Sometimes fake legislatures go through the motions of enacting what the dictators want. But this going through the motions is not strictly necessary. The so-called lawmaking bodies are just there for show anyway.
A Taipei Times contributor observes that the Hong Kong government, which is governed by the Chinese Communist Party, recently amended its National Security Law without bothering about legislative debate, public consultation, or a transition period. One of the additions is a requirement that everybody provide the password or other means of access to an electronic device when asked by police and other officials, like customs officers—or face severe penalties for refusing (March 27, 2026).
This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security—a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from Hong Kong’s traditional lawmaking process toward executive rule….
The most consequential change lies in authorities’ expanded reach into the digital lives of people….
Police might now compel people to provide passwords or other “decryption methods” for electronic devices. Refusal is no longer a matter of choice, but a criminal offense, punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine of HK$100,000 (US$12,780)….
The penalty is triggered by refusal itself, not by the discovery of any suspicious or criminal content….
The security law asserts jurisdiction that extends beyond Hong Kong’s borders. Actions undertaken in Taiwan—donations, affiliations or public statements—might fall within the scope of scrutiny once a person enters Hong Kong. What is routine civic expression in Taiwan might, under a different legal framework, be recast as evidence of a national security concern. Once a device is opened, there is no telling what could be used against you.
The author, John Cheng, concludes that digital privacy is “no longer a stable right” in Hong.
But a “right” that the state can violate at will and arbitrarily is not an unstable right. Morally, one’s rights are stable; the individual has all of his rights—in the sense of having certain justified moral claims against others—whether those rights are violated or not. Legally, a right to digital privacy is gone in that the Hong Kong government no longer recognizes any such right (if we assume that it did so prior to enactment of the recent amendments). Selective enforcement is not an acknowledgement that anybody has a legal right to digital privacy during the moments when the state is not compelling persons to provide access to a device.
Cheng warns Taiwanese travelers to Hong Kong that what they have said yesterday or years ago may be used against them. The warning applies to everyone from anywhere who travels to Hong Kong. But the CCP is especially looking for reasons to hassle people from Taiwan. The implications of the new requirement for Taiwanese “are uniquely acute….”
