- China Law Translate's Jeremy Daum argues that NetID, China's national online ID, was misread abroad because real-name registration already existed before it.
- Official figures he cites show 40 million credential holders, about 3.6% of China's estimated internet users, a year after the regulations took effect.
- Leaders judging any digital ID scheme should ask what it changes in the existing environment, not only what the technology can do.
When a government launches a digital ID, most people ask what it adds. A better question is what was already in place. China's NetID, whose rules took effect on July 15, 2025, tests that idea.
The alarm at launch
Coverage at the time was loud. The Washington Post wrote that "Big Brother gets new powers in China." CNN quoted a researcher who called the system an "infrastructure of digital totalitarianism." India's Business Standard said it would link "every click to the Communist Party."
Doubt also came from inside China. Lao Dongyan, a law professor at Tsinghua University, warned that NetID could enable broad monitoring of what people do online. According to Jeremy Daum of China Law Translate, censors deleted her criticism along with that of other scholars. Her Weibo account was barred from posting for 90 days.
How the system works
Daum argues that the coverage got one thing wrong. NetID did not create the duty to prove who you are online. That duty already existed. For years, most Chinese online services have asked users to sign up under their real identity.
Other users may see only a nickname. The platform, though, can trace the account to a confirmed national ID number. The link often runs through a phone number, which had to be tied to official ID when the account was opened.
NetID is a second route to meet that same rule. A user can get a government-issued Network Number and Network Credential. These prove identity without handing personal details to each platform. Only the government sees them.
Daum notes that the final rules keep NetID voluntary. Article 4 makes applying optional. Article 6 tells regulators and industries to keep other ways to verify. Article 7 requires participating platforms to give equal service to people who verify another way.
What a year of figures shows
Daum says access is not the barrier. The system reportedly works with more than 400 public and private organizations. He suggests people may already be used to verifying through Alipay or WeChat, as many Americans use Facebook or Google. Many may not want another app. That is his suggestion, not a measured finding.
The lesson: context sets the risk
This shows that an ID system takes on the risk of the setting it enters. The same credential means different things depending on what already ties a person to their accounts.
Daum makes the point directly. Central login worries people in most countries. It could help someone identify a person across platforms. On the Chinese web, he writes, activity is already linked to one national ID number.
So, in his view, adding a government credential to a web that demands real names is a different act. It is not the same as adding one to a web where people can still take part anonymously.
He does not call surveillance in China minor. He calls those concerns legitimate. His claim is narrower. NetID was blamed for risks it did not create.
This is one analyst's reading, backed by official figures he cites. The critics quoted above hold a different view. The adoption numbers are a first-year snapshot. They do not show where the system is heading.
Questions for your team
Other governments are moving too. Daum lists the EU, Australia, Singapore, India and the UK as places that have introduced or proposed digital identity systems. He says many share China's stated goals. Those include easy verification, less personal data shared, fraud prevention and age checks.
Leaders who deal with these schemes can ask three questions. First, which customer ID details do we store only to verify someone? Who could see them if a credential replaced that step?
Second, when a new scheme is debated, what already links a person to their accounts today? What would truly change?
Third, when a board paper cites foreign alarm, has anyone checked the headline against the rules and the usage figures?
Judge an identity system by what it changes, not by what it is called.
Produced by the WebPulse Newsroom with AI assistance from the original reporting credited below, and checked against that source by our editorial review. How we use AI.
Original reporting: China Law Translate.
