The US system isn't better because we don't have government officials who want to spy on us. The US system is set up assuming that's what all governments do eventually.
The US system is superior to China because we have checks and balances that actually: 1) uncover this stuff, 2) share it with the public, 3) have a system to provide feedback, 4) courts to uphold rights.
The US system isn't perfect and it isn't always fast, but the point is there is a system of checks and balances that hopefully bring it back to what the people intend it to be.
>The US system is superior to China because we have checks and balances that actually: 1) uncover this stuff, 2) share it with the public, 3) have a system to provide feedback, 4) courts to uphold rights.
1) surveillance of citizens in China it is public, no need to uncover anything
2) in China their government already shared it with the citizens since it's official policy
3) since when the feedback started to matter?
4) that it's very naive to assume that the laws and the courts will always be free of abuse and will always protect the freedoms of the citizens, protect their interests and protect the innocent, we are far from living in a perfect world: the only way to make someone can't abuse his power is to not give him that power. And they have courts in China too, if that matters.
That's my point. The US (and other countries) systems are superior because at least there is some mechanism to put a stop to it. In China there isn't - as you said it's official policy.
"we are far from living in a perfect world" well yes. And we never will live in a perfect world where privacy is never violated. There will always be people willing to break the rules to benefit themselves.
And since when has feedback mattered? It matters all the time? I mean the Democrats won an election and are now proposing a massive spending bill taking the country in a very different direction, just as one example.
> The US system is set up assuming that's what all governments do eventually.
What good is it when the fundamental principes arising from those assumptions are constantly being eroded? It appears some american states restrict even the bearing of arms now. If the founders of the USA were to resurrect today, I wonder what they would think about the nation they created.
> If the founders of the USA were to resurrect today, I wonder what they would think about the nation they created.
I don't understand the fetishisation of the US "founding fathers". What does it matter what a bunch of people who lived 200 years ago thought and wanted and how they would feel about today's version of that? Considering some of the things that were normal in their time, like slavery, the subservient role of women in society, power only in the aristocracy or rich people ( even the "bastion of democracy" US wasn't a popular democracy where everyone had a vote until after WWI), segregation, etc. of course they'd disagree. And so would Louis XVI, Franz Josef, Queen Victoria, Hitler, etc.. so what?
Who cares what those people would theoretically think and why?
The US system is superior to China because we have checks and balances that actually: 1) uncover this stuff, 2) share it with the public, 3) have a system to provide feedback, 4) courts to uphold rights.
The US system isn't perfect and it isn't always fast, but the point is there is a system of checks and balances that hopefully bring it back to what the people intend it to be.