On Monday, the Hong Kong government gazetted amendments to the implementation rules of the National Security Law that would significantly expand the powers granted to law enforcement, including the ability to compel suspects in national security investigations to reveal their device passwords under threat of fines or jail time. Hong Kong’s Legislative Council was not consulted on the changes, but the government has announced that it will provide a public briefing on Tuesday.

Despite administration claims that the new rules “will not affect the lives of the general public" and that they were implemented to address “national security risks [… that] may arise suddenly and unexpectedly," many legal experts and human rights groups have warned that the broadly defined amendments are “open to abuse” and represent a ratcheting up of the Beijing-imposed 2020 National Security Law that has long been used to undermine democratic freedoms and crush political dissent.

At Hong Kong Free Press, Hans Tse reported on the amendments, their potential penalties, and the expansion of who can be compelled to disclose password or decryption information—including even those with a "duty of confidentiality or any other restriction on the disclosure of information," such as journalists, doctors, and lawyers:

Under the new rules, police can require people under national security investigation to provide passwords or help decrypt their electronic devices. Failure to do so can be punished by up to one year behind bars and a HK$100,000 [$12,760 U.S.] fine.

Providing a false or misleading statement can be punished by up to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of HK$500,000 [$63,815].

Police can also compel anyone believed to know of the password or the decryption method of a device under investigation to disclose such information. Similarly, those who own, possess, control, or have authorised access to a device, as well as current or former users, can be subject to such an order.

The new rules have also empowered customs officers to freeze or confiscate assets relating to national security crimes or to forfeit “articles that have seditious intention.” [Source]

At Reuters, Jessie Pang described the expansively worded new amendments and the sweeping powers they afford to Hong Kong law enforcement:

The new amendments empower police to require a person under investigation suspected of endangering national security to provide any password or decryption method for electronic devices and to provide the police "any reasonable and necessary information or assistance."

The new amendments ⁠also empower customs officers to seize items that are deemed to have "seditious intention", regardless of whether any person has been arrested for an offence endangering national security because of the items.

Urania Chiu, a law lecturer in the UK researching Hong Kong, said the new provisions interfered with fundamental liberties, including the privacy of communication and the right to a fair ⁠trial.

"The sweeping powers given to law enforcement officers without any need for judicial authorisation are grossly disproportionate to any legitimate aim the bylaw purports to achieve," Chiu said. [Source]

SCMP’s Matthew Cheng provided further detail on other new stipulations related to censorship of online content and exit restrictions for those under investigation under Hong Kong’s National Security Law:

The amended rules also stipulate that authorities can order the removal of online messages deemed to endanger national security from any electronic platform.

Under the original provisions, police could compel the publisher who posted the message and the specific service provider to remove the content.

But authorities said past experience showed that such messages were often quickly and widely reposted across multiple platforms or uploaded again, so a more efficient mechanism was needed.

Any individual who fails to comply with the order can face a maximum imprisonment of one year in jail and a fine of HK$100,000, while a service provider’s non-compliance can result in up to six months in jail and a HK$100,000 fine.

The amendments have also tightened restrictions preventing individuals being investigated from leaving Hong Kong, stipulating that the return of travel documents or granting permission for overseas travel must not contradict national security interests. [Source]

At Australian news outlet ABC News, Claire Campbell reported on how the changes could exert a chilling effect on the city’s international business community, particularly if the new rules were weaponized for geostrategic advantage:

Hong Kong Watch’s senior policy advisor, Thomas Benson, said the organisation was concerned about how these laws would be applied, including to foreigners living in Hong Kong.

“Practically anything can become a matter of national security concern and that gives tremendous latitude for the Hong Kong government, and for the organs of the mainland People’s Republic of China state that operate in Hong Kong, to apply a national security condition and compel practically anyone,” he told the ABC.

“There’s always this concern with these laws about how they can be used to respond to the wider geopolitical picture of economic competition between China and the United States, but also Europe, Australia, New Zealand, other countries.”

[…] “These powers do seem to give tremendous ability for the Hong Kong police to compel people who work for foreign businesses to hand over their passwords and …to freeze assets,” he said. [Source]

According to Hong Kong’s Security Bureau, 386 people have been arrested for national security crimes thus far, with 176 individuals and four companies convicted. One of the most prominent targets is Jimmy Lai, the inveterate pro-Democracy campaigner and founder of the now-shuttered Hong Kong newspaper Apple Daily. In February, Lai was sentenced to 20 years in prison on charges of sedition and collusion with foreign forces. The harsh sentence meted out to Lai was widely seen as a politically motivated attempt to suppress dissent, and met with voluble international criticism. (The topic of Jimmy Lai is heavily censored on the Chinese internet: CDT has archived and translated a recent article about Lai’s sentencing that was deleted by WeChat platform censors, despite the fact that it only referred to Lai as “he” or “the old man,” to Apple Daily as “that newspaper,” and to Hong Kong as “that city.”)