However reasonable these goals seem, two big worries linger. First, the law is overly broad and mischievously vague. It provides little guidance on what constitutes “
critical information infrastructure
” (though impact on “social or economic well-being” is a criterion) and which firms are “network operators” (so even individuals with multiple computers could fall foul of the law). Kenneth Jarrett, head of the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai, argues that the law’s far-reaching restrictions could harm both foreign firms and cross-border trade.The law’s ambiguity is forcing MNCs in many industries to reconsider how they hold data, and Chinese consumers may pay the price. A foreign firm used to monitor its energy turbines in China from its headquarters, using its real-time global data to optimise operations; it now keeps the Chinese information on the mainland, efficiency be damned. A provider of global online education was sending data on Chinese users overseas to allow them to access its courses abroad; it is now
rejigging
its IT system to keep such data inside China and may have to curtail its offerings.
然而,无论这些目的看似有多合理,都存在两方面担忧。首先,该法过于宽泛模糊,并未具体明确“关键信息基础设施”(即使“社会福利或经济福利”的影响可视作标准),也未明确指出哪类公司才算是“网络运营商”(所以即使拥有多台电脑的个人也会与法律冲突)。上海美国商会领事季瑞达·贾勒特认为,就长远看来,这项法律的局限性不利于外企和跨国贸易的发展。网络安全法的不明确,迫使许多跨国工业公司重新考虑如何保留信息,而中国用户可能要为此付出代价。过去,外企只需在总部监管其在中国的用户信息,利用实时全局数据来优化操作;现在,要是将中国用户的数据信息存储在中国境内,效率就会大打折扣。过去,环球在线教育的供应商将中国用户的数据输送到海外,以便这些用户接受其海外课程;现在,供应商调整了信息系统,将此类数据保留至中国,或者说是不得不减少输送。