 |
|
 |
Large Medium Small |
We applaud Chongqing’s crusade against underworld kingpins and their protectors.
With some of the city’s most rampant criminals — as well as police officers who were protecting them behind bars, the local police force is undergoing a complete reshuffle.
The campaign in Chongqing has won the hearts of locals because people need to feel safe. We all want the authorities to be regulated as the underworld would not have prospered without their protection.
The local police must be advised that the crackdown doesn’t mean they can do whatever they believe is necessary in the name of public security. They may see their hard-earned endorsements evaporate once the latest attempts to monitor electronic communication are put into effect.
According to official sources, besides “gradually” requiring Internet users to divulge real names, the city will subject online instant messaging and phone text messages to police scrutiny. The measures may boost efficiency in police operations but the price is too high to be justifiable.
The new police policy infringes on people’s constitutional right to freedom of communication.
Letters snail-mailed to home addresses are protected by the Criminal Law, so anyone who opens our letters without our permission risks being sued. Though they’re not tangible on paper, the messages we send and receive via personal computers or cell phones are private communications intended for senders and receivers only. They are under the same degree of protection under our Constitution. What is the difference between someone opening our envelopes and a police officer screening our cell phone messages?
There may be cases where texts or e-mails were used to spread rumors that could have threatened public order or State security. Those cases are rare. We see no acceptable excuse to screen people’s electronic communications.
Besides, did we mention that this whole thing is a waste of public resources?
