關於 national security law of the people's republic of china ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Breaking‼️

美東時間1月5日傍晚，川普以國家安全為由，用行政命令方式禁止阿里支付寶、微信支付、QQ錢包在內的8款中國應用程式（App)。

行政命令發佈後45天，禁止任何人與實體與這8款中國應用程式（App）進行交易。

按照日程，美國下任政府將在15天後，1月20日上任。

—

美國商務部長在同一時間發聲明表示，已指示商務部按行政命令執行禁令，「支持川普總統保護美國人民隱私與安全，免於受到中國共產黨的威脅。」

—

▫️8款App:

支付寶（Alipay）、掃描全能王(CamScanner)、QQ錢包（QQ Wallet）、茄子快傳（SHAREit）、騰訊QQ（Tencent QQ）、阿里巴巴旗下海外短視頻應用VMate、微信支付（WeChat Pay）和辦公型App WPS Office。

圖三：美國商務部聲明

圖四：美國國安顧問聲明
—

▫️白宮行政命令全文：

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 5, 2021
EXECUTIVE ORDER



- - - - - - -



ADDRESSING THE THREAT POSED BY APPLICATIONS AND OTHER SOFTWARE DEVELOPED OR CONTROLLED BY CHINESE COMPANIES



By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that additional steps must be taken to deal with the national emergency with respect to the information and communications technology and services supply chain declared in Executive Order 13873 of May 15, 2019 (Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain). Specifically, the pace and pervasiveness of the spread in the United States of certain connected mobile and desktop applications and other software developed or controlled by persons in the People's Republic of China, to include Hong Kong and Macau (China), continue to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. At this time, action must be taken to address the threat posed by these Chinese connected software applications.

By accessing personal electronic devices such as smartphones, tablets, and computers, Chinese connected software applications can access and capture vast swaths of information from users, including sensitive personally identifiable information and private information. This data collection threatens to provide the Government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) with access to Americans' personal and proprietary information -- which would permit China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, and build dossiers of personal information.

The continuing activity of the PRC and the CCP to steal or otherwise obtain United States persons' data makes clear that there is an intent to use bulk data collection to advance China's economic and national security agenda. For example, the 2014 cyber intrusions of the Office of Personnel Management of security clearance records of more than 21 million people were orchestrated by Chinese agents. In 2015, a Chinese hacking group breached the United States health insurance company Anthem, affecting more than 78 million Americans. And the Department of Justice indicted members of the Chinese military for the 2017 Equifax cyber intrusion that compromised the personal information of almost half of all Americans.

In light of these risks, many executive departments and agencies (agencies) have prohibited the use of Chinese connected software applications and other dangerous software on Federal Government computers and mobile phones. These prohibitions, however, are not enough given the nature of the threat from Chinese connected software applications. In fact, the Government of India has banned the use of more than 200 Chinese connected software applications throughout the country; in a statement, India's Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology asserted that the applications were "stealing and surreptitiously transmitting users' data in an unauthorized manner to servers which have locations outside India."

The United States has assessed that a number of Chinese connected software applications automatically capture vast swaths of information from millions of users in the United States, including sensitive personally identifiable information and private information, which would allow the PRC and CCP access to Americans' personal and proprietary information.

The United States must take aggressive action against those who develop or control Chinese connected software applications to protect our national security.

Accordingly, I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) The following actions shall be prohibited beginning 45 days after the date of this order, to the extent permitted under applicable law: any transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, with persons that develop or control the following Chinese connected software applications, or with their subsidiaries, as those transactions and persons are identified by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) under subsection (e) of this section: Alipay, CamScanner, QQ Wallet, SHAREit, Tencent QQ, VMate, WeChat Pay, and WPS Office.

(b) The Secretary is directed to continue to evaluate Chinese connected software applications that may pose an unacceptable risk to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, and to take appropriate action in accordance with Executive Order 13873.

(c) Not later than 45 days after the date of this order, the Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence, shall provide a report to the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs with recommendations to prevent the sale or transfer of United States user data to, or access of such data by, foreign adversaries, including through the establishment of regulations and policies to identify, control, and license the export of such data.

(d) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of this order.

(e) Not earlier than 45 days after the date of this order, the Secretary shall identify the transactions and persons that develop or control the Chinese connected software applications subject to subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate the prohibition set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 3. For the purposes of this order:

(a) the term "connected software application" means software, a software program, or group of software programs, designed to be used by an end user on an end-point computing device and designed to collect, process, or transmit data via the Internet as an integral part of its functionality.

(b) the term "entity" means a government or instrumentality of such government, partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization, including an international organization;

(c) the term "person" means an individual or entity;

(d) the term "personally identifiable information" (PII) is information that, when used alone or with other relevant data, can identify an individual. PII may contain direct identifiers (e.g., passport information) that can identify a person uniquely, or quasi-identifiers (e.g., race) that can be combined with other quasi-identifiers (e.g., date of birth) to successfully recognize an individual.

(e) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Sec. 4. (a) The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including adopting rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to me by IEEPA, as may be necessary to implement this order. All agencies shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement this order.

(b) The heads of agencies shall provide, in their discretion and to the extent permitted by law, such resources, information, and assistance to the Department of Commerce as required to implement this order, including the assignment of staff to the Department of Commerce to perform the duties described in this order.

Sec. 5. Severability. If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its other provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.



DONALD J. TRUMP



THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 5, 2021.

我在《橙新聞》最新的英文評論文章😎😎😎

https://apps.orangenews.hk/app/common/details_html…

Opinion | US Secretary of State is violating the Law of Safeguarding National Security in Hong Kong

HK Current

20th of October 2020

By Athena Kung

On 14th of October 2020 [US time], a report was released by the United States (hereinafter refer to as "the US") Secretary of State (hereinafter referred to as "the said Report") under the so-called "Hong Kong Autonomy Act". During recent months, the US Government has been increasingly blatant in its interference in Hong Kong's affairs. Its petty actions included passing successive laws, pronouncing an executive order and imposing 'sanctions' against HKSAR Government's officials under the pretext of so-called "human rights", "democracy" and "autonomy".

In short, the accusations against the HKSAR Government contained in the said Report are all groundless, unwarranted and irresponsible. All the comments in the said Report are really smearing and demonising The Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the HKSAR (hereinafter referred to as "National Security Law"). Being the highest organ of state power, the National People's Congress (hereinafter referred to as "the NPC") has lawfully authorized the Standing Committee of the NPC (hereinafter referred to as "the SCNPC") to formulate relevant laws on establishing the legal system and enforcement mechanisms for the HKSAR to safeguard the national security. Thus, the enactment of the National Security Law on 30th of June 2020 by the SCNPC is both lawful and constitutional.

Before the implementation of the National Security Law, due to the fear towards the violence exercised by the rioters who supported HK independence, majority of the HK citizens did not dare to voice out their opinions whenever their views was against that of the rioters. Only the riots were able to enjoy the freedom of speech during the whole period of Black Power Anti-government Movement. However, since the National Security Law has come into effect, stability can be restored in the HKSAR step by step, whereas once again, HK citizens are able to enjoy their basic rights and freedoms in accordance with the law as before. All along, the US Government has embellished the violence and illegal acts exercised by the rioters who are wrongfully beautified as democracy warrior. The ulterior motives behind was US Government's great desire to build up a pro-American Government in HK by promoting Colour Revolution here. With the success of promoting HK Independence, the US may make use of HK as a Bridgehead to attack PRC whose Great Rejuvenation might then be hindered.

Recently, US has also imposed certain "sanctions" on financial institutions and HKSAR Government officials, which is another concrete evidence proving the hegemony on the part of US. The US Government has been exerting pressure on financial institutions and HKSAR Government officials so as to threaten the officials not to pass any law or policies which the US Government dislike. By so doing, the US Secretary of State is clearly violating 2 areas of the National Security Law, including:
(1) Secession under Article 20(1), namely participating in separating the HKSAR from the PRC by with a view to committing secession or undermining national unification whether or not by force or threat of force ; and
(2) Subversion under Article 22(3), namely participating in seriously interfering in, disrupting, or undermining the performance of duties and functions in accordance with the law by the body of power of the HKSAR by force or threat of force or other unlawful means with a view to subverting the State.
Is the National Security Law applicable to the US Secretary of State? The answer is positive. Under Article 38, the National Security Law shall apply to offences under this Law committed against the HKSAR from outside the Region by a person who is not a permanent resident of the Region.

In addition, according to Article 55 of the National Security Law, it is appropriate for the national security case of the US Secretary of State to be taken up by the Office for Safeguarding National Security of the Central People's Government in the HKSAR (hereinafter referred to as "the Office"):
"Article 55
The Office for Safeguarding National Security of the Central People's Government in the HKSAR shall, upon approval by the Central People's Government of a request made by the Government of the HKSAR or by the Office itself, exercise jurisdiction over a case concerning offence endangering national security under this law, if:
(1) the case is complex due to the involvement of a foreign country or external elements, thus making it difficult for the Region to exercise jurisdiction over the case ;
(2) a serious situation occurs where the Government of the Region is unable to effectively enforce this law ; or
(3) a major and imminent threat to national security has occurred."

No doubt, with the involvement of the US Secretary of State who enjoys a high weight in the US Government in a national security case, the whole case would definitely become very complex as a result of existence of such an external element. After all, it would be extremely difficult for the HKSAR Government to exercise jurisdiction over the case, for instance, in the areas of collecting evidence and making necessary investigations. Under such circumstances, it is necessary for the Office to take up this case and exercise jurisdiction over it.

The author is Barrister-at-law.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of Orange News.

責編：CK Li
編輯：Jchow

My recent article😎😎😎

https://m.orangenews.hk/details?recommendId=138868

Opinion｜The Police is duty-bound to enforce the law resolutely

HK Current

2020.10.06 11:05

By Athena Kung

According to the statement made by the US Department of State on 3rd of October 2020 (local time), the arrests made by the Hong Kong Police on 1st of October 2020 were criticized by the Department as malicious ones. It has been alleged by the US Department of State that the Hong Kong Police merely enforces the law for the aim of achieving political goals, which amounts to serious violation of Hong Kong's rule of law and thus strongly attack individual's human rights as well as Hong Kong people's freedom of expression, procession and assembly. The Central Government was commented by the US Department of State as being given up the undertaking of "One country, Two systems" completely. Obviously, such allegations against both the Central Government and HKSAR made by US Government were very serious. To examine whether such comments were fair ones, we have to carefully consider if the allegations really have any valid legal basis or foundation.

According to both the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383, Laws of Hong Kong (hereinafter referred to as "the BORO“) and and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter referred to as the "ICCPR "), the freedoms of expression, procession and assembly were not absolute, and might be subject to restrictions as prescribed by law. Article 16 and 17 of the BORO relates to the freedom of opinion and expression and right of peaceful assembly which can be enjoyed by Hong Kong people:
"Article 16
Freedom of opinion and expression
(1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
(2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
(3) The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph (2) of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary—
(a) for respect of the rights or reputations of others; or
(b) for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
[cf. ICCPR Art. 19]

Article 17
Right of peaceful assembly
The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
[cf. ICCPR Art. 21]"

Thus, freedom of expression, procession and assembly in Hong Kong are not absolute. On the other hand, such rights are subject to restrictions as prescribed by law in the interests of public order, public safety and the interests of others, and so on.

Besides, Section 10(a) to (e) of the Police Force Ordinance, Cap 232, Laws of Hong Kong has clearly stated inter alia that:
"10. The duties of the police force shall be to take lawful measures for—
(a) preserving the public peace;
(b) preventing and detecting crimes and offences;
(c) preventing injury to life and property;
(d) apprehending all persons whom it is lawful to apprehend and for whose apprehension sufficient grounds exists;
(e) regulating processions and assemblies in public places or places of public resort;
…………"

What has really occurred in Hong Kong in various districts on 1st of October 2020?
(1) At around 1400 hours, a group of people gathered and yelled along Great George Street in Causeway Bay, which might have constituted offences related to unauthorised assemblies under the Public Order Ordinance, Cap 245, Laws of Hong Kong and offences related to prohibited group gatherings under the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation, Cap 599G, Laws of Hong Kong. Even though the Police had given multiple warnings at the scene and raised the blue flag requesting participants to leave the scene, at around 1500 hours, a large group of protesters still remained at the same place. Some of them even commenced to chant the slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times” over and over again. Thus, they were suspected of inciting or abetting others to commit acts of secession, which might constitute relevant offences under the HKSAR National Security Law. Afterwards, some protesters even spilled onto the road and breached public peace.

(2) At around 1500 hours, 2 men in the vicinity of Tin Ma Court in Wong Tai Sin hurled some petrol bombs and large objects at Lung Cheung Road. Having attended the scene, the police noticed that traces of the road being charred, as well as fences and traffic cones left on it. After investigation, the Police found that even though a large amount of vehicles were travelling along the road at the time of the incident, fortunately, no vehicle was hit by the petrol bombs and objects successfully. In any event, the rioters’ such heinous acts had severely endangered road users and breached public peace.

(3) The Police intercepted a man at Stewart Road in Wanchai at about 1600 hours and found him in possession of a foldable sharp knife which was at the same size of a business card. The 23-year-old man was subsequently arrested on suspicion of possession of an offensive weapon, as there stood a strong likelihood that he might intend to use the said item to injure members of the public or police officers.

(4) At around 1500 hours, the Police set up a roadblock along a section of the Tuen Mun Road near Summit Terrace in Tsuen Wan to intercept suspicious vehicles, and found extendable sticks, a helmet, face masks and a large amount of promotional leaflets inside a private car with an expired vehicle licence. Some of the leaflets contained slogans suspected of calling for “Hong Kong independence” written on them. The 35-year-old male driver of the car was arrested on suspicion of various offences including “Possession of Instrument Fit for Unlawful Purpose”, “Driving an Unlicenced Vehicle” and “Driving Without Third Party Insurance”.
(5) At around 1630 hours, the Police stopped and searched a man in the vicinity of Tonnochy Road and Lockhart Road in Causeway Bay, and found items including a cutter, a spanner, plastic straps and a pair of gloves in his backpack. The 20-year-old man was subsequently arrested on suspicion of possession of offensive weapons.
(6) After nightfall, protesters continued to gather in different districts. To ensure public safety, the Police have enforced the law resolutely according to the situations arising in different districts. At 2200 hours, not less than 86 persons have been arrested in multiple districts. Among them, 74 persons including four District Councillors were arrested on suspicion of taking part in unauthorised assemblies in Causeway Bay, while the rest were arrested on suspicion of committing offences including possession of offensive weapon, failing to produce proof of identity, possession of forged identity card, disorderly conduct in a public place and driving an unlicenced vehicle. Besides, 20 persons were given fixed penalty notices for suspectedly breaching the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation.

Actually, the Police is duty-bound to enforce the law resolutely. On the facts, all arrests taken place on 1st of October 2020 were absolutely lawful and necessary to maintain law and order in the society and protect the life and property of all Hong Kong residents. Undoubtedly, the US officials have all along been adopting "double standards" in expressing utterly irresponsible remarks on law enforcement actions in the HKSAR. Everyone is equal before the law. So long as there is evidence supporting that someone has violated the law, no matter what his or her status or background is, he or she must face the legal consequence. Being a law enforcement agency, the Police must take action whenever they come across any unlawful acts in strict accordance with the laws in force. All cases must be handled in a fair, just and impartial manner by the Police in accordance with the law, which is the only and real reason as to why the Police arrested the 86 odd people on 1st of October 2020. To conclude, all criticizms made by the US towards the Hong Kong Police, HKSAR Government and Central Government were all unfair without any legal or concrete support at all.

It appears that the US government has always been refusing to accept the truth that the HKSAR is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "the PRC") and a local administrative region which enjoys a high degree of autonomy, as contrary to absolute autonomy, and comes directly under the Central People's Government. Hong Kong affairs are internal matters of the PRC. The system in Hong Kong is not "Two countries, Two systems". Hong Kong will never be an independent country with a pro-American government formed by the Opposition Camp in Hong Kong. Any foreign governments like the US must at once stop scaremongering and interfering in any form in Hong Kong's affairs. The "Colour Revolution" promoted by the US in Hong Kong should be terminated in no time.

The author is Barrister-at-law.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of Orange News.

責編： CK Li