I don't understand how it's relevant to point out that US government actions are illegal. The fact is that it's really happening, so in point of fact, the US is not categorically different from China. The difference, if any, is solely one of degree.
It being illegal is relevant because it is at least considered wrong to do. The degree of difference in what is considered acceptable (and also what is happening) between the two is so staggeringly different it isn't even comparable.
I will continue to disagree, until you can show me that someone is being punished for the illegal actions, and that further steps are being taken to prevent such transgressions in the future.
Today in America it is de facto legal for law enforcement to do this stuff. The fact that a piece of paper somewhere might say otherwise has no bearing on what's actually happening.
> The National Security Agency (NSA) has formally recommended that the White House drop the phone surveillance program that collects information about millions of US phone calls and text messages. The Wall Street Journal reports that people familiar with the matter say the logistical and legal burdens of maintaining the program outweigh any intelligence benefits it brings.
But I'm still very certain that I trust China's approach to data privacy a little less, since they currently do all of the following to happen, without suspicion of a crime:
* mass collection of blood and hair DNA samples for citizens living in minority regions
* literal government occupation of people's homes to take photos and collect information
* installing government cameras inside of peoples homes
* using that information to track, detain, and send ~1 million minorities to re-education camps without being charged or accused of a crime... where they are subjected to forced sterilization and torture.
The institutional attitudes to privacy are simply not comparable to the US. US authorities are not nonchalant enough about privacy that they think anything close to that that is remotely acceptable in the US.
You do make some good points there, but ultimately I don't buy it. The key thing is your citation of punishments for cops who "misused databases".
This isn't actually what's at issue here. The existence of law enforcement databases is a very different thing than the facility for spying on communications. And I still see no evidence that anyone has been punished for that, or that any active measures have been taken to protect abuses of those programs.
