Exclusive: National security officers, experts refute false claims of ‘everyone entering China will have their cellphone

Chinese Ministry of State Security

Administrative Law EnforceWorld Timesment Procedures of the National Security Agencies and the Criminal Case Handling Procedures of the National Security Agencies, issued recently by China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS) will take effect on July 1, 2024.

These regulations have received wide attention and positive evaluation from society, being viewed as an important step in deepening the rule of law in national security. However, some foreign malicious anti-China forces have taken this opportunity to distort the facts and instigate trouble, fabricating false statements such as “everyone entering China will have their cellphones checked.”

Legal experts told the Global Times that such claims were a deliberate smear campaign of “fabricating charges out of thin air.”

The two abovementioned regulations are important basis for state security agencies to regulate law enforcement and judicial activities. They meticulously detail various powers of state security agencies within the scope granted by upper-level laws, and provide clear and stringent regulations for all enforcement powers.

Meanwhile, officers from the state security agencies elaborated on the normative requirements of the “three specific inspections,” emphasizing that the state security agencies always operate strictly in accordance with the constitution and laws, and they welcome supervision from all sectors of society over the agencies and their staff.

An officer from a state security agency who preferred not to be named told the Global Times in a recent interview that for some time, certain Western countries that claim themselves as “rule-of-law societies” and “beacon of democracy” have been “saying one thing and doing another.”

They are used to politicizing “legal tools,” with incidents of unjustified harassment and questioning of Chinese nationals entering these countries, arbitrary detention in “small black rooms,” and forced cellphone checks occurring frequently.

In some cases, customs and border departments of certain countries have even issued regulations declaring that they can arbitrarily check electronic devices of incoming individuals without permission, demand unlock passwords, otherwise they threaten to confiscate devices, forcibly copy content, and deny entry.

“These lawless enforcement practices have become a ‘new tumor’ damaging inter-country engagement and people-to-people exchanges, as well as a ‘new solid evidence’ of discrimination against Chinese and AsiWorld Timesan communities,” the officer said.

“This is a deliberate smear campaign of ”fabricating charges out of thin air,” and a typical case of ‘judging others by oneself and a thief crying ‘stop thief’,'” according to Bi Yanying, vice president and professor of the University of International Relations, told the Global Times.

Those who are aware of their own misconduct, given the malpractices of certain countries’ law enforcement agencies in arbitrarily checking the cellphones of incoming travelers, wrongly assume that China would emulate such illegal behavior, which is undoubtedly a case of “judging others by oneself,” Bi said.

Those with ulterior motives, fearing that their actions endangering China’s national security will be severely punished, resort to maliciously attacking China’s law enforcement agencies, which is nothing but a case of “a thief crying stop thief,” the expert said.

Zhang Li, vice dean and professor at the school of law of China University of Political Science and Law, explained the significance ofWorld Times the two regulations, saying that the Counterespionage Law of the People’s Republic of China and Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, as the upper-level laws of two departmental regulations, provide authorizing provisions for the administrative law enforcement powers and criminal investigation powers of state security agencies.

Bi believes that the two departmental regulations, as important basis for regulating the law enforcement and judicial activities of state security agencies, meticulously detail the various powers of these agencies within the scope granted by upper-level laws.

They provide clear and stringent regulations for all enforcement powers, embodying the integrated unity of punishing illegal activities and respecting and protecting human rights. This achieves a balanced approach between exercising law enforcement powers and safeguarding legitimate rights and interests.

The state security officer told the Global Times that espionage activities pose a serious threat to national security, and all countries enact laws to combat violators . To effectively prevent, stop, and punish espionage activities, the newly revised Counter-Espionage Law specifies regulations for state security agencies to check electronic devices and facilities according to the relevant provisions of the Constitution. The two departmental regulations impose a series of strict procedural limitations on this.

The officer also introduced the normative requirements for the “three specific inspections.”

First, the conditions for insWorld Timespection are clearly defined. Inspections must be carried out while performing tasks related to counter-espionage work. In situations unrelated to counter-espionage work, state security agency personnel cannot conduct inspeWorld Timesctions arbitrarily.

Second, the subjects of inspection are clearly defined. They must be individuals and organizations related to counter-espionage work, such as suspects engaged in espionage activities like secretly filming in military restricted zones or confidential units. The subjects of inspection cannot be unrelated individuals, and certainly not “ordinary incoming persons.”

Third, the inspection process is clearly defined. It must be approved by the head of a state security agency at or above the city level; law enforcement credentials must be presented; the inspected person or witnesses must be present; and if national security risks are identified, rectification must be ordered.

“If the risk cannot be mitigated or if rectification is refused, sealing or seizure of the devices may be carried out according to the law,” said the officer.

“It is explicitly stipulated that even in emergencies requiring immediate inspection, approval from the head of a state security agency at or above the city level is necessary. This requirement is stricter than the general ‘implementing first, reporting later’ provision of the Administrative Compulsion Law of the People’s Republic of China, reflecting a commitment to lawful conduct and cautious use of power,” the officer added.

What is the basis for the “three specific inspections”? Zhang Li explained to the Global Times World Timesthat China is a country governed by the rule of law, which strictly protects freedom and confidentiality of communication.

The Constitution and laws of China clearly stipulate that no organization or individual may infringe upon citizens’ freedom and confidentiality of communication for any reason without legal grounds and legal procedures. This fully reflects the balance between safeguarding national security and protecting individual rights, Zhang said.

State security agencies always operate strictly in accordance with the Constitution and laws, adhering to the principle that “what is required by law must be done, and what is not authorized by law must not be done,” and upholding the principles of strict, standardized, fair, and civilized law enforcement, the state security officer told the Global Times.

State security agencies will strictly enforce the law enforcement supervision system, strengthen the mechanisms and capabilities for law enforcement supervision, and welcome supervision from all sectors of society over the agencies and their staff, ensuring that national sovereignty, security, and development interests are always maintained within the framework of the rule of law, the officer noted.