NPA has the right to make the request (ill-conceived as it is), that train companies as private citizens have the right to comply with or refuse to comply with the request as they see fit (and in this instance I would be the first to support them if they told the NPA to take a flying fig), and that train companies as private citizens already have the right to surveille their own property if they see fit (trains are private property, not public places). Train riders have no right to privacy except as defined by laws addressing decency (no floor cams allowed). This is not an oversimplification, it is a statement of fact. Perhaps you can explain to me how you can lose a right you never had to start with? Or how these cameras might be used realistically used to track - mostly from the tops of their heads - the several million commuters who use the trains every day? Indeed your arguments if taken to their logical conclusion would prevent me from surveilling my own property if I wished to, thereby taking away a real right that I currently have. Hopefully for you, the taxi companies and private jet companies won't exercise their rights and install cameras on their private property either ... then what would you do?
gmfranc at 07:00 PM JST - 26th October

OK, the point of all my posts because I believe I may have indulged in a side argument - It is not possible to successfully attack this request on legal or policy grounds using privacy, because there is no right to privacy in this particular instance. It is however a very undesirable proposed solution to the problem, worthy of suspicion. To be successful, attacks should be mounted using cost-benefit and goal-achieveability arguments, supported hopefully with well-reasoned alternatives to the NPA's proposal. A lack of presented alternatives, I believe, weakens opposition, so the effort to formulate viable alternatives should be expended.
combinibento at 07:23 PM JST - 26th October

I agree there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on a train. Having said that, how much you wanna bet these security tapes of girls getting groped on trains will be leaked to media outlets to produce those "shocking crimes caught on camera" TV shows? That can be quite humiliating for the girls, even if you blur their face. That is the more interesting privacy issue.
gmfranc at 07:48 PM JST - 26th October

I must admit that I am unfamiliar with Japanese law regarding privacy as it applies to media broadcasts. Still that is a different issue altogether - can an individual who has been videoed anywhere pursue damages, including punitive damages, when such video or still images are publicly broadcast without the subject's consent and cause damage in some fashion (emotional, financial, etc.)? I know in the US, it's always wise to get a signed release and that employers may be held accountable for leaks by employees where privacy rights are protected under state law. It could be a persuasive negative against the implementation of this NPA request in the cost-benefit arguments if the train companies were frequently subject to or regularly under threat of such litigation under Japanese law.
dolphingirl at 08:08 PM JST - 26th October

I don't think this request is reasonable. As many people have stated, having cameras on ceilings is not cost effective. I highly doubt that more gropers will be caught this way. It will not change the fact that many Japanese women who are victims of groping do not do anything about it.

Also, I think it might actually increase the number of false accusations since it could put a person at the scene without being able to clearly see what the accused person is doing. I am sure that touching someone on the train unintentionally happens all the time. A much better solution: teach J-girls to stand up and defend themselves!
telecasterplayer at 12:06 PM JST - 27th October

Police to request installation of security cameras on trains

Apparently, these cameras will be installed at shoe-level and will point up.
Yelnats at 03:39 PM JST - 28th October

They should make all salary men cars mandatory, and that will stop the problems.
Mittsu at 06:00 PM JST - 29th October

If these go ahead won't be long before the films are available in Akiba as a kind of soft porn.
eigonosensei at 07:26 PM JST - 29th October

The people that want to watch what you're doing have something to hide.
Thinker at 06:51 AM JST - 6th December

It's mirrors a trend towards totalitarian government. Chicago has over 20,000 cameras. The UK now has cameras in the homes of 2,000 people. "Groping" is not the issue. It's a move towards increased social control. No data is given to substantiate the need other than saying roughly 1,800 cases are reported every year. The introduction of flex-time work schedules several years ago alleviated crowding on rush hour trains in Tokyo. Moreover, female-only cars are now available. It's amazing how easily people agree to give up their privacy when authority speaks. Once the precedent is established, the cameras will proliferate and more privacy will be lost. I believe the police are being deceitful in their stated reasons for the cameras. Big brother is alive and well.