I think I understand what you mean now - thanks for taking the time to explain it. I understand your position to be that in the US (I'll use the US as an examp

I think I understand what you mean now - thanks for taking the time to explain it. I understand your position to be that in the US (I'll use the US as an example but it's broadly interchangeable with any western democracy), privacy violations and acts of espionage which are directionally similar to those occurring in China do take place, and whilst you acknowledge that they are not as bad, you draw equivalence between the surreptitiousness of both. I think the point is a meaningful one. Much of the content of the PRISM presentations was worrying because it made very clear the extent to which the US government has expanded its intelligence-gathering in the last few decades. Introducing a point like this into a discussion focusing on China might seem like 'whatabouttery' to many people ("X is bad, but what about Y?"). On paper, NSA and CIA overreaching could have similar consequences (or even look identical) to Chinese state sponsored espionage, but provided there are avenues for whistleblowers and a free press, the two are not equatable. > the point I am struggling to make Your English is very good, and I enjoyed talking to you.