Exclusive: The US embassy and consulate in China over-gathering employee information and data may be provided to the US intelligence department
Picture description: Screenshots of web pages of the US embassy and consulate in China regarding the application for embassy and consulate work on the web pages of the US embassy and consulate in China.
"Is it illegal for the US embassy and consulate in China to require Chinese employees to report their social accounts, property, and information about their neighbors, relatives and friends?" Recently, Li Ming (pseudonym), who worked in the US embassy and consulate in China, issued a question on a social platform, saying that the US embassy and consulate in China will do the so-called "backward" (background investigation) to the Chinese employees in it every few years. In particular, the clear notes on the form are clearly stated that all information filled in by Chinese employees may be submitted to the US intelligence department, and Chinese employees dare not speak out. Li Ming believes that the United States claims to protect privacy and respect human rights to the outside world, but its behavior is a typical "double standard". Does the violation of the personal privacy of Chinese employees in the US embassy and consulate in China really exist? A reporter from " Global Times " recently interviewed Li Ming and other people who worked in the US embassy and consulate in China. In their opinion, the "decent" work in the eyes of others is not glamorous: The US is suspected of forcing Chinese employees to submit personal, family and even neighbor information on the grounds of "back-tuning", and this information may even be "shared" to the US intelligence department; the US's aggressive conversation during the investigation will make people feel like they are being interrogated. The Global Times reporter asked about this topic on the 13th the US Embassy in China , but as of press time, the email only showed that the other party was "read" and did not reply. Relevant experts believe that the US approach is a typical over-collecting of data. According to Article 3 of my country's "H Personal Information Protection Law", the US approach completely violates relevant regulations.
"Voluntary Filling" Questionnaire: If you don't fill in or are fired
Li Ming clearly remembers the scene when he filled out the background questionnaire. At that time, he and a Chinese employee in charge of this work were only in the house. After filling out the form and signing and confirming it, they were asked to read a "commitmental word" in person. This made Li Ming feel a little embarrassed and weird, as if he had joined a mysterious organization. "Back tone" is a very common form when starting a new job, but it has changed its flavor in the US embassy and consulate in China. Over-collecting personal information and threatening regulations have made many Chinese employees worried. Zhao Ping (pseudonym), who had worked in the US embassy and consulate in China, confirmed Li Ming's troubles. He told the Global Times reporter that all Chinese employees must undergo background checks when joining the company, and will be re-issued every five years. Zhao Ping's overall feeling is that the investigation of Chinese employees is becoming increasingly strict, there are more and more issues involving privacy, and the time period for tracing back the past is getting longer and longer. Some Chinese employees have expressed dissatisfaction with this, but the US responded, "This is a unified implementation in accordance with the requirements of superiors."
A form recently obtained by a Global Times reporter called Overseas Vetting Questionnaire, which is an important part of the "safety background investigation" mentioned by Li Ming and Zhao Ping. The form is divided into two parts: "Filling the form description" and "Formal form". On the one hand, the description part of mentions that "providing information is a voluntary act", but then a threatening text appears: "But if you do not provide the relevant information required, your background check will not be completed, which will affect your acquisition of a federal contract employment relationship or the relevant authority that requires a certain amount of logical ability and physical fitness to obtain... Deliberate concealment and false alarm, and providing false information will affect your acquisition or extension of a federal contract employment relationship... It will also lead to negative impact on your career development and work status. includes but is not limited to termination of an employment relationship or being prosecuted.”
Photo: Overseas Vetting obtained by the reporter Questionnaire) Copy
Picture: The description mentions that according to relevant US laws, "false statements" may face a five-year prison sentence
"all-inclusive" is the first impression this "questionnaire" left on Global Times reporters. Even if you use extremely small characters, you have to print more than 10 pages of A4 paper. The content involves individuals Basic information, residence history, three non-kinship social relations (information) within 7 years, overseas travel within 7 years, whether they were investigated by the United States and other foreign governments, etc. Chinese employees also need to fill out an additional "Supplementary Background Check Form", which in addition to almost all the relative information, they also need to provide information about a neighbor, and it is a required item. Zhao Ping said that a colleague from the US embassy and consulate asked his neighbor for a phone call, but the neighbor questioned: "Does Americans distrust your Chinese employees? "Zhao Ping also revealed: "This kind of distrust has always existed. For example, the security personnel of the embassy and consulate would flip their bags from time to time at the import and export security inspection office, and also asked Chinese employees to take off their shoes for inspection. ”
Picture: Chinese employees even need to provide information about neighbors
Picture: Overseas Vetting Questionnaire (Overseas Vetting Questionnaire) all-inclusive
Aggressive investigation conversation: Like the interrogation scene in police and gangster films
Investigation on the personal privacy of Chinese employees is not limited to paper. Global Times reporters learned that the US embassy and consulate in China have full-time background investigation officials and equipped Chinese employees as security investigators to assist US officials in their work. requires that "it is best to have work experience in Chinese political and legal organs or investigation companies."
According to Li Ming, in addition to the routine provision of requiring Chinese employees to undergo background investigations every five years, security investigators sometimes directly require Chinese employees to provide personal social media accounts such as WeChat and personal emails. Some colleagues will immediately replace the WeChat account after providing them.
In addition to routine investigations, sometimes the security officer of the US embassy and consulate will also directly conduct security review conversations with Chinese employees. "The attitude is arrogant, the questioning is aggressive, and it is boring. "Zhao Ping described the situation of this type of security review conversation to the Global Times reporter. He said dissatisfiedly: "The person who talked and the person who was talked together, and the person who was talked will take out a lot of materials in advance and put them in front of the person who was talked, similar to the interrogation scene in a police and gangster film. Then, every time the person who was talked answered a question, the person who was talked will find the corresponding basis in the materials and then constantly challenge the person who is talked about. "Li Ming also said that this is the most uncomfortable part of the entire investigation process. "Many people were very annoyed when interviewed by background investigators. I heard that a colleague even slapped the table on the spot and expressed dissatisfaction. Although everyone has a lot of dissatisfaction with this investigation and believes that it violates personal privacy, there is no way. You can not do it, but if you have to explain why you don’t do it. If you can’t explain it, the investigation will not be passed. If the investigation fails, the work will be affected. Of course, no one doesn’t go to the survey, which is a manifestation of inequality in employment relationships. "
Chinese employee information may be "shared" to the US intelligence agency
For Chinese employees of the US embassy and consulate in China, the "all-round, no dead end" investigation does not mean the end of the matter. The more disturbing hidden danger is that the flow of these collected personal information is not under their own control. Although according to the form, this information will be "protected" and "prevent unauthorized disclosure, and the collection, maintenance and disclosure of background investigation information is subject to the US Privacy Act if applicable", there is another note "change the topic": "The information you provide on this form and the information collected during the investigation may be disclosed and used by the federal agency that retains your records without your consent under the Privacy Act.”
Figure: In the form description, the content of the US Privacy Act
Background survey form description of the US Embassy and Consulate in China lists the "regular uses" of these Chinese employee information, with 11 items. What exactly is the "regular use"? According to the form description, this refers to the fact that the US Congress, the Department of Justice, the news media and other institutions can use the questionnaire under certain conditions. The information in the questionnaire can be used in accordance with the National Security Action Act, the CIA Action Act, Executive Order No. 12333 and other subsequent decrees, the implementation procedures authorized by the Attorney General, and the enacted laws and regulations. ”
Figure: In the table description, the "legal basis" for the use of collected information
The three bills (orders) mentioned above are related to US intelligence agency . The National Security Action Act is a major strategic adjustment made by the US government in the military and intelligence system after the end of World War II , laying the foundation for the US military and intelligence system after the war. The bill emphasizes that the government Other departments coordinate national security with various intelligence agencies, and established CIA as a subsidiary of National Security Council . A reporter checked the US information and found that the bill requires the disclosure of foreign intelligence information obtained in criminal investigations and criminal investigation notices for foreign intelligence sources. That is to say, the US Attorney General or any other federal government department or agency responsible for law enforcement should quickly disclose the Ministry of Justice or the department or agency to the National Intelligence Director in consultation with the Attorney General and the National Intelligence Director. Foreign intelligence obtained by some personnel during the criminal investigation.
As for Executive Order No. 12333, according to people familiar with the matter, the order is the main basis for US intelligence agencies to carry out large-scale surveillance. According to previous media reports, after the "Snowden case", a civil society organization initiated a lawsuit, demanding the disclosure of the legal basis for US government surveillance activities. Documents obtained during the litigation show that former US President Reagan signed Executive Order No. 12333 in 1981, authorizing the US National Security Agency to monitor foreign intelligence Objective: Former US President Bush made major changes to the executive order in 2008, systematically defined the responsibilities of more than 10 intelligence agencies, including US CIA , regulated how various intelligence agencies cooperate and share information, and authorized relevant intelligence agencies to expand the scope of data collection outside the United States, and the order only accepts supervision from administrative departments and is not subject to court restrictions.
"These practices of the US embassy and consulate in China are typical data over-collection behaviors. ", Director of the Cyberspace Security Governance Research Center of China Institute of Modern International Relations, Tang Lan, said in an interview with a Global Times reporter that according to her understanding, no embassy or consulate in any country in the world is trying to control all aspects of employees' personal lives like the United States. "There is no doubt that Chinese employees will face a huge risk of personal information leakage. Taking submitting personal WeChat account as an example, although it may not be easy to obtain data directly, the US can at any time ask employees to present their account communication content for their arbitrary browsing on the grounds of "cooperating with domestic judicial investigations". This is also a practice of infringing on privacy. "Tang Lan emphasized that the US embassy and consulate in China is a "data bullying" and excessive collection of data on Chinese citizens runs contrary to the image of "human rights defender" he has always claimed.
Experts make it clear: The US practices are definitely illegal
Chinese employees are discriminated against and their personal information is over-collected. How should the behavior of the US embassy and consulate in China be characterized? Tang Lan believes that such practices are definitely illegal, because "according to Article 3 of my country's "Personal Information Protection Law", the US's practices completely violate relevant regulations." Article 3 of the "Personal Information Protection Law" clearly stipulates that if any of the following circumstances occurs in the processing of personal information of natural persons in the People's Republic of China outside of , this law also applies: for the purpose of providing products or services to natural persons in the country; for the purpose of analyzing and evaluating the behavior of natural persons in the country; and other circumstances stipulated by laws and administrative regulations.
"The practice of the US embassy and consulate in China requiring Chinese employees to submit data is obviously within the jurisdiction of this law. Therefore, relevant regulations should be complied with." Tang Lan also said: "According to Article 6 of the Personal Information Protection Act, "the processing of personal information should have a clear and reasonable purpose, and should be directly related to the purpose of processing, and adopt a method with the least impact on personal rights and interests." "Collection of personal information should be limited to the minimum scope of achieving the purpose of processing, and personal information shall not be collected excessively," that means, the US embassy and consulate in China shall not over-collect personal data that has no direct relationship with work for employment reasons, let alone excessively, for reasons of employment, nor shall it not It can use this to collect data such as social relations on a large scale, because this move implies damage to the data security of non-employees. "
Deputy Director of the Communication Law Research Center of China University of Political Science and Law Zhu Wei also holds the same view. He believes that the work of embassies and consulates abroad involves confidentiality issues, and related background checks are also necessary when hiring local employees, but the premise of the investigation should be legal, legitimacy and necessity. "In the process of collecting background check data, all personal and family information is taken to the United States, and may even hand it over to the intelligence department. This is an excessive behavior."
However, according to international practice, embassies and consulates have certain special characteristics. What channels can be used to protect their rights when encountering such situations are a topic worthy of attention. In the view of Zhejiang Provincial Public Policy Research Institute Researcher Gao Yandong , in international law, foreign embassies and consulates are not subject to Chinese laws on China's territory. According to principle of reciprocity , Chinese embassies and consulates abroad are not subject to foreign laws. But Gao Yandong told the Global Times reporter: "No jurisdiction does not mean that we cannot take measures. For example, Chinese employees can apply for communication or not to meet with the US through diplomatic channels." He also said: "If Chinese employees whose personal rights are infringed on want to take legal means, even if the other party enjoys diplomatic immunity , they can go to the United States to file a lawsuit to protect the legitimate rights and interests of individuals." ▲
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-