Chinese CS Paper Proposes 'Anbao' for Security, Reserving 'Anquan' for Safety

For decades, Chinese computer science and engineering have used the single word 'anquan' to translate both 'safety' (freedom from non-adversarial harm) and 'security' (protection against adversarial threats). In a new arXiv paper (2605.13069), researcher Xingyu Zhao argues that this terminological overload creates persistent confusion in standards interpretation, interdisciplinary collaboration, risk analysis, and academic writing. The paper systematically surveys how the ambiguity affects functional safety, SOTIF (Safety of the Intended Functionality), information security, cybersecurity, automotive cybersecurity, and AI governance.

Zhao proposes a pragmatic solution: retain established legal and standards titles, but adopt 'anbao' specifically for security in scholarly and engineering writing, while reserving 'anquan' primarily for safety. This is not cosmetic—precise terminology is foundational to scientific arguments that must be examined, challenged, and communicated. The paper draws on recent work in AI assurance, safety-security co-assurance, and security-informed safety to demonstrate why the distinction matters. It concludes with a staged, dual-track writing practice for Chinese technical discourse, aiming to align China's technical communication with global best practices.