FBI. I cannot imagine that happening in China,” said one lawyer.
“在美国，苹果(Apple)拒绝为联邦调查局(FBI)解锁（圣贝纳迪诺(San Bernardino)枪击案枪手的）iPhone。我无法想象这样的事情会在中国发生。”一名律师说。
Although the law makes no distinction between local and foreign businesses, Chinese companies are less concerned, say lawyers. They are less likely to use cloud services and have a smaller presence abroad, and those with overseas operations tend to send data back to their Chinese headquarters rather than taking any out of the country.
律师们表示，尽管该法未对本土和外资企业进行区分，但中国企业不那么担心这件事。中国企业较少使用云服务，在海外的业务也较小，而那些经营着海外业务的中国企业往往会将数据传送回中国总部，而不是将其带出国门。
Domestic companies are also less bothered by legal vagueness, said Mr Yang. Foreign companies take laws literally, while their Chinese counterparts tend to tease out their overall message — in this case, that they must take cyber security seriously — and wait for specific guidelines to be handed down by their industry regulator.
杨迅说，国内公司也不太担心法律的模糊性。外国公司从字面意思来理解法律，而中国的同行则倾向于找到法律所传达的整体讯息——这一次，讯息是它们必须认真对待网络安全——然后等待行业监管机构下发具体指导方针。
But they also know the law is not designed to cause trouble for local businesses.
但它们也知道，这部法律的目的不是为了找本土企业麻烦。
“The big banks are close to government and know they will be considered in the legislative process,” said Mr Yang. “The same goes for big technology companies like Alibaba.”
“大银行与政府关系密切，知道立法过程会考虑到它们，”杨迅说，“同样的道理也适用于阿里巴巴这样的大科技公司。”