Hong Kong's new security law is dishonest and autocratic.

China's new security law for Hong Kong is regarded as an invasion of privacy and freedom, but the law being autocratic is an opinion.

China's new security law for Hong Kong is regarded as an invasion of privacy and freedom, but the law being autocratic is an opinion. The reports state that China imposed a new national security law for Hong Kong that will punish crimes of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces or with external elements to endanger the national security will be punished up to life in prison, heralding a more authoritarian era for China's freest city. Some specific offenses include damaging government buildings and lobbying against the Chinese government. Damaging transport vehicles and equipment would be considered as terrorism according to the new legislation. The law also allows the National Security Committee to investigate and prosecute violators. The new law ordered the Hong Kong government to ensure that media and internet services adhere to national security priorities. They give the police extensive new controls to censor Internet content, track people online, and seize electronic records. They can investigate Internet platforms and their data and order its deletion and penalties for the companies and six months' jail time.

The experts pointed out that the law is an apt symbol of the secrecy and autocracy surrounding the move where Hong Kong people the law will end their autonomy and freedom of speech and protests in the city. Hong Kong officials have said that the rules of the new security law would target only a few people. Experts added that law could bring to Hong Kong many harsh legal practices common in mainland China. Carrie Lam, the chief executive of Hong Kong, said that the law would not affect Hong Kong's renowned judicial independence in a video speech to the UN Human Rights Council.

However, the observations of experts cannot be considered as people's perspectives vary from one another in addressing opinions. Thus, this opinionated claim cannot be objectively verified.