Summary
A New York man, Chen Jinping, pleaded guilty to operating an undeclared Chinese police station in Manhattan for China’s Ministry of Public Security.
The station, part of a transnational repression scheme, aided Beijing in locating and suppressing pro-democracy activists in the U.S., violating American sovereignty.
Authorities say the station also served routine functions like renewing Chinese driving licenses but had a more sinister role, including tracking a California-based activist.
Chen faces up to five years in prison, while a co-defendant has pleaded not guilty and awaits trial.
Thanks, that makes some things a lot clearer.
But just play along with me for a second…
We’re in court and that law gets cited and the defence attorney says "surveillance was happening, yes, but that in itself wasn’t illegal. In order to break that particular law one has to prove it was being done with the intention that it result in “a well founded fear of death or serious bodily injury”'. And where is the proof that was the intention or the result?
So if this guy’s going around like a mobster on behalf of the Chinese government and threatening people on their doorstep I’d get it.
But, reading the law closely, just sending information to another country does not, in itself, seem to be illegal. That’s why I was making the point about free speech. The first amendment is literally about communicating legal information freely without persecution from the government, even if that’s with people the government doesn’t like.
I’m not saying the guy didn’t do anything wrong, I just mean I assume there’s more to it than the article is describing…
But surveillance is illegal, especially in a targeted form. Let me put it like this, your address is public, as people can see when you get in and out of your house. But now someone goes and tells someone else, a criminal, your address with the intention to cause you damages. That person, the informant, becomes directly an accomplice, even if the person didn’t do damage directly.
But it’s the “with intention to cause you damages” bit that makes it illegal (I believe).
Saying you saw so-and-so down at the shops is obviously not illegal. Saying that to their ex-partner so they go and beat them up is. (Even then a prosecutor would have to prove you incited or intend harm to come, just the sharing of info itself isn’t a crime per se)
That’s what I wasn’t understanding from the article. Are there very specific limits on first amendment so that what would ordinarily be communication of public information becomes illegal just because the recipient is a foreign government. Or was it illegal because the public information was shared with the known intent of causing physical harm.
The article sounded like the former, which surprised me. I think the latter is probably the actual circumstances though I could be wrong.
Well you are talking about 2 different things.
Stalking: just following a person for your own personal benefit.
And Spying/Surveillance: following someone to share the information with another entity or government.
The person in question had several logs and such logs were communicated to the chinese government, they have proof of this, so such actions are criminal offenses.