In an interview with Tansa, former Album Collector operator Keisuke Nitta tried to defend his actions.

(Illustration by qnel)

We interviewed Kenichi Takahama in Singapore in November 2023.

Takahama was the one who started Photo Capsule, a predecessor app of Album Collection. He is the founder of the affiliate service company First Penguin and was president of Max Payment Gateway Services (hereafter “Max”) when it started operating Photo Capsule.

However, the actual operation of Photo Capsule was carried out by Keisuke Nitta, then president of First Penguin. In our interview, Takahama insisted on this point. Nitta served as president of First Penguin after Takahama.

Takahama called Nitta a longtime acquaintance and said the latter had a “strong sense of justice.”

Was that true?

According to Takahama, Nitta also operated the similar apps that followed Photo Capsule: Video Container and Album Collection. Child sexual abuse material and other illegal images were traded on both apps. This meant that Takahama and Nitta had made money from apps that had become hotbeds of criminal activity.

We needed to hear Nitta’s side of the story as well. When we interviewed Takahama, we asked him to encourage Nitta to agree to an interview.

Three days later, Tansa Editor-in-Chief Makoto Watanabe and I received an email from Nitta.

“Refrain from reporting, or check in advance”

The subject line of Nitta’s email read “Regarding articles in Uploaded and Reuploaded.”

A few weeks prior, Nitta and Takahama had, through their lawyers, sent Tansa a letter requesting that we remove five articles that related to them and which we had published from September to November 2023. They objected to Tansa naming Nitta and Takahama as the operators of Album Collection.

They claimed that they had transferred the app’s ownership to another company from April 2020 and were no longer involved in its operation.

In his email, Nitta stated that he would be willing to talk for about 30 minutes. He said he had decided to be interviewed after consulting with his lawyer. As he was currently living in Malaysia, Nitta said he could participate in an online interview.

He also noted that, during his time operating the apps, he had provided the police with information on users who posted child sexual abuse material and other illegal images.

Because he was “very worried” about retaliation from such perpetrators, he made this request at the end of his email: “At the very least, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from reporting on the content of our interview, or, if you must report on it, if you checked the article content with me before publication.”

At a coffee shop in Shibuya at year’s end

According to the lawyers’ document and our interview with Takahama, Nitta was solely responsible for the operation of the three apps from September 2014 to March 2020. A 30-minute online interview wasn’t going to cut it. Besides, this was key to our investigation. Not reporting on what he told us, or reporting only comments he consented to, wasn’t an option.

“I hope we can conduct the interview in person, not online. We can come to Malaysia,” I replied.

“In addition to the wide range of questions we would like to ask you, in our recent interview, Mr. Takahama said he knew very little about matters such as the apps’ operation, but that you did. A 30-minute online interview would not be sufficient for us to fully understand the situation. Furthermore, we would like to ask about the operation of Photo Capsule, Video Container, and Album Collection, while directly showing you documents and other materials we have gathered through our investigation.

“We cannot give assurances that we will not report on something, nor do we share article contents ahead of publication. This policy is the same for all our interviewees,” I finished.

In response, Nitta informed me that he would be returning to Tokyo at the end of the year.

We arranged to meet on Dec. 28, 2023, at a private room of a coffee shop in Shibuya.

“You want to stop the dissemination, is that right?”

“Mind if I have a smoke?” Nitta asked upon arrival for our meeting, pulling out his cigarettes.

We entered the coffee shop, and the interview began. We talked for about two hours. (Brackets have been added by Tansa.)

“First of all, let me check: What is the purpose of your series ‘Uploaded and Reuploaded’? You want to stop the dissemination [of illegal images] … is that right?” Nitta asked.

Yes, I replied. In rapid succession, Nitta asked me several questions about the articles. He said he couldn’t understand why I had written what I did even though he had sold Album Collection in 2020 and was no longer involved in its operation.

However, even if Nitta had not been involved in Album Collection’s operation since April 2020, he had still launched it and profited from it for several years. Furthermore, he had transferred the app knowing it was a hotbed of crime. We needed to know to whom and under what conditions he had transferred it.

“Operated it single-handedly”

We began our questions.

In our interview in Singapore, Takahama had claimed that Nitta had operated the apps. Was this true?

According to Nitta, it was. He said he had operated Album Collection single-handedly. Although he had responded to victims’ reports and cooperated with police investigations, he said the situation started to get out of hand around 2019.

“I believe you know that some [Album Collection] users were arrested, and of course I am aware of the fact that such users existed. I couldn’t respond to every instance,” Nitta said.

“It’s not that there was this mountain [of illegal images, etc.], but as a web service we had to be available to respond 24 hours a day,” he continued. “Especially when there were claims that a user had misused someone’s images. I had to respond in the middle of the night, when eating, when watching TV — it felt endless.”

In short, Nitta was saying he was unable to respond to all the illegal images.

However, illegal images proliferated on Album Collection primarily because of the app’s mechanism: Users could make money because images were downloaded for a fee, which incentivized them to treat sexual images as “products” to be sold to as many people as possible.

Why hadn’t Nitta changed the app’s fundamental mechanism?

And it hadn’t been only Album Collection. Nitta had used the same mechanism in its predecessors, Photo Capsule and Video Container, all the way through to Album Collection. Had he intended to generate profit from users posting sexual images?

That was where saw the issue.

“Illegal images were posted since the Photo Capsule days,” I began.

“That’s right,” Nitta acknowledged.

“Then why did you maintain the same format all those years?” I pressed.

Nitta replied slowly, searching for words: “When the app name was reported in the news [because users were arrested for criminal activities], it attracted more bad users. The number of such users [engaged in criminal activity] suddenly and quickly increasing was a problem.”

The “rebuilding” lie

Although Nitta could not keep up with the amount of illegal images, he had continued to operate the apps. When I highlighted this contradiction, Nitta talked about how he had tried to prevent illegal activity.

According to him, it was by remaking the app. His goal in transitioning from Photo Capsule to Video Container to Album Collection had been to eliminate the bad users from the previous app when it became rife with illegal activity. At such times, Nitta said he had implemented countermeasures such as strengthening the reporting function for users and setting randomized passwords for downloading images.

“The previous [apps] became usable by bad people,” he said.

“At which point, the service had failed. So I strengthened the functions, rebuilt it, and put out the new one,” he continued.

But this was a lie.

In past information for these apps, I had found language directing users to the new version.

For example, when Video Container was shut down, a message was posted on its website directing users to Album Collection.

If Nitta had guided users to the next app, of course those engaged in illegal activities would misuse it again. In reality, this is exactly what happened. Even the “enhanced” preventative functions hadn’t helped, given the prevalence of criminal activity on Album Collection. I asked why Nitta had posted the notice guiding users to the latest app.

“Um, well, it would be a problem if users left,” Nitta responded.

In the end, he had prioritized business over preventing harm.

That wasn’t all. I had further evidence pointing to the fact that these apps were making money from sexual images.

To be continued.

(Originally published on June 13, 2024.)

Uploaded and Re-Uploaded: All articles