Amazing expose on internet “pranksters” from The Smoking Gun

I direct all MFT readers to read this amazing, detailed expose from The Smoking Gun identifying and incriminating the the denizens of “Pranknet” an online community of highly destructive and juvenile practical jokers, whose exploits include the following:

Late on the evening of February 10, a call to Room 306 at the Best Western in Shillington, Pennsylvania roused a sleeping traveler. Jonathan Davis at the front desk was calling with scary news: A ruptured gas line was threatening hotel guests, some of whom were already feeling lightheaded and dizzy.

Noting that he was following a “protocol sheet,” Davis instructed the male guest that he needed to quickly unplug all electrical devices and place wet towels at the base of the room’s door to keep carbon monoxide from entering the space. After the guest took those precautions, Davis then directed him to bust out a 5′ x 5′ section of window. The man, who happened to be a glazier, asked, “Are you serious?” When Davis urgently assured him that the drastic measure was required for his safety, the guest replied that he would put on clothes and “bust this fucker.”

Using a chair, the guest then smashed a window. As broken glass cascaded into the room, Davis then advised that the television screen would need to broken since the tube contained an electrical charge that could spark an explosion. Davis suggested the use of the toilet tank cover to disable the television. But when the guest threw the porcelain lid at the TV, it broke. So Davis directed the man to toss the set out the window. Stepping gingerly around glass shards, the guest complied.

At this point, Davis’s supervisor, Jeff Anderson, joined the call and determined that the guests in 306 had co-workers in the adjoining room. Anderson then called Room 304 and advised the man answering the phone to “remain calm.” He told the guest of the gas leak and advised him of the safety measures that had already been followed next door. The man in 304 also unplugged electrical devices, placed wet towels at the door, smashed a window, and tossed the television to the sidewalk below. Anderson then directed the guest to pull the fire alarm. As a siren wailed, the guest asked Anderson, “Can we get out of this motel? Why can’t we just leave the building?” He had previously remarked, “I hope this ain’t some kind of joke.”

This is a really impressive investigation. The author writes with a well-deserved satisfied tone and seems to almost taunt the Pranknet members with his ability to expose them. Do yourself a favor and spend the next half hour reading through it and listening to some of the calls. You’ll see what a public service it is to hopefully stop these people.

Fuzzy sentencing: can lay judges beat the computer?

This came out as a coda to a Yomiuri report on the first lay judge trial:

The Supreme Court has introduced a system for searching past sentences handed down for reference when determining appropriate punishments. The use of this system is the focus of considerable attention.

Terminals installed in district courts and their branches across the nation allow data to be retrieved on about 2,300 sentences handed down since April last year. The data are organized into 10 categories, such as whether the crime was premeditated and the types of weapons used. By entering information via a terminal, similar cases and a range of appropriate punishments are displayed in a bar-chart format. Prosecutors and lawyers also can access the system. […]

The Supreme Court’s position on the use of the search results is that they “do not act as a restraint on sentencing, but rather generate material for further discussion.”

Though the information may help lay judges hold active discussions about an appropriate punishment, it may also prevent sentences being handed down that differ widely from similar cases.

Two immediate thoughts:

  1. This highlights yet another distinction between American jurors and Japanese lay judges. In the US, jurors don’t get involved in sentencing at all; that’s left to the judge. In fact, jurors are usually not allowed to know what the punishment is, lest it interfere with their judgment of the facts.
  2. This is a hell of a way to impose sentencing guidelines–basically sentencing by bureaucratic inertia.

To be clear, I think that the opposite extreme can be ridiculous. By “the opposite extreme,” I mean the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines. This is a point system which binds judges to a narrow range of possible sentences based on facts which have been proven in the case–the nature of the offense, the aggravating and mitigating factors present, and the criminal history of the defendant. It’s kind of like doing your taxes: you have income and deductions and a variety of funky calculations to complete. And like tax returns, there is software to do all the calculating, which is worth a try to get a feel for the system.

There are several motivations behind reducing the judge’s discretion. One is to minimize discrimination in sentencing (though if you play with the online calculator, you will find that crack dealers really do get much worse sentences than coke dealers; also note that this is a concept which would probably fall upon deaf ears in the Japanese Diet). Another is to keep convicts from appealing the propriety of their sentences, which is a major administrative burden on appellate courts even when relatively clear rules are in place. Yet another (which would probably get the highest popular approval rating) is to prevent judges from giving lenient sentences to egregious offenders out of emotional pity.

Still, there is something which seems inherently wrong about judging by computer: the person in the defendant’s seat is a human being, and if the system is supposed to somehow “correct” them, some more serious consideration of their personal state by human eyes is probably necessary. The Federal Guidelines are good at keeping people in jail but not particularly good at giving them a responsible future.

Is the new Japanese method better? Maybe. The problem I see is that it could perpetuate the common practice in Japan of looking to the status quo for guidance, even when it clearly isn’t binding.

The lay judges seem to have avoided that trap in their first deployment. In the first lay judge trial, which was decided this afternoon, the pro-am bench handed down a guilty verdict and a sentence of 15 years, slightly less than what the prosecutors wanted (16 years) and well outside the range of past sentences dug up by the defense lawyer (3 to 10 years). So there’s some evidence of critical thinking in this new system, although it’s hard to guess what might happen in future cases.

緊急提言:報道機関による裁判傍聴制度の乗っ取りを許さない Media stealing people’s right to observe trials due to ridiculous court rules

(Today’s post about how my chance to observe the lay judge trial was stolen is in Japanese only. For an overview of my experience in English, please check my photo album here. Feel free to leave comments in English!)

8月4日(火曜日)、全国で初めての裁判員裁判を傍聴しようと、朝早くから東京地方裁判所へと出かけた。ニュースで聞いていたとおり、傍聴希望者が数百人来ていて、大きな行列ができていた。報道陣も大勢来ていて、目の前の人にも「なぜ傍聴に来た」と取材していた。

基本的に、裁判の傍聴はアポなしでもできるが、注目が集まるような事件となると希望者が傍聴席の約60席を上回るため、抽選で傍聴券が配布される。当日は並んでいる人に整理券をくばり、9時になると当せん番号をホワイトボードに掲載し、整理券の番号と一致した場合は当せんとなる。

残念ながら、私は外れた。裁判所の前で「惜しい」と悔やんでいたところ、不思議な光景を目撃した。それは次に述べるように「報道機関による裁判傍聴制度の乗っ取り」である。

まず、裁判所の前は報道陣のカメラマンなどであふれている。それに、報道陣から当選者らしき人に対し指示を出し、一つの場所に集めようとしている。

そして、道を渡って警察庁本部の前に行くと、また別の行列ができている。並んでいる人全員が整理券を手に、誰かに渡し、マニラ封筒を受け取る。

封筒を受け取る様子を見てやっとわかった。この人たちはおそらくアルバイトで応募して、当選した場合は報道関係者に傍聴券を譲渡する。当たりでも外れでもお金がもらえるので、抽選の後で封筒入りの現金を渡していたようである。

これを見て、本気で憤りを覚えた。動員されたアルバイトがいればいるほど、その分まじめに傍聴しに来た人が当たる確率が低くなり、その機会が報道機関の動員によって奪われたからだ。

改善策

裁判には報道関係者の立ち入りが禁止されているらしい(利害関係者などは別の傍聴席があるようだ)。その状況下で、なんらかの方法で取材しようとすることが、ジャーナリストとして当然の行動である。しかし、傍聴制度は国民のために設けられ、その権利を奪ってはいけない。

もちろん、バイトの人たちが悪いと思わない。

一番責任があるのは、こんな非効率なルールを作って裁判所の関係者たちである。この状況を改善するには、裁判所に対していくつかの提言を述べてみたい。

1.傍聴券を譲渡不可にする。お金目当てでの傍聴券の入手を防ぐために、傍聴券を第三者への譲渡を禁止すべきである。これによって、「報道機関の乗っ取り」による不公平をなくし、一般人が傍聴しやすくなる。

2.一定の傍聴席を報道機関に優先的に枠を作る。報道陣はどうしても取材したいし、国民の関心のある事件の場合、その社会的価値も高い。法廷のスペースに制限があるので、一般人の傍聴席を少し減らして10席ほど設ければいい。事情により報道機関の立ち入りを一時的に禁止する必要も考えられるので、その場合は枠を作らないで、一般人の傍聴も禁止すべき。

この慣行が何年も続いているので、提言したところで改善すると思わないが、裁判員制度が始まった今、国民の司法に対する関心は高まるに違いない。

以上の二つを実現すれば、傍聴制度は利用しやすくなり、本来の目的を果たすことを期待している。

Renting in Japan vs America – Part 2

Last week I began this series with a post detailing my experience, and what I know about the system of renting a place to live in the US, mainly focusing on details that are of particular note for a comparison with Japan. I then followed up with an interlude on anecdotes of racial discrimination in the American housing market, as discrimination in apartment rental is widely discussed in Japan. I had intended to continue sooner, but we’ve had so much active discussion on the blog over the past week that I decided to hold off for a bit longer. In this post, I will describe what I know about the process of renting a residence in Japan, explaining the peculiarities of the fee structure and the search process, but not getting much into the actual laws or regulations. I decided to keep these separate as I believe it is important to first discuss the reality of the system before trying to analyze how it compares with the letter of the law. In the next post I will describe my own experiences in searching for and renting here in Kyoto, as well as providing the details of my current contract as a case study.

In Japan, the vast majority of rentals go through real estate agents, and direct rentals from a landlord are quite rare without a personal connection of some kind. A typical rental process goes as follows:

You go to a real estate agent, tell them what you’re looking for, they show you information on some potential rentals, you pick ones you want to see. This process may begin online, and there are plenty of websites for browsing real estate, but once you indicate your interest and head over to the office, things are pretty much the same.

The agent will first call the party responsible for the property, be it the actual landlord, management company, or another real estate firm to check availability, verify conditions, and arrange a viewing time. As rental units are often cross-listed with multiple agencies, they need to coordinate schedules to make sure prospective renters don’t run into one another, and that the key is available. Once one or more viewings have been arranged, the agent will then drive you around in the company car to view the properties. They will show you as many as you like without complaint, and without expecting any charge, as these services are all provided for by the introduction fee paid upon completion of a rental lease.

Once you pick one you like, they sit you down, read and explain the contract clause by clause (apparently a legal requirement) and then you sign/stamp it, pay them, they hand over the key and documents related to required disaster insurance or activation of utilities, and get to move in. After moving in, you never have any dealings with the real estate agent again, but instead usually deal with a management company (管理会社), who actually accepts rent on behalf of the owner, and fields any questions you have regarding repairs etc.

When moving in, one usually has to pay first months rent, key-money, security deposit, real estate agent fee, and an insurance fee. The monthly bill may include a ‘common maintenance fee’ (共益費) to cover costs relating to the common areas of the building, usually a few thousand yen a month (compared with a typical rent of tens of thousands yen). In the US, condo or coop residents pay a similar maintenance fee, but for rental units it is subsumed into the general rental fee. As far as I can tell, there is no logical reason for this separate fee, except to make the advertised rent look smaller than it really is.

The term ‘key money’ is the standard translation of the Japanese term reikin (礼金), which literally means something like money given in thanks, or as an obligation.  According to Wikipedia, reikin actually started as a gift given to the landlord by the family of a young student or single worker who moved from the country to the city, in exchange for the landlord watching after the naive new arrival. This gradually became institutionalized, and over the decades shifted from being a payment intended to cement a two-way social obligation (as the word implies) to a simple up-front fee paid to the owner when renting a place to live. Today, reikin equal to 1, 2 or even 3+ months rent is ubiquitous, although apparently common in some regions than others.  Unlike a security deposit, reikin is never returned, regardless of how long one stays in the place, and the amount is also unrelated to how long one intends to stay. The legal status of  has always been ambiguous, generally assumed to be technically illegal, but with no clear guidelines or alternative to paying it.

Key money does exist in the US, but is both explicitly illegal and quite rare. The only place I am aware of it being common is Manhattan, where building superintendents are known for requiring a cash bribe in exchange for leasing a desirable apartment, particularly those with rent-controlled below market-rate rent, although it probably exists in other markets as well. The two big differences are that reikin in Japan is both clearly advertised, and grudgingly tolerated, while key money in Manhattan is always an under the table cash, due to its status as a clearly illegal bribe, and that in Japan reikin always goes to the landlord, while in Manhattan it often goes to the super instead. In recent years, there has been an increasing trend to offer reikin-free apartments in exchange for a slightly higher monthly rent, which is obviously superior for anyone who isn’t completely sure they will be staying in the same place for many years, or who lacks enough savings to easily spare the hundreds or thousands of dollars (equivalent) that one has to piss away on reikin.

Security deposits (shikikin – 敷金) are also standard in Japan, and usually equal one or two months rents, as in other countries. Supposedly, landlords in Japan are far more likely to con you out of your security deposit than in most other countries, but I am told that if you press hard enough you can usually get most of it back. A good contract will specify that certain accouterments, such as the tatami mats, wallpaper, fusuma (wooden/paper screens) are “disposable” items, damage to which shall not be charged from the deposit.

Sometimes, the reikin and security deposit are combined into a somewhat bizarre ‘guaranty money’ (hoshoukin – 保証金), in which one pays a certain large amount, from which a certain smaller amount may be returned at the conclusion of the lease. This is functionally identical in every way to having a separate reikin and deposit, except that by using a different fee structure the real estate agent can disingenuously advertise the unit as ‘no reikin!!!’ while in reality being just as bad. Hoshoukin is usually 2-4 months rent, or equal to the amount that reikin and security deposit would be combined.

As I mentioned earlier, there is also a fee paid to the real estate agent, usually equal to one month rent, but sometimes companies will offer a fee equal to 1/2 month rent. Disaster insurance is also mandatory, at least when renting a house (I don’t recall for apartments), but is not particularly expensive, perhaps in the range of ¥10,000-20,000 per year.

The last fee that needs mentioning is the ‘renewal fee’ (更新料). Most apartment leases in Japan are for one or two years, after which one generally has to pay a renewal fee, usually equal to one month rent per year of lease. In Japan, one can generally cancel a lease with no penalty by giving only one month notice, which is actually one of the reasons that landlords had been hiking up the reikin for so many years-to compensate for the possible loss of income due to a very short-notice vacancy. (And also just because they can get away with it.)  The renewal fee is essentially interim reikin, discouraging tenants from making an unscheduled move in the middle of their lease, and helping to prevent loss of long-term rental income to the landlord.

While not a fee exactly, I can’t end this post without discussing the guarantor system. When renting a place in North America, ones credit worthiness is based on the credit score, which is ultimately derived from one’s entire financial history. The landlord checks the customer’s credit score, perhaps also looking a recent tax statement for proof of current earnings, and then allows them to rent if they seem sufficiently trustworthy. Generally, a co-signer or personal guarantor is only needed in cases where the renter hs no credit history or income, such as the case of the college student I mentioned in the first post. In Japan, there is no personal credit score, with personal guarantors required for and and all rentals. The guarantor (hoshounin – 保証人) the guarantor co-signs the lease with the renter, and is therefore legally on the hook should the renter skip out on rent, or refuse to pay for damages in excess of the security deposit. The guarantor’s creditworthiness is generally based on proof of income, and can be anyone that makes enough money. Foreigners can actually serve as guarantors, although permanent residency may be required. For renters who don’t have a relative, boss, teacher, or well-off close friend to serve as a guarantor there are also companies that provide guarantor services-essentially rent insurance-for around ¥50,000.

So, there you have a general overview of some of the unique properties of Japanese rental arrangements. I’ll move on to my personal experience in the next part, but I’m sure everyone will bring some corrections/additions/information on local variance to the comment thread below.

Ayase to start fining smokers starting in October

In my last post about bicycle parking, I noted that the enforcers didn’t seem to be making much of an impact on illegal bike parking, except maybe at the margins (I’d be tempted to park there more often if I didn’t have a reliable space at my apt. building).

Another rule in Adachi-ku that’s only effective at the margins is the ban on smoking on the streets. In a reverse of the common American rule, in Japan smokers are often allowed to smoke in designated areas of public buildings but banned from smoking on the street. This makes for some smoky izakaya, but to me it makes sense because Japan’s narrow streets and urban lifestyle mean you are affected more by street smokers than you would be in a big American city.

Unfortunately, the bans tend to be ignored by whoever is insensitive enough to light up. They obviously know it’s against the rules but wear a “screw you” scowl on their faces and no one does anything.

One effort to combat these scowlers has been to enhance enforcement in high-traffic areas by dispatching workers who enforce the rules by collecting small fines on the spot. Adachi-ku has imposed such a ban since October 2006 starting with a 1,000 yen fine in the Kitasenju Station area. Ever since I have been in the area I have seen elderly people (volunteers I presume) asking some very surprised and incredulous smokers to pay 1,000 yen on the spot.

Similar exchanges are expected to come to my neighborhood this October as the fine is set to be expanded to include the Ayase Station area:

From Adachi-ku bicycle parking enforcers

The details of anti-smoking ordinances vary from place to place, but most appear to follow similar guidelines – ban smoking on the street everywhere (except some small smoking areas) but only enforce in areas of major foot traffic such as train stations. Many places such as Tokyo’s Chiyoda-ku post their enforcement stats online. Since beginning its policy in November 2002, Chiyoda-ku has fined a total of 42,230 people. Though I could not find figures on whether these people are actually paying the fines, if everyone has paid they have collected a total of 84.5 million yen, which adds up to something like 11.3 million yen a year.We also don’t know how many people the enforcers tried to stop but couldn’t.

For its part, Adachi-ku claims to have issued 3,498 fines in the Kitasenju area. As noted above, the preferred collection method is to demand payment on the spot. Enforcers are required to show proper ID upon request, and you are allowed to appeal if you don’t think you deserve the fine. However, there appears to be nothing the enforcers can do if you simply ignore them or refuse to take possession of the ticket.

In the initial period of enforcement, Ayase can probably expect a similar reaction that was documented when Kobe expanded its enforcement in 2007 – refusals by people who claim ignorance of the rule, people tossing out cigarettes just before entering the restricted area, and lots of people simply refusing to acknowledge the existence of the enforcers. Seeing the jerks who light up even when they know the smoke bothers everyone is one of my pet peeves, so here’s hoping our friends the elderly enforcers can get the job done.

Meet the bicycle parking enforcers

Yesterday evening on the way home I caught Adachi-ku’s bicycle parking enforcers in action:

From Adachi-ku bicycle parking enforcers

The open area outside Ayase Station’s east exit is normally filled with illegally parked bikes (because it basically serves no other function). As in most areas, Adachi-ku bans bike parking near stations except in designated parking lots (there is one that’s free of charge on the south side and several fee-based ones). But in reality, most of the time the only thing stopping people from parking in this area are some old men in yellow vests (apparently officially sanctioned volunteers) who verbally warn people not to park there (even as 5 others are parking their bikes directly behind them).

But about once a week the enforcers come around, and it’s on these days that the park becomes oddly bike-free. On this Saturday in particular I was walking in an area that’s usually so flooded with bikes it’s impossible to walk through comfortably, but when the enforcers came around there were only two or three bikes to be found. Somehow everyone seems to know what day the enforcers will be there.

According to the Adachi-ku homepage, the district only enforces bicycle parking within a 300-meter radius of train stations, as those are the places where offenders concentrate.

If your bicycle is caught by the enforcer’s net outside Ayase Station, you must make your way to the Kita-Ayase relocation center (on foot, presumably). To retrieve a bike that’s been confiscated will cost you 2,000 yen and require you to produce proof that you own the bike along with a working key. Act fast, though – bikes in custody for two months will be “disposed with.” While I don’t know exactly what Adachi-ku does with the orphaned bikes, many abandoned bicycles nationwide end up exported to North Korea,  so if you don’t want to fund Kim Jong Il’s regime, you need to retrieve your bike as soon as possible!

MM20071025145737747L0

A Yomiuri photo of bicycles slated for export.

The Wikipedia article on this issue makes an interesting point – in most cases, there are more people who benefit from illegal bike parking than who are adversely affected by it. No one might be explicitly advocating that bikes should be permitted to park wherever they want, but the fact remains that the fee-based parking lots are expensive and often inconvenient. This means that politicians have a hard time taking decisive action as it would upset the population.

Roppongi still a seething cauldron of poison

Just got this warning from the US embassy:

July 10, 2009

Warden Message – Roppongi Security Notice:  Drink Spiking

The U.S. Embassy continues to recommend that American citizens avoid frequenting bars and clubs in the Roppongi area of Tokyo due to drink-spiking incidents.

The U.S. Embassy continues to receive reliable reports of U.S. citizens being drugged in Roppongi-area bars.  Most reports indicate that the victim unknowingly drinks a beverage that has been secretly mixed with a drug that renders the victim unconscious or stuporous for several hours, during which time large charges are fraudulently billed to the victim, sums of money are charged to the victim’s credit card, or the card is stolen.  Victims sometimes regain consciousness in the bar or club, while at other times the victim awakens on the street.  Assaults on Americans have also been reported in connection with drink-spiking.

Sign up for updates here.

Defending the financial system against yakuza infiltration

Citibank is feeling some FSA heat right now because it wasn’t strict enough in monitoring and reporting “suspicious transactions including money laundering.”

Organized crime relations are becoming a bigger and bigger deal in the world of Japanese financial regulation. Late last year, the FSA and the Japanese Bankers’ Association adopted some administrative guidelines concerning how banks should protect against yakuza, sokaiya and other rabblerousers, and many of those guidelines are being phased in this year by institutions across the country.

One measure being implemented is amending account agreements in order to allow banks to pull service from customers with criminal ties. Here is a translation of the JBA’s suggested language (original version here). It is pretty laughable even by legal Japanese standards; I wonder who had a hand in drafting it. Exploring options such as liquidation uk can offer additional strategies for businesses to manage financial liabilities and regulatory compliance effectively.

Article [__] (Exclusion of Anti-Social Forces)

(1) I hereby represent that I am currently not, and hereby agree that in the future I shall not become, any of the following.

1. A criminal organization (暴力団)
2. A member of a criminal organization
3. A quasi-constituent of a criminal organization
4. An enterprise related to a criminal organization
5. A sokaiya (総会屋), politically-branded racketeering organization (社会運動等標ぼうゴロ) or organized crime-related “specialist” (特殊知能暴力集団 – a police term for individuals or groups who are not yakuza themselves, but help fund yakuza activities)
6. Any other person pursuant to any of the above

(2) I hereby agree that I shall not engage in any of the following acts, whether personally or through a third party.

1. Violent demands
2. Improper demands in excess of legal responsibilities
3. Acts of violence or menacing statements in relation to a transaction
4. Spreading of rumors, use of falsified statistics or use of obstruction to harm the reputation of your bank, or to obstruct the business of your bank
5. Any other act pursuant to any of the above

(3) In the event it is determined that I correspond to any of the listed items in paragraph 1 above, commit any listed act in the preceding paragraph, or have made a falsified report with regard to the representations and covenants in paragraph 1 above, and it is improper to continue transactions with me, upon the demand of your bank, I will lose the benefit of term with regard to all liabilities I have to your bank, and will promptly perform those liabilities.

(4) In the event that I have received the discounting of notes, that it is determined that I correspond to any of the listed items in paragraph 1 above, commit any listed act in the preceding paragraph, or have made a falsified report with regard to the representations and covenants in paragraph 1 above, and that it is improper to continue transactions with me, upon the demand of your bank, I will owe a liability to repay the face amount of all notes, and will promptly perform it. Until such time as this liability is performed, your bank may exercise all of its rights as the holder of such notes.

(5) Once performance of the liabilities under the preceding two paragraphs has been completed, this agreement will lose validity. (Bizarre phrasing!)