EDITORIAL: Leak of terrorism info

A month has passed since the leak on the Internet of what appears to be terrorism investigation documents of Tokyo's Metropolitan Police Department. Large numbers of these electronic files continue to drift through cyberspace and have reportedly been downloaded on more than 10,000 personal computers worldwide.

On Monday, the Tokyo District Court issued a provisional injunction blocking the publication and sale of a book containing the leaked documents. The court decision addressed a motion from Muslims who said their photos, relationships and other personal facts have been divulged.

Freedom of the press and speech lies at the heart of democracy. Difficulties arise, however, in figuring how to strike a working balance between those liberties and the right to privacy. There is also the view that because these documents have already been released online, it makes no sense to crack down only on their paper publication.

The information, however, also includes descriptions of some people as having possible ties with terrorism.

No ordinary citizens would ever want such information exposed. Moreover, putting such materials on bookstore shelves would make it even easier to access the information than searching for it on the Net.

Monday's court statememt that the publication of such materials would result in a violation of rights extremely difficult to restore is appropriate. It was the court's conclusion that even if the publishing company wished to raise issues regarding the information leak, detailed personal information itself cannot be defined as being linked to public interests.

How should publishing companies and other conventional media cope with the Internet age?

Cyberspace is also used to expose and denounce information held in confidentiality by those in power. The recent Net disclosure of secret U.S. diplomatic cables by the WikiLeaks organization has sent shockwaves around the world.

Once damaging information is leaked, it is impossible to ever fully delete it from the public domain.

The first step is to scrutinize the truth and value of the intelligence involved. Next, weigh the gains and losses likely to result from its disclosure.

Finally, reach a decision on whether to report the data.

The roles played by newspapers, publishers, broadcasters and other established media should be seen as still greatly important. The approach adopted in this instance, however, of copying the information without ascertaining its public benefit, can hardly be labeled responsible.

The police, meanwhile, have yet to acknowledge that the leaked documents are authentic. As a result, they were unable to protest the move to publish the data in book form.

To avoid further anxieties for the victims as well, the police should immediately come clean on their blunder and apologize.

The plaintiffs lodging the complaint to halt the book are fuming over the response by the police authorities. We assume that the MPD is taking firm measures to protect the safety of investigators who had information all the way down to their cellphone numbers and family make-up exposed.

Such consideration should be extended to victims in the private sector as well.

The probe into how the leak occurred is not going well.

It has also come to light that personal computers were used at the MPD Public Security Bureau that were unequipped with encryption, data removal preventative measures or other safeguards.

Who are the police in charge of protecting? What do they need to get their act together? After admitting that mistakes were made, police must take action on such issues.

Therein lies the road to winning back some of the credibility lost in the wake of this data disclosure debacle.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Dec. 1