I don't think so. NYT is pointing out that dangerous language is buried in a bunch of innocuous items, which is totally true, i.e. keeping all data in China (5)

I don't think so. NYT is pointing out that dangerous language is buried in a bunch of innocuous items, which is totally true, i.e. keeping all data in China (5) and to "accept supervision of all parts of society" (6), which both sound pretty clear as to intent tbh.