In our recent post about how Weibo suspended the account of a Chinese professor, Lao Dongyan, for criticizing China’s new digital national ID plan, I noted that Weibo had also deleted her critique of the plan.
Her comments have not disappeared, though. An article at China Digital Times quotes what she said (“Censors Delete Critiques of Proposed National Internet ID System,” August 1, 2024):
Is the true intention of this draft proposal to protect individual user data, as the drafters claim it is, or is it aimed at strengthening control over individuals’ online speech?…
The online real-name verification system [introduced 12 years ago] was originally launched in the name of protecting the general public, and we all know how that turned out. This means that the new proposal serves much the same purpose as the real-name verification system: controlling people’s behavior on the Internet. The so-called “protection of individual user data” is nothing more than a ruse; at the very least, it is not the main purpose of this proposal….
The Internet ID system means that going online or using services provided by ISPs will essentially become special privileges that require permission. If the relevant government departments deny that permission, an individual will find it very difficult to access certain Internet services, including (but not limited to) the ability to post, comment, or to utilize other online services.
Other censored critics include WeChat blogger Song Qingren, who argues that once the new digital national ID system takes effect, online speech will be further curtailed. “Not only will we see a drop in individuals posting evidence of wrongdoing or publishing exposés, the Internet ID system will also make silencing online voices easier than it was through the platform-based censorship of the past.”
Voluntary?
Song regards the use of the term “voluntary” as disingenuous. “Of course, applying for the ID is voluntary, but without it, it’s unlikely you will even be able to go online, report problems, or make complaints related to the Internet.”
This wording is inaccurate, though. Government mandates are often conditional; when this is so, not everyone must obey, only those who do the thing that comes burdened with the mandate. You don’t have to pay tax on income if you refrain from earning any income, but this does not make paying the tax “voluntary.” If the government were to enforceably require that all persons crack their knuckles every time they walk across a room, this requirement would in no way be voluntary simply because, in theory, we could all decline to walk across rooms.
Another problem with the proposed digital ID is the risk of cyberhacking. As the Times points out, even if the Chinese government were to handle user data “more responsibly” than it has in the past, “there is no guarantee that the data would be secure in its hands.”
The digital national ID database will be yet another treasure trove for hackers to go after. A hacker who reportedly scooped up an unsecured Shanghai police database says that he obtained information about a billion Chinese citizens, “including names, addresses, ID numbers, phone numbers, passport numbers, and case details.” But governments tend to be indifferent to such hazards.
A different China Digital Times piece summarizes common criticisms of the plan:
The new law is unnecessary, given the existing real-name ID system.
It is unlikely that the new measures will prove “voluntary” in practice.
It could exert a chilling effect on online speech by making it easier for authorities to track and punish online dissent.
The proposal raises more data privacy and security concerns than it solves.
It would needlessly increase bureaucracy and bolster centralized control over internet users.
The proposal may not be legal, or even constitutional.
From the perspective of the Chinese Communist Party, these criticisms are irrelevant or refer to what it sees as benefits.
The law is “necessary” if its purpose is to “make it easier to track and punish online dissent” and “bolster centralized control over Internet users.” What counts as “legal” and “constitutional” is whatever China says is legal and constitutional, regardless of whether it has also said the opposite. The precedent that matters is the government’s ability to impose its will.
