Recently, the Ministry of Public Security has publicly solicited opinions from the public on the draft of the Cybercrime Prevention and Control Law (hereinafter referred to as the "Draft for Comments"). Specialized legislation for the prevention and control of cybercrime is an important sign of the gradual standardization and maturity of cybercrime prevention and control work, which will open a new chapter in the governance of the online ecosystem. With the rapid development of the Internet, traditional crimes continue to extend to the Internet. Currently, cybercrime is evolving towards digitization and intelligence, giving rise to new forms of infringement such as encryption hijacking, deep forgery, and data poisoning, posing unprecedented challenges to the governance of the online ecosystem. With the help of digital intelligence technology, the characteristics of covert cybercrime, scattered evidence, and cross-border chains are becoming increasingly prominent, making it difficult to identify cybercrime, integrate evidence, and cut off chains. The traditional governance model that focuses on individual cases and post punishment is no longer suitable for the new situation of cybercrime prevention and control needs. The cyberspace is an organic whole, and the governance of cybercrime is a systematic project. Currently, the online black and gray industry has formed a deep dependence and symbiotic relationship with cybercrime. For example, in telecommunications network fraud crimes, upstream criminals are responsible for providing bank cards, phone cards, personal information of citizens, etc., while the middle reaches carry out fraud activities, and the downstream is responsible for withdrawals, transfers, money laundering, etc. The online black and gray industry in the upstream and downstream is closely linked to the middle reaches of electronic fraud crimes, forming a complete criminal chain and seriously eroding the network ecology. In view of this, the "Draft for Soliciting Opinions" establishes the principle of "combining prevention and control, prioritizing prevention, controlling at the source, and coordinating", focusing on the management of network basic resources, ecological governance of cybercrime, obligations to prevent and control cybercrime, cross-border cybercrime prevention and control, etc., and strives to build a scientific governance system to achieve the transformation from decentralized regulation to special legislation, post crackdown to comprehensive prevention and control, and from fuzzy norms to precise regulation. This is a vivid legislative practice to promote the governance of cybercrime. From decentralized regulation to specialized legislation. The current regulations on the prevention and control of cybercrime in China are scattered in laws and regulations such as the Criminal Law, Cybersecurity Law, and Data Security Law. This decentralized regulation can easily lead to problems such as chaotic management of network infrastructure resources, blurred boundaries of obligations for preventing and controlling cybercrime, and weak regulation of online black and gray industries. For example, some criminals often use "black cards, black numbers, black lines, and black devices" to commit crimes anonymously, or use loopholes in cross-border cybercrime jurisdiction to transfer criminal assets and evade legal sanctions. The draft for soliciting opinions is based on the systematic governance of the online ecosystem, and makes provisions for key links such as online payment and traffic promotion, which will help to cut off the funding chain, information chain, and channel chain that rely on and coexist with the online black and gray industry and cybercrime, and promote the systematic and professional upgrading of cybercrime governance. Engage in post attack to prevent and control the entire area. Cybercrime is a mutated result of the evolution of the online ecosystem. The traditional governance model, which focuses on cracking down after the fact, has achieved significant results in punishing specific crimes, but there are shortcomings in preventing and controlling at the source, and the effectiveness of repairing the online ecosystem is not significant. For example, some online hosts take advantage of the information advantages and traffic resources of online platforms to cover up the criminal essence of opening casinos and committing fraud through forms such as "cash lottery". In this process, online platforms not only fail to prevent crime, but also give such criminal activities a "legal coat". The governance of cybercrime should not only "prevent the source", but also "repair the ecology". The draft for soliciting opinions clearly regards online platforms as the "first line of defense" for preventing cybercrime, requiring online platforms to undertake the obligation of preventing and controlling cybercrime that matches their business scale and technical capabilities, and to build a comprehensive prevention and control system that covers upstream information drainage, midstream compliant operation, downstream payment settlement, etc., fully reflecting the governance thinking of combining prevention and control. From fuzzy norms to precise regulations. The draft for soliciting opinions adheres to a problem oriented approach, focusing on the characteristics of high incidence and new types of cybercrime. It transforms macro level policy statements such as "preventing financial risks" and "preventing cyber risks" in previous legislation into precise regulatory content targeting specific forms of cybercrime infringement, filling the regulatory gap in high-risk areas of cybercrime. For example, Article 2 of the Draft for Soliciting Opinions stipulates that Chinese citizens abroad, as well as overseas organizations and individuals providing services to users within China, who engage in cybercrime activities shall be held legally responsible in accordance with the law, aiming to provide a basis for precise regulation of illegal cross-border cybercrime committed by criminals. For another example, Article 19 of the Draft explicitly prohibits the provision of Internet access, computing power collection and leasing, development, operation and maintenance and other support and help for cyber crime activities, which helps to effectively correct the misconception that "technology is justice", and highlights the legislative orientation of regulating technology abuse according to law and systematically preventing cyber crime. The new standards for combating cybercrime are taking shape. The draft for soliciting opinions adheres to the legislative concept of "small, fast and agile", and aims to address the governance challenges of cybercrime in a targeted manner, striving to establish clear activity boundaries for all online participants. We hope to make legislation more scientific through extensive solicitation of opinions, and to introduce it as soon as possible through legal procedures, so as to encourage network regulators to strengthen regulatory efficiency, network platforms to adhere to compliance bottom lines, and the vast number of netizens to practice the concept of civilized and law-abiding, forming a joint governance and construction force, promoting the governance of the network ecosystem to a higher level, and jointly shaping a clear and clean network ecosystem. (New Press) (Author Xia Wei, Associate Professor at the School of Criminal Justice, China University of Political Science and Law)