China is exploring the introduction of a national digital ID system designed to bolster data security and protect personal information. However, this proposal has sparked unease among legal experts, who worry it might lead to increased government surveillance and social control.
Recent draft regulations from the Ministry of Public Security and the Cyberspace Administration of China outline a new framework for online identity verification. These regulations suggest that users would be able to confirm their identities digitally while keeping sensitive personal information concealed from internet service providers.
The draft, known as the National Network Identity Authentication Public Service Management Measures, proposes two types of digital IDs accessible via a national authentication app. The public has until August 25 to provide feedback on these proposals.
The aim of this initiative is to “safeguard citizens’ personal data, standardize the authentication of digital identities, and expedite the rollout of a trusted online identity system.”
The 16-article draft outlines a unified network ID composed of alphanumeric characters, paired with a digital authentication credential that would uniquely identify users without exposing personal details.
The proposed system would be optional and is designed to “minimize the excessive collection and retention of personal data by internet platforms, which is often justified under real-name registration policies,” according to the draft.
Despite these assurances, legal scholars are concerned about potential privacy infringements and increased government oversight. They argue that while the system is presented as a means to enhance privacy, it could also lead to more rigorous monitoring of individuals’ online activities.
Shen Kui, a law professor at Peking University, believes that a unified digital ID could streamline online transactions and reduce the likelihood of personal data misuse.
“The fewer entities that handle actual personal identity data, the less chance there is for unnecessary data collection,” Shen noted.
In an article on the WeChat account of Peking University’s Centre for Constitutional and Administrative Law, Shen suggested that the new system might also reduce the risk of data leaks or unauthorized use by entities that store user information.
However, Shen also warned that a universal network ID might pave the way for a centralized surveillance infrastructure capable of tracking and analyzing individuals’ entire online presence.
Currently, users’ online activities are scattered across various commercial platforms, each capturing only fragments of an individual’s identity, such as shopping habits and political views. A unified ID could consolidate this information, risking comprehensive exposure and potentially discouraging users from freely sharing opinions or participating in discussions.
“The vibrancy of the digital economy and internet society depends on a decentralized system rather than centralized control,” Shen argued.
He also questioned the “voluntary” nature of the system, suggesting that the initiative’s promotion could lead to widespread adoption and ultimately eliminate user choice if platforms mandate real-name registration.
Lao Dongyan, a professor of criminal law at Tsinghua University, echoed similar concerns. She expressed fear that the proposed network ID system could turn internet access into a “privilege requiring official approval.”
Without certification from the authorities, individuals might face challenges accessing online services to express their views, Lao warned in a Weibo post.
“The measures pose significant social risks,” she stated, criticizing them as lacking a robust legal foundation beyond existing national laws related to cybersecurity, data protection, and telecommunications.
Lao questioned the necessity of a standardized network ID, pointing out that China already has over a billion internet users under current real-name registration policies. She likened the new system to the health code app introduced during the Covid-19 pandemic, arguing that its real purpose is to enforce social control under the guise of privacy protection.
“The true objective is to regulate online behavior,” Lao concluded, suggesting that the system would serve as a tool for comprehensive monitoring, much like the health code app did during the pandemic.
