Why Were Hotels Fined by Public Security Authorities Even After Implementing Real-Name Authentication?

“All guests completed real-name registration for Wi-Fi access, so why did we fail the public security inspection and even receive fines and rectification orders?”

This is the first reaction of many hotel operators after being penalized.

A hotel in Shangrao had rolled out Wi-Fi real-name authentication with SMS verification required for guest network access. However, during the official inspection, public security officers found that the hotel had no log recording devices deployed and lacked audit records at the network boundary. The hotel was eventually fined 80,000 yuan, with a 10,000-yuan fine imposed on the person directly in charge.

An e-sports hotel in Deyang had also implemented real-name authentication, yet it was issued a warning, ordered to rectify within a time limit and fined 10,000 yuan on the grounds of “inadequate technical protection measures and failure to record cybersecurity incident logs as stipulated”.

Where Lies the Root Cause?

Real-name authentication and log retention are both mandatory, neither can be omitted.

I. Why Is Real-Name Authentication Alone Not Sufficient?

Many hotel owners hold the misconception: “I have required guests to enter their mobile phone numbers to go online, so individuals can be traced if an incident occurs. Why do I still need to store logs?”

Public security authorities gave a straightforward response: “Weak passwords, unencrypted transmission and missing logs all constitute typical ‘unprotected exposed network operation’.”

The logic is simple: real-name authentication verifies who accessed the network, while logs record what activities the user conducted. Only when combined can the full online behavior trail of an individual be completely reconstructed.

When penalizing a hotel that failed to enforce real-name registration, the Yijun County Public Security Bureau explicitly stated: Real-name registration for wireless networks in public venues is a statutory obligation for business operators. The Hanbin Public Security Bureau also emphasized during inspections: All premises providing public wireless network services must strictly implement real-name authentication to block anonymous access and false registration, while ensuring network log retention complies with legal standards.

If only real-name authentication is carried out without log archiving, public security organs can only confirm “this person connected to the network” in the event of a security breach, but cannot identify their specific online activities, resulting in failed traceability all the same.

II. Legal and Regulatory Requirements in Detail

Article 21 of the Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China clearly stipulates that network operators shall “adopt technical measures to monitor and record network operating status and cybersecurity incidents, and retain relevant network logs for no less than six months in accordance with regulations”.

Decree No. 151 of the Ministry of Public Security, namely the Provisions on the Supervision and Inspection of Internet Security by Public Security Organs, further elaborates in Article 10: Inspection items include whether technical measures have been legally adopted to record and retain user registration information and internet access logs.

These two compliance items are inseparable and both compulsory.

The newly revised 2026 Cybersecurity Law has drastically increased penalty severity. The maximum fine for enterprises has been raised from hundreds of thousands of yuan to 10 million yuan, while liable individual supervisors face a maximum fine of 1 million yuan. In addition, the flexible clause of “issuing only a warning for the first violation” has been abolished.

The Shangrao case in Jiangxi serves as a stark lesson: the hotel had fully implemented real-name authentication, but was still penalized 80,000 yuan solely due to the absence of log retention.

III. AINOPOL’s Comprehensive Compliance Solution

The AINOPOL full-optical converged network embeds built-in real-name authentication and log auditing capabilities within the full-optical infrastructure. No additional third-party equipment procurement is required, and the system is ready out of the box to fully meet the requirements of Public Security Decree No.151.

Real-Name Authentication: Multiple Channels, One-Click Activation

Supports multiple verification modes: mobile phone SMS authentication, WeChat authentication, ID card scanning authentication and room number binding authentication.

Gateways come pre-authorized with official SMS service qualifications, eliminating the need for hotels to independently apply for SMS signature approval. The real-name SMS function can be activated with one click in 10 seconds.

All gateway devices hold the Special Cybersecurity Product Certification issued by the Ministry of Public Security, complying with public security filing standards.

The authentication landing page supports full hotel brand customization, allowing display of hotel logos, promotional campaigns and membership registration entrances.

Log Retention: Automatic Collection, Local Tamper-Proof Encrypted Storage

The system automatically collects four categories of logs: end-user internet access logs, device operation logs, cybersecurity event logs and administrator operation logs.

Complete log data includes the standard 5-tuple information, together with user MAC address, verified mobile phone number/ID number, room number and other identity and location markers.

Logs are encrypted and stored locally on the hotel’s internal network, fully protected against unauthorized tampering and deletion, with a default retention period of 180 days.

One-click export of log reports formatted to meet public security regulatory standards is supported. No manual log sorting is required during official inspections, and compliant documents can be generated within seconds.

The Shangrao hotel was fined 80,000 yuan not for lacking real-name authentication — it had already implemented the process. The penalty stemmed from fulfilling only one half of the rule while neglecting log retention.

Similarly, the Deyang e-sports hotel’s fine was not caused by missing real-name authentication, but by inadequate technical safeguards and failure to archive logs per legal provisions.

Public Security Decree No.151 sets out unambiguous rules: real-name authentication + 180-day log retention, two non-negotiable mandatory requirements.

If your hotel still manages cybersecurity under flawed mindsets such as “a Wi-Fi password is sufficient”, “7 days of log storage is enough” or “real-name authentication equals full compliance”, you may be the next recipient of a regulatory penalty notice.

FAQ

Q: Why can a hotel still be fined even after launching Wi-Fi real-name authentication?

A: Real-name authentication and log retention are two separate mandatory compliance tasks that must both be fulfilled. Implementing only real-name authentication without log archiving will still result in failed official inspections. A Shangrao hotel in Jiangxi had completed real-name authentication but was fined 80,000 yuan for failing to deploy log recording hardware.

Q: What is the worst-case consequence of skipping log retention?

A: In the event of a cybersecurity incident, full traceability will be impossible, and the hotel shall bear all corresponding legal liabilities. Pursuant to the revised Cybersecurity Law, the enterprise may face a maximum fine of 10 million yuan, and the directly responsible person up to 1 million yuan.

Q: Why would inspectors order rectification even if both real-name authentication and log storage are in place?

A: Common reasons include: log retention period shorter than 180 days; incomplete log fields (missing the 5-tuple set or user identity information); inability to export logs in regulator-approved formats with one click; or logs being vulnerable to arbitrary tampering or deletion.