Last week, on July 26th, the Ministry of Public Security and the Cyberspace Administration of China jointly released a draft for public comment called the “Administrative Measures for Public Service of National Online Identity Authentication.” This is an administrative regulation, and before it is officially implemented, they need to solicit opinions first. This draft for public comment is divided into four parts, with a total of only 16 articles. The core idea is to introduce a “web number” and a “web certificate.”
The so-called “web number” is somewhat similar to our ID card number. Everyone knows that the ID card number is composed of a string of numbers, and this number is unique and corresponds to your identity information. The “web number” is composed of numbers and letters, and it will be associated with all your real-name authentication documents, such as passports, ID cards, Hong Kong and Macao Travel Permits, and Taiwan Compatriot Permits, etc. All documents can be associated with this web number. The web certificate is similar to the relationship between an ID card and an ID card number, and the relationship between the web certificate and the web number is also like this.
In other words, every person in China will not only have an ID card in the future, but also a web certificate; not only an ID card number, but also a web certificate number. Although the draft for public comment of this law is not easily seen by ordinary people, it has still attracted some attention from the legal community. On July 30th, Professor Lao Dongyan, a law professor at Tsinghua University, published an article on Sina Weibo, saying that since opinions are being solicited, she would like to share her views.
Professor Lao Dongyan mainly raised two points of opinion. The first point, she asked: Is the purpose of this web certificate and web number to protect personal information, or to strengthen the control of speech? She said that the online real-name system has been implemented for 12 years. Has the protection of citizens’ personal information been better or worse in these 12 years? This question is very well put.
Twelve years ago, when online real-name authentication was first implemented, the official reason was to prevent fraud, and anonymous speech would not bear legal consequences, so real-name authentication was needed. However, in the past 12 years, has the amount of fraud information on the Internet decreased? No. On the contrary, the current fraud information seems to be more accurate, because fraudsters can accurately grasp the personal information of the victims. How is this information leaked? A large part of the reason is the online real-name system. After the online real-name system, personal real information is combined with online information, and this information becomes a data package in the background of the police, and these data packages are at risk of being leaked.
Once leaked, each of us becomes “naked” online. Now there are many people online who provide the so-called “open box service,” and they can find out your hotel information, and even bank card information. Where does this information come from? It is directly retrieved from the police’s data package. Many fraud groups obtain our personal information through this channel. Therefore, the online real-name system has not curbed the leakage of personal information, but has increased the risk of personal information leakage, because all the information is combined together.
Professor Lao Dongyan’s second point is that she believes that the real purpose of implementing web certificates and web numbers is not to protect personal information, but to control speech. Because once you have a web certificate and a web number, all your online speech will be mastered by the relevant departments. This is different from the past real-name system. In the past, only the police could retrieve information, but now the Cyberspace Administration also wants to expand its power and have similar authority. The Cyberspace Administration wants to obtain the rights that only the police had in the past by formulating web numbers, and the fundamental purpose of doing so is to control your speech.
Professor Lao Dongyan believes that the implementation of this law lacks the basis of a superior law, because no superior law authorizes China’s online departments or public security departments to have such a great right to collect personal information. According to the provisions of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, citizens’ freedom of communication is not interfered with by other rights departments, and is even not restricted, not supervised, and not censored. But the web certificate and web number law currently being formulated is obviously infringing upon the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China.
Of course, the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China has never been taken seriously. Only legal experts like Professor Lao Dongyan will still regard the Constitution as an important superior law. In fact, the Constitution is used to manage the people when needed, and when not needed, it is like a piece of waste paper. This is the reality of today’s Chinese society.
Professor Lao Dongyan also mentioned that the web certificate and web number are actually the “Health Code.” As everyone knows, China invented the Health Code during the epidemic to manage personal behavior trajectories. The current web certificate and web number are similar things, used to manage your online behavior trajectory. All speech trajectories are under the control of the government, isn’t this the “Health Code” online?
Under such a management system, every move of everyone online is under the government’s surveillance. In this case, if the government punishes you, such as not allowing you to go online, the current web number system can precisely control you from using certain online platforms, such as prohibiting you from logging into Sina Weibo or Douyin. Professor Lao Dongyan pointed out that under such management, going online will no longer be everyone’s right, but will become a privilege.
Professor Lao Dongyan’s article was deleted the same day. It was originally soliciting opinions, but as soon as she raised her opinion, it was deleted. Of course, this is not surprising. In China, soliciting opinions is often not to let you really give your opinion, but to hope that you give “good opinions.” If you object and give your true opinion, it will be deleted. What’s more ironic is that some people in the legal community disagreed with Professor Lao Dongyan’s views and also wrote some critical articles, and these critical articles were also deleted. In other words, not only can dissenting opinions not appear, but even discussing this topic is not allowed.
The meaning of the government departments is that they are quietly soliciting opinions, and when the solicitation period is over, they will announce and implement the administrative regulations. You shouldn’t discuss this topic, and once you discuss it, your motives will be exposed. Why is this matter so sensitive? After reading this draft for public comment, I really felt a chill down my spine. In my opinion, this law is a declaration of 1984.
First of all, this administrative regulation mentions that the application and use of web certificates is voluntary and not compulsory. I personally think this is a lie, because “voluntary” in China has never been voluntary. For example, during the epidemic, the vaccine injection was said to be voluntary, but in fact, if you don’t get the vaccine, you can’t take a car, take a plane, or go to work. On the surface, it is voluntary, but in reality, it is false.
China’s so-called voluntariness always has 100 ways to restrict you. Now it says voluntary, and in the future it may say that you can’t go online. In the future, Internet platforms may say that you can’t go online if you don’t provide this number, so can you still be voluntary? Obviously not voluntary.
Secondly, this law mentions that Internet platforms cannot excessively collect users’ personal information and must protect personal privacy. But in fact, this is just a superficial statement. The real service object of this law is the Cyberspace Administration, not the Internet platform. Internet platforms should collect less information, but the Cyberspace Administration has no restrictions. They will collect all our information, and there are no penalty clauses to restrict them.
Orwell wrote two dystopian novels, “Animal Farm” and “1984.” In my opinion, “Animal Farm” satirizes the former Soviet Union, and what China is practicing now is “1984.” Today’s technical means have provided the possibility for “Big Brother” to monitor everyone. Without the Internet, there would be no Health Code. With the Health Code, all our trajectories in life are under the government’s surveillance.
The introduction of web certificates and web numbers will mean that all our traces and speech online will be under the government’s surveillance. Isn’t this the world in “1984”? Think about how chilling this is.
When the epidemic ended, everyone remembers, many people said that the Health Code might enter future social management, and there would be no freedom in the future. However, soon after the epidemic ended, the health department announced that the Health Code was abolished and no longer used. This is because the health department is, after all, a weak department, and the purpose of implementing the Health Code was still for epidemic prevention, and there were no more interests to pursue.
But the Cyberspace Administration is different. Although the Health Code has been abolished, the web certificate and web number that the Cyberspace Administration is now implementing are even more rigorous than the Health Code. Now, they are building a system that incorporates all our behaviors, speech, and life traces into surveillance.
Some people say that this is to prevent fraud, but I want to say that we have two technical paths to prevent fraud. One is to make fraud groups unable to obtain our personal information as much as possible, and the other is to prevent fraud through web certificates and web numbers. Now the CCP has chosen the latter, but can this really prevent criminals?
The reason why criminals become criminals is because they disregard the law. If they abide by the law, will there still be crime in this society? Can you prevent criminals by implementing web certificates and web numbers? Even if you can prevent it, are we pursuing a society without crime but without freedom? In my opinion, freedom is more important than the absence of crime in society. Because if society loses its freedom, then the whole society becomes a big prison. Would people be willing to live in prison? Prison may be the best place for social security, because there is no murder and no theft, but why do people not
want to live in prison? Because freedom is more important than safety.
Nowadays, the CCP is working hard to build a society that is free but they think is relatively safe, which is actually the world in “1984.” The Soviet Union in “Animal Farm” described by Orwell has already disintegrated in 1991, but the society in “1984” he described is being practiced in China today, and there seems to be no sign of disintegration.
I really don’t know what the future will be like. But I can imagine that even if there are dissenting voices in society about this draft for public comment, even if Professor Lao Dongyan opposes it, they will still implement it, because there is no force in China that can restrain them. The wishes of ordinary people cannot restrain functional departments, and the Cyberspace Administration’s control over people’s thoughts will not be restricted, because their goal is never for everyone’s freedom, but for social stability and the convenience of their power.
The world of 1984 has arrived. I can only wish you all the best.
Discover more from 自由档案馆
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.