Not All Anquan Is the Same: A Terminological Proposal for Chinese Computer Science and Engineering

TL;DR

This paper proposes a clear terminological distinction in Chinese technical discourse by differentiating safety ('anquan') and security ('anbao') to improve clarity in standards, research, and communication.

Contribution

It advocates for translating security as 'anbao' and safety as 'anquan' in scholarly and engineering contexts, enhancing conceptual clarity and scientific communication.

Findings

Current translation overload affects safety and security standards.

Precise terminology is crucial for scientific argumentation and communication.

A staged dual-track writing practice is proposed for Chinese technical discourse.

Abstract

In Chinese computer science and engineering, safety and security have long been translated by the same word, "anquan". This convention is concise in ordinary communication, but it creates persistent conceptual compression in standards interpretation, interdisciplinary collaboration, risk analysis and academic writing. When researchers need to discuss both whether a system is free from intolerable non-adversarial harm and whether it can resist adversarial threats, the single word "anquan" often cannot carry the distinction. This article argues that, while established legal and standards titles should be retained, scholarly and engineering writing should translate security as "anbao", and reserve "anquan" mainly for safety. This is not a cosmetic translation preference, but a proposal for terminological governance in scientific cognition, engineering risk communication and assurance argumentation. The article first surveys the conceptual boundary between safety and security in international and Chinese standards, and analyzes how the current translation overload affects functional safety, SOTIF, information security, cybersecurity, automotive cybersecurity and AI governance. It then uses recent work on AI assurance, safety-security co-assurance and security-informed safety to show why precise terminology is fundamental to scientific arguments that can be examined, challenged and communicated. Finally, it proposes a staged, dual-track writing practice for Chinese technical discourse.