China’s Ministry of Public Security (MPS) has triggered intense debate after unveiling a draft “Cybercrime Prevention Law” that would significantly expand state authority over internet access, information flows, and enforcement powers—both domestically and beyond China’s borders.
Released for public comment on January 31, the proposal outlines sweeping measures that legal scholars and rights lawyers say would centralise control of cyberspace in the hands of the police while tightening censorship and surveillance mechanisms.
The draft arrives at a time of mounting scrutiny over China’s governance structure and digital regulation framework. Its provisions mark a notable shift in who controls online policy and how far Beijing’s legal reach may extend.
Expanding the architecture of control
At the heart of the draft law is a broad prohibition on providing technical assistance that enables users to bypass China’s internet restrictions.
The proposal explicitly bans individuals or organisations from offering tools such as virtual private networks (VPNs) that allow access to blocked foreign websites or information sources.
China’s censorship system, often referred to as the “Great Firewall,” blocks access to most Western social media platforms, including X, Meta, and Google, as well as numerous international news outlets.
The new draft would not only reinforce these restrictions but also criminalise efforts to circumvent them.
The law mandates strict real-name registration for online services and requires users to report the use of tools that alter or conceal their online location.
It authorises penalties for disseminating content deemed harmful to national security or otherwise unacceptable under state standards.
Critics argue that these provisions formalise and deepen existing controls, embedding them in a more punitive legal structure.
By codifying enforcement mechanisms under criminal law, the draft would elevate censorship from regulatory practice to explicit statutory mandate.
Extraterritorial reach
One of the most controversial elements of the proposal lies in its extraterritorial scope. Under the draft, Chinese citizens accused of spreading “unapproved” information could face exit bans preventing them from leaving the country.
Overseas Chinese expatriates or institutions could see their assets frozen, be barred from entering China, or face restrictions on investing in the country.
Legal analysts say these measures would effectively project China’s censorship standards beyond its borders.
Speech or business conduct considered lawful in other jurisdictions could, under the draft, trigger penalties if Chinese authorities interpret it as threatening national security or public order.
Human rights lawyer Wu Shaoping, now based in the United States, told The Epoch Times that the proposal signals an attempt to globalise domestic information controls.
He warned that companies and individuals engaged with China could face pressure to self-censor in order to avoid legal or financial consequences.
Such provisions would mark a significant development in the globalisation of Chinese legal enforcement, extending its regulatory logic to foreign soil through asset controls, travel restrictions, and investment limitations.
A procedural dispute
Beyond its substantive provisions, the draft has ignited controversy over its legal basis. On February 5, Chinese human rights lawyer Wang Quanzhang submitted a formal petition to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC), urging the withdrawal of the draft law.
Wang argued that the Ministry of Public Security lacks constitutional authority to initiate legislation that restricts political rights or personal freedoms.
Under China’s Legislative Law, he asserted, only specified bodies—including the NPC Standing Committee, the State Council, and top judicial institutions—may submit draft laws. A ministry-level body, he contended, does not possess such authority.
Wang sent copies of his petition to the State Council and the MPS and opened it for public cosigning. Images of the petition circulated on X but were reportedly suppressed on Chinese social media platforms.
Two lawyers speaking anonymously to The Epoch Times expressed support for Wang’s position, citing concerns about the concentration of power. One described the ministry as acting simultaneously as “athlete and referee,” while another noted that public criticism of draft legislation is itself constitutionally protected.
Legal scholar Li Yuqing, now residing in the United States, told The Epoch Times that even the State Council may issue only administrative regulations, not criminal laws.
From a procedural standpoint, she said, legislation concerning criminal matters must be enacted by the National People’s Congress or its Standing Committee.
The dispute underscores broader questions about legislative process and institutional boundaries within China’s governance system.
Criminalising access to information
The draft law also criminalises tools and actions that facilitate access to restricted information. It frames the use of VPNs and similar technologies as potential threats to national security.
Dissemination of information deemed harmful could trigger sanctions under the proposed statute.
Li Yuqing argued that such measures invert the conventional function of law. In many legal systems, law operates to constrain state power and protect individual rights.
In this case, she said, the draft seeks to expand public authority while narrowing citizens’ freedoms.
China’s Constitution formally guarantees freedom of expression and communication. Critics contend that subordinate laws and regulations have increasingly narrowed these guarantees in practice.
The proposed cybercrime law, they argue, would further entrench this pattern by explicitly criminalising access to external information.
The scope of enforcement envisioned in the draft suggests a comprehensive approach: not only blocking content but penalising those who attempt to view, share, or facilitate its circulation.
A shift in institutional power
Analysts say the draft law also signals a significant internal realignment of authority.
Article 4 designates the Ministry of Public Security as the lead authority on cybercrime and requires coordination with cyberspace, propaganda, telecommunications, financial, diplomatic, and cultural agencies.
Traditionally, internet governance in China has been led by the Cyberspace Administration of China and the Communist Party’s propaganda apparatus, with police playing a supporting role. The draft elevates the MPS to a central coordinating position.
Wu Shaoping described this development as emblematic of a broader consolidation of police power.
He noted that the ministry had previously sought to expand its digital authority through initiatives such as a national online ID system proposed in 2024. Despite public opposition, that system took effect in July 2025.
The new draft appears to build on that foundation, further integrating surveillance, identity verification, and enforcement under police oversight.
Political implications
Some analysts suggest that the expansion of police authority could reshape internal power dynamics.
Wu said Chinese leader Xi Jinping relies on Public Security Minister Wang Xiaohong to maintain social control during a period marked by economic pressures and political uncertainty.
As police authority broadens across sectors, he warned, internal rivalries could intensify.
Li Yuqing argued that the tightening grip on information reflects official concern over leaks, elite infighting, and public outrage related to sensitive issues.
She described the domestic environment as one of heightened tension, in which information control is seen as essential to stability.
The draft cybercrime law thus emerges not merely as a technical update to digital policy but as a reflection of broader governance priorities.
By placing the police at the centre of internet control and extending enforcement mechanisms beyond China’s borders, the proposal represents a significant evolution in the state’s approach to information management.
As the public comment period unfolds, the debate surrounding the draft underscores fundamental questions about legislative authority, constitutional guarantees, and the balance between security and civil liberties.