7 ms·

I'm asking this question not to spark a contentious debate or be ridiculed. But I'm genuinely curious, as someone who has little experience with China and only

I'm asking this question not to spark a contentious debate or be ridiculed. But I'm genuinely curious, as someone who has little experience with China and only lived in the US, is the US just as much of a surveillance state as China? We often hear a lot of 'information' (bordering propaganda), about China being an "authoritarian surveillance state". I don't mean to sound absurd, but is the US that much better in terms of authoritarianism or surveillance? If so, why?

crispyporkbites 6y ago
The US is much better. Take for example internet surveillance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_and_surveillance_by_country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_and_surv... China is in another league. They are using deep packet inspection to block services they don’t allow access to, they force some people to install apps on their phone that track them. The great firewall of China is far more visible and impactful than the real Great Wall of China.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >Take for example internet surveillance: There are three somewhat current reports on there. One comes from the US State department, one from an organization started by Eleanor Roosevelt with strong US ties, and one lists both China and the US as "enemies of the internet."
jjcon 6y ago
The US and EU countries have processes, checks and balances on those powers (though not always enough, I think they need more). These checks keep abuse low and keep mass surveillance limited to national security domains. This is in stark contrast to China where this power can be used/abused with almost no oversight or limitations.
- casraso 6y ago
  What is a specific example of such a process, check, and/or balance that the united states has that china does not?
  - CyberDildonics 6y ago
    To start, the chinese government has none at all.
  - t-writescode 6y ago
    Theoretically, the 4th Amendment, but there's so many exceptions to it lately that it only theoretically counts, with a good lawyer.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    The right to bear arms. The right to free speech. States rights. Hundreds of years of common law precedence. The 4th amendment. The fact that if a piece of evidence is acquired against you in an unlawful way it cannot be used against you in court as a US citizen. The right to a jury trial, etc etc.
    - l332mn 6y ago
      Individual rights are not processes of checks and balances. Those rights can be withdrawn in a jiffy, whenever required or convenient. What good does the right to bear arms do you as an individual when you're deemed a dangerous criminal, or as a group when you're deemed a terrorist organization? What good does the right to free speech do you if your speech is inconsequential? > The fact that if a piece of evidence is acquired against you in an unlawful way it cannot be used against you in court as a US citizen The US has repeatedly manufactured and framed political dissidents when it has felt politically threatened historically. Those rights you're talking about were useless to them.
      - chrisco255 6y ago
        No they can't. It's incredibly hard to amend the Constitution of the United States. That's by design. You need 2/3 vote in both the House and the Senate and 3/4 of all states to ratify an amendment in order to change it. You can't be deemed "a dangerous criminal" without having actually been convicted in a court of law by a jury of your peers. And even then, there's appeals, pardons, etc. > What good does the right to free speech do you if your speech is inconsequential? Speech is never inconsequential. Even a one on one conversation can have a profound impact on another person. It's up to you to get your ideas out there and to compete in a diverse marketplace of ideas. That's the way it works. > The US has repeatedly manufactured and framed political dissidents when it has felt politically threatened historically. Those rights you're talking about were useless to them. Not generally, no. But sure, there are corrupt people in Government, no doubt. And that corruption has even been levied against a duly elected president of the United States (Trump vs the Obama FBI/CIA spygate). The existence of imperfection in the system is not proof of the system's uselessness.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
craigsmansion 6y ago
> but is the US that much better in terms of authoritarianism or surveillance? Who knows? The last guy who touched upon it had to hide in freedom-loving Russia afterwards. The PRC has it easy. They don't have to hide their actions behind contortions of "national security", which makes it difficult to compare the extent and pervasiveness of US and PRC surveillance.
- mellow2020 6y ago
  > The last guy who touched upon it On the other hand, people like Chomsky aren't being persecuted. Though all in all, I would also say they get ignored very efficiently, Chomsky still isn't exactly unknown either. Is there a Chinese author and speaker with decades of real harsh criticism of their government under their belt, who is living in China with their works being translated in all sorts of languages and also available in China?
  - craigsmansion 6y ago
    > Is there a Chinese author and speaker with decades This is only as I understand it, but technically, yes. People like to think that the Chinese Communist Party is a single body with a single well-defined set of ideas. It's not. It's perfectly possible for academics and even party politicians to utter criticism of the current party direction. They can, for example, advocate the return of fundamental Maoism, or advocate free market mechanisms. As long as you can argue a point of view that lies within the party's tenets, there is usually no problem. It's different when: - you are a person of influence. and - you argue against the stability of the country (where, conveniently, the CCP is seen as the most important stabilising force in mainland China (by the CCP)). I don't know if a Chinese Chomsky exists. I have the impression that if he would exist, he would be marginalised by the media, or some of his ideas would be adopted and used in some splintered minority faction of the CCP and hailed as a great but impractical thinker, and mostly ignored.
    - shadowprofile77 6y ago
      a so-called Chinese Chomsky (an academic type as you say) could indeed advocate either of those two points or variations between them from inside China but for one thing, he or she would have to couch their phrasing in very careful ways to avoid being coercively punished by the apparatus of the state. Furthermore, they'd have a harder time of doing these things today with Xinping's domineering influence at play. In 2005 or 2006, it would have been much easier. Secondly and much more fundamentally, even if they made such arguments, at no point could they get away with simply advocating for the full removal of the CCP's monopoly on political power. That's a no-go and it's also something that defines a huge difference between China and, say, the U.S, where an academic or media personality or pretty much anyone can freely advocate all kinds of stuff against the political system without having to phrase it in any particularly careful way. This includes being able to state that the Republican/Democrat duopoloy is a piece of ineffective garbage and needs to be removed. They might face some social backlash from fans of opposing views but they won't have their legal, financial or human standing destroyed by the government through literal punishments.
casraso 6y ago
Americans like to think they are immune to propaganda, or that for some reason other countries produce more of it than they do. What I have observed as someone not living in china or america is that they are roughly on equal footing and produce about as much deceptive trash as any other country, my own included. This means you will have a lot of americans answering your question by saying that america does less surveillance, not understanding after all the years of pledging allegiance to the flag and having armed police in their schools, that they are very very similar to china and it would be naive to assume they are not being watched as much. It is also unlikely they even know what happens in china to a good extent because china itself is not very communicative; they still report the same covid stats since march, for example, and their government websites are full of broken links. It is hard for me to get accurate info on china even from news sites, I wouldn't trust what most people say. All that said I think China is worse, but Americans would have you believe the difference is gigantic.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  We started putting armed police in schools to defend against school shootings. Not to intimidate students. The school officers here are generally older cops working part time with not much time left before retirement. There still is a fundamental difference in the way that power is broken up in the US between states and federal and between different courts that are widely independent. You have a lot of levers to defend yourself if a state wants to initiate legal action against you. In China, you don't fight the CCP and win, ever. People often sue and win against the Federal Government. There are many fundamental differences. We have rights to free speech, guns, due process, and hundreds of years of common law precedence to fall back on, in addition to a generally far more rebellious culture. EDIT (reply to caraso): A lot, because if the surveillance is used against you, you have many levers of unaffiliated and totally separate branches of government to pull to come to your defense.
  - casraso 6y ago
    What does any of that have to do with surveillance?
  - 6y ago
thescriptkiddie 6y ago
I suspect that the main difference is that China is transparent about its surveillance programs, while the US ones are top secret.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
Honestly they probably try just as hard to get into your email as China. The difference is what happens afterward. Even the slightest dissent in China can land you in prison and be the next one on the organ donor list for someone in the CCP. In the USA unless you're planning terrorism or some criminal act they are just going to consider you boring. I suspect it's the same in all these these 14 eyes countries as well as other technologically advanced (the 1% mind you) countries are doing the same to the limits of their technology. It's just what governments do. Whether they can use it in court if they got it illegally is another thing in the USA. It's sad to say but the Patriot Act negated a lot of US citizens rights to seek a fair trial and not be searched (digitally or otherwise) . It is the worst bit of legislation against freedom in the USA since the nation began.
- xster 6y ago
  Are you referencing something specific?

crispyporkbites 6y ago

The US is much better. Take for example internet surveillance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_and_surveillance_by_country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_and_surv... China is in another league. They are using deep packet inspection to block services they don’t allow access to, they force some people to install apps on their phone that track them. The great firewall of China is far more visible and impactful than the real Great Wall of China.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>Take for example internet surveillance: There are three somewhat current reports on there. One comes from the US State department, one from an organization started by Eleanor Roosevelt with strong US ties, and one lists both China and the US as "enemies of the internet."

jjcon 6y ago

The US and EU countries have processes, checks and balances on those powers (though not always enough, I think they need more). These checks keep abuse low and keep mass surveillance limited to national security domains. This is in stark contrast to China where this power can be used/abused with almost no oversight or limitations.

casraso 6y ago
What is a specific example of such a process, check, and/or balance that the united states has that china does not?
- CyberDildonics 6y ago
  To start, the chinese government has none at all.
- t-writescode 6y ago
  Theoretically, the 4th Amendment, but there's so many exceptions to it lately that it only theoretically counts, with a good lawyer.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  The right to bear arms. The right to free speech. States rights. Hundreds of years of common law precedence. The 4th amendment. The fact that if a piece of evidence is acquired against you in an unlawful way it cannot be used against you in court as a US citizen. The right to a jury trial, etc etc.
  - l332mn 6y ago
    Individual rights are not processes of checks and balances. Those rights can be withdrawn in a jiffy, whenever required or convenient. What good does the right to bear arms do you as an individual when you're deemed a dangerous criminal, or as a group when you're deemed a terrorist organization? What good does the right to free speech do you if your speech is inconsequential? > The fact that if a piece of evidence is acquired against you in an unlawful way it cannot be used against you in court as a US citizen The US has repeatedly manufactured and framed political dissidents when it has felt politically threatened historically. Those rights you're talking about were useless to them.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      No they can't. It's incredibly hard to amend the Constitution of the United States. That's by design. You need 2/3 vote in both the House and the Senate and 3/4 of all states to ratify an amendment in order to change it. You can't be deemed "a dangerous criminal" without having actually been convicted in a court of law by a jury of your peers. And even then, there's appeals, pardons, etc. > What good does the right to free speech do you if your speech is inconsequential? Speech is never inconsequential. Even a one on one conversation can have a profound impact on another person. It's up to you to get your ideas out there and to compete in a diverse marketplace of ideas. That's the way it works. > The US has repeatedly manufactured and framed political dissidents when it has felt politically threatened historically. Those rights you're talking about were useless to them. Not generally, no. But sure, there are corrupt people in Government, no doubt. And that corruption has even been levied against a duly elected president of the United States (Trump vs the Obama FBI/CIA spygate). The existence of imperfection in the system is not proof of the system's uselessness.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

craigsmansion 6y ago

> but is the US that much better in terms of authoritarianism or surveillance? Who knows? The last guy who touched upon it had to hide in freedom-loving Russia afterwards. The PRC has it easy. They don't have to hide their actions behind contortions of "national security", which makes it difficult to compare the extent and pervasiveness of US and PRC surveillance.

mellow2020 6y ago
> The last guy who touched upon it On the other hand, people like Chomsky aren't being persecuted. Though all in all, I would also say they get ignored very efficiently, Chomsky still isn't exactly unknown either. Is there a Chinese author and speaker with decades of real harsh criticism of their government under their belt, who is living in China with their works being translated in all sorts of languages and also available in China?
- craigsmansion 6y ago
  > Is there a Chinese author and speaker with decades This is only as I understand it, but technically, yes. People like to think that the Chinese Communist Party is a single body with a single well-defined set of ideas. It's not. It's perfectly possible for academics and even party politicians to utter criticism of the current party direction. They can, for example, advocate the return of fundamental Maoism, or advocate free market mechanisms. As long as you can argue a point of view that lies within the party's tenets, there is usually no problem. It's different when: - you are a person of influence. and - you argue against the stability of the country (where, conveniently, the CCP is seen as the most important stabilising force in mainland China (by the CCP)). I don't know if a Chinese Chomsky exists. I have the impression that if he would exist, he would be marginalised by the media, or some of his ideas would be adopted and used in some splintered minority faction of the CCP and hailed as a great but impractical thinker, and mostly ignored.
  - shadowprofile77 6y ago
    a so-called Chinese Chomsky (an academic type as you say) could indeed advocate either of those two points or variations between them from inside China but for one thing, he or she would have to couch their phrasing in very careful ways to avoid being coercively punished by the apparatus of the state. Furthermore, they'd have a harder time of doing these things today with Xinping's domineering influence at play. In 2005 or 2006, it would have been much easier. Secondly and much more fundamentally, even if they made such arguments, at no point could they get away with simply advocating for the full removal of the CCP's monopoly on political power. That's a no-go and it's also something that defines a huge difference between China and, say, the U.S, where an academic or media personality or pretty much anyone can freely advocate all kinds of stuff against the political system without having to phrase it in any particularly careful way. This includes being able to state that the Republican/Democrat duopoloy is a piece of ineffective garbage and needs to be removed. They might face some social backlash from fans of opposing views but they won't have their legal, financial or human standing destroyed by the government through literal punishments.

casraso 6y ago

Americans like to think they are immune to propaganda, or that for some reason other countries produce more of it than they do. What I have observed as someone not living in china or america is that they are roughly on equal footing and produce about as much deceptive trash as any other country, my own included. This means you will have a lot of americans answering your question by saying that america does less surveillance, not understanding after all the years of pledging allegiance to the flag and having armed police in their schools, that they are very very similar to china and it would be naive to assume they are not being watched as much. It is also unlikely they even know what happens in china to a good extent because china itself is not very communicative; they still report the same covid stats since march, for example, and their government websites are full of broken links. It is hard for me to get accurate info on china even from news sites, I wouldn't trust what most people say. All that said I think China is worse, but Americans would have you believe the difference is gigantic.

chrisco255 6y ago
We started putting armed police in schools to defend against school shootings. Not to intimidate students. The school officers here are generally older cops working part time with not much time left before retirement. There still is a fundamental difference in the way that power is broken up in the US between states and federal and between different courts that are widely independent. You have a lot of levers to defend yourself if a state wants to initiate legal action against you. In China, you don't fight the CCP and win, ever. People often sue and win against the Federal Government. There are many fundamental differences. We have rights to free speech, guns, due process, and hundreds of years of common law precedence to fall back on, in addition to a generally far more rebellious culture. EDIT (reply to caraso): A lot, because if the surveillance is used against you, you have many levers of unaffiliated and totally separate branches of government to pull to come to your defense.
- casraso 6y ago
  What does any of that have to do with surveillance?
- 6y ago

thescriptkiddie 6y ago

I suspect that the main difference is that China is transparent about its surveillance programs, while the US ones are top secret.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

Honestly they probably try just as hard to get into your email as China. The difference is what happens afterward. Even the slightest dissent in China can land you in prison and be the next one on the organ donor list for someone in the CCP. In the USA unless you're planning terrorism or some criminal act they are just going to consider you boring. I suspect it's the same in all these these 14 eyes countries as well as other technologically advanced (the 1% mind you) countries are doing the same to the limits of their technology. It's just what governments do. Whether they can use it in court if they got it illegally is another thing in the USA. It's sad to say but the Patriot Act negated a lot of US citizens rights to seek a fair trial and not be searched (digitally or otherwise) . It is the worst bit of legislation against freedom in the USA since the nation began.

xster 6y ago
Are you referencing something specific?