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

2026-05-13

AI Summary

This study addresses the longstanding conflation in Chinese computer science and engineering literature of the distinct concepts of “safety” and “security,” both traditionally rendered as “anquan” (安全), which has led to conceptual ambiguity, impeding accurate standard interpretation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and risk analysis. The paper systematically argues for the necessity of differentiating “anquan” (safety)—referring to protection against non-adversarial hazards—from “anbao” (安保)—denoting defense against adversarial threats—within Chinese technical discourse. Through analysis of standards documentation, clarification of conceptual boundaries, and case studies spanning AI assurance, functional safety, and cybersecurity, the work proposes a phased dual-track writing convention. This framework markedly enhances terminological precision in technical communication and holds significant practical implications for AI governance, automotive cybersecurity, and SOTIF (Safety of the Intended Functionality).

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.

Problem

• anquan
• safety
• security
• terminology
• conceptual compression

Innovation

• terminological governance
• safety-security distinction
• anbao
• anquan
• AI assurance