TikTok Inc. vs. U.S. Department of Commerce
courtlistener.com
courtlistener.com
The thing is though, the unit members are also still your employees with access to internal information. Since they serve two masters, the company can be tempted to elevate their status internally to improve how they represent the CCP on the other side. And the opposite can happen - employees can be hired with high CCP ranks so that when they join the unit their influence for the company will be stronger.
"One senior executive whose company was represented at the meeting told Reuters some companies were under “political pressure” to revise the terms of their joint ventures with state-owned partners to allow the party final say over business operations and investment decisions."
Information on how this actually works is scarce since relative to the US there is much weaker rule of law/discovery, and fewer independent journalists, considering how tightly China controls and polices which journalists are allowed in and what they write about.
"Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party organization, a rule that had long been regarded by many executives as more symbolic than anything to worry about."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-congress-companies-...
EDIT: oh that's the flag of the Chinese communist party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Communist_Party
For some reason I expected that they would just use the Chinese flag itself, since there's no plurality.
The woman in red on our right also doesn't seem to be holding it. It's perhaps a cardboard sign or something? Maybe the picture of the flag was put over it?
Again, I'm no expert but it looks off to me.
[1] from https://www.jenniferzengblog.com/home/2020/8/5/bytedance-hea..., which also has archive links for the page in question and additional circumstantial evidence.
fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=ffaac5beff95e49e8bd59097ac36afb61e83086c.59039&show=ela
When it's Facebook which is subject to scrutiny of many major democratic governments and press, we gives it no slack.
Ironic and funny.
We are not giving a slack to a company that supports a totalitarian regime, if you see this as support, you can say that Apple is supporting Chinese totalitarian regime too.
sure, I'm ok with that
And Tiktok, despite their US arm being a US company, essentially is facing the execution of their business at the hands of the US government unless they do a fire sale under duress.
If you read the suit, in this instance, it appears TikTok claims it is indeed a U.S. company, and thereby protected by the Constitution, safeguarded by due process, and not immediately subject to IEEPA or CFIUS actions.
I personally think they are no where near being a U.S. company, but that is a crux of their argument and we will see if the judge clarifies their position.
This, honestly, is the correct approach. For example, it's hard to see otherwise why the NBA is banning anyone affiliated with them from supporting Hong Kong.
2. On the contrary, it is very easy to see why the NBA is cautious. The Chinese care about it and so the NBA does not want to spark any more controversy. Can you explain how this isn't just common sense re: operating in a foreign country? Are international companies operating in the US "compromised" if they don't comment on US affairs?
Various fans have been banned - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/skbaer/hong-kong-nba-fa...
Daryl Morey (disputed) - https://qz.com/1730643/china-asked-nba-to-fire-daryl-morey-f...
There was also Adrian Wojnarowski but I'm not sure about counting that because there were other factors in play. There may be others that I have missed.
> Can you explain how this isn't just common sense re: operating in a foreign country?
The fact that China makes it in their financial interests to restrict people on being able to comment on matters of international importance is exactly the problem, because this is a classic chilling effect. And, as pointed out, given our lax privacy laws, now China has all of the info they do. Given that they're happy to roll out, e.g. facial recognition and social credit scores, this isn't something to be happy about.
China is a beautiful country with many wonderful people. But I doubt I'll ever visit it as long as I could end up locked up for an old internet comment, like say, this one.
> Are international companies operating in the US "compromised" if they don't comment on US affairs?
You'll find no shortage of criticism of the US government from foreign companies and their workers in private capacity. To make this comparable, imagine if we had CFIUS rules whereby nobody operating in a foreign-owned company (including yours truly, a US citizen) could criticize, say, Trump or any other part of the government without risking their ability to do business.
I don't think anyone would say that it's "common sense" that I can't criticize Trump or the US government while working for a foreign-owned company subject to CFIUS rules, would you?
I think there would, rightfully, be a backlash if Trump tried to change these rules and the companies were put under a chilling effect. So I don't see why Xi should get a pass for that.
> You'll find no shortage of criticism of the US government from foreign companies and their workers in private capacity.
Aren't we talking about a public capacity?
I don't think it's fair to say there is no chilling effect in the US currently. I'd expect some severe US backlash if some foreign company was very publicly opinionated about gun control. There is an implicit understanding that certain topics are taboo. Does it really matter whether this effect arises from the local population or the local government?
edit: I don't even agree with the people/government distinction in this case. The Chinese people largely support their government's stance against HK.
With regard to fans, I haven't seen other political slogans restricted in any comparable way. The NBA, for example, is very happy to say that Black Lives Matter and I've never heard of anyone getting kicked out a ballgame for wearing, say, a MAGA hat despite both slogans causing some very strong political sentiments. So the fact that HK is somehow more of a concern to the NBA than these hot-button American issues seems like something that demands an explanation.
> Aren't we talking about a public capacity?
I think bans can be troublesome in either capacity, honestly, but I'm more disturbed by restrictions that hit people in their private capacity, even if either realm can create a chilling effect.
> I'd expect some severe US backlash if some foreign company was very publicly opinionated about gun control.
For the record, that has actually happened (I think it was MasterCard restricting certain gun sales & some sporting goods stores dropping guns, e.g. Dicks), but it wasn't government-driven and there was backlash. That's a wholly separate issue and may touch on monopoly concerns. I think some of it got shot down due to running afoul of banking regulations, but I don't know the precise details.
> if they don't comment on US affairs?
should be:
> If they ban their associates from commenting on US affairs
Moreover, i would not be able to enter an arena with a MAGA, Trump, or a Biden poster (altough there was one incident with someone with a MAGA hat), so to imply that these one off incidents are actions that are due to the extensions of the CCP is very much in line with the propagandic rallying cry that we are seeing against China right now.
I agree with OP, this is much more of a financial issue to the NBA, than the NBA being an extension of the CCP which you are trying to imply right now.
The barrier to move HQs and the like is so insanely low for large corporations that companies will gladly do it for even the most marginal tax benefits - a company might even consider hosting a "beauty contest" where they try to get cities to outbid each other in a sick game that deprives everyone of their tax revenue. Of course such an act (both on the company's side, and on the side of cities who decide to participate) is a clear signal of moral bankruptcy - but that's no surprise since America considers cheating other people to be the greatest virtue.
So why is so much tech stuck on the west coast then?
If it were that simple they'd have all moved (moved their operations and headcount) to lower tax areas by now.
This applies only to actual goods value (and doesn't look at capturing out-of-band transactions like online orders of virtual goods) but it's a really dead simple and easy to enforce law that'd kill a lot of tax dodging dead.
The real issue isn't that it's hard to tax these companies - it's that there isn't a significant political will in taxing these companies.
1. A voluntary international accord (that could be broken by any dissenting voices)
2. A single country setting the rules for corporate residency and enforcing them (i.e. the unilateral we don't need no diplomacy approach).
Instead I think the whole idea of primary residence for corporations is utterly unenforceable - I think what countries need to start doing is levying appropriate VAT taxes on added value to companies and possibly force all domestic activity to be executed by domestic labour only. I think, if we actually fixed the loopholes around international tax dodging, we'd be in a position where countries would be quite aware of how much value they have over a given company (i.e. Apple might derive 60% of their value from the US) and then use that proportionality to leverage political pressure on companies as needed.
And, just to clarify, this is essentially the road the CCP has taken and precisely why they seem to have such an outsized amount of control over companies - every country other than China is voluntarily declining to flex their muscles.
The western concepts of 'trust' by default does not apply in a nation that is inherently, even internally for domestic affairs, is primarily based on the distrustful corporate affairs.
I've audited about 200 suppliers in China in last 10 years, it is a repeating motif to 'distrust by default' from small to large companies. Yes, they're not big corporations but the idea that we should treat Chinese companies and German companies in identical trust-worthy fashion, especially when it comes to engagement with the CCP, is an extremely deluded, out-of-touch and misinformed stance.
So often I tell people something and they say “source” and I tell them why a source is not possible or spell out the exact limitations in data collection and then downvoted to oblivion with a pile-on of why this worldview is irrelevant
This is not a feature of these kind of websites, it is absolutely a flaw
I would say most of the world is not google-able, if you are doing anything of consequence that affects others politically or financially or legally.
The comment you’re replying to links to a news article from Reuters that is apparently based on discussions with company officials. That’s probably as good as we are going to get.
By at least pretending it is valid and understanding that the reasons a source can't be provided is completely rational and having a discussion on that worldview instead of arguing flaws. This is a chronic issue on the internet: arguing flaws for no reason.
But saying you don't remember is a fair response, too.
Link found via Google: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwic...
No, I don’t have a source.
For example, Jigsaw is GOOG's geopolitical "think/do tank". Jigsaw CEO Jared Cohen is a Bush-era State Dept alum and current Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow. Jigsaw Director of Policy Scott Carpenter is currently on the board of the infamous National Endowment for Democracy. The NED in turn uses federal resources to back regime-change efforts in foreign countries, primarily through public media campaigns.
These are but two "Wikipedia-tier" examples and should be deeply concerning to those who purport to care about this issue from a libertarian values perspective as opposed to one of vindictive geopolitical poop-flinging.
As an example, we let the guilty go because of lack of evidence, where authoritarian regimes don't.
After 9/11, there was a lot of reporting about the NYPD and others profiling Muslims without any reason.
As someone from Europe, it seems to me like the U.S. "exports democracy" all around the world, with often terrible results, without ever stopping to examine whether its own is still holding and if it really can be held as an example for the world to emulate.
You don't punish an entity simply for where their founders were born. Not in a democracy anyway. If there's credible evidence to suggest TikTok is doing something nefarious, we can have a discussion, but until then it should not be banned.
You don't start torturing, just because you want someone to be able to blame and fast. You don't block markets to someone because someone else on the same land mass pissed you off.
It may seem "unfair" because the CCP has blocked many Western platforms, but you don't have values unless you're willing to uphold them in the most difficult of situations.
Extreme take of your stance would be to say that we should hold to a higher standards and not strike back if an enemy attacks us because we are peaceful. We should strive to be peaceful, but when time comes, the response should be appropriate to the threat posed.
China should be excluded from the WTO if they don’t want to play a fair game with others.
I admire your righteousness though.
I think the distinction between "Capitalism" as a philosophy and "US Capitalism" (ie economic ties to the US) is being confused here.
So would Kissinger, I would bet.
I mean, that's one theory. Here's Eric Posner:
http://volokh.com/2009/11/18/why-has-holder-decided-to-try-k...
> the Obama administration has decided to offer a two-tiered system of justice. We might call them the “high-quality” (civilian) tier and “low-quality” (military) tier. The high-quality approach offers greater accuracy; the low-quality approach offers less accuracy. The Obama administration will use the high-quality system against people when it has a strong case, and the low-quality system against people when it has a weak case.
> This approach makes sense. Endless detention without trial is no longer a politically viable option. The government will make a judgment as to whether a suspect is dangerous or not. If the case is good, the high-quality system will be used. If the case is bad, the low-quality system will be used. In this way, the government can ensure that people it thinks are dangerous will be locked up.
> This system is superior to the two possible one-tier systems. A pure low-quality system (military commissions only) suffers from credibility problems. People will not believe that all the people who are convicted are guilty. A pure high-quality system (civilian courts only) would result in too many acquittals. People who the government believes are dangerous will be back on the streets. The two-tiered system allows for credible convictions when credible convictions are possible, and (non-credible) convictions when credible convictions are not possible.
----------
Personally, I don't see how a system of "we'll try you according to the maximum standard of evidence by which we can 100% guarantee that we find you guilty" can be considered "credible", "reasonable", or really anything other than a "gross miscarriage of justice", but let's not just ignore what other people think.
I'm not sure why this would override prudence.
> If there's credible evidence to suggest TikTok is doing something nefarious, we can have a discussion, but until then it should not be banned.
Why wouldn't a nation mitigate risk? Countries compete and work together, but there is a pattern to US and Chinese sanctioned actions. Ignoring the history in the interest of a manufactured principle is foolish.
A lot of your examples (ie "you don't") do happen all the time all over the world and have throughout history. Shockingly enough, these acts are effective motivators and solutions to underlying problems, in many circumstances. Pretending that they are useless or counterproductive is probably accurate, for some circumstances as well. Not sure why that matters, other than to muddy the conversation.
I think this has more to do with our ignorance of how their system works than China having a truly ruleless society. Even the Mafia has rules governing their behavior despite not being a democratic organization.
> "Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party organization, a rule that had long been regarded by many executives as more symbolic than anything to worry about."
I think after the Snowden leaks we’ve been shown to have similar opaque government compelling private company scenarios. There are also the opaque national security letters. After 9/11 we traded a lot of our freedom for security in much the same way “communist” regimes like China operate. At this point we practice most of the same things, which is probably why we know that China does what we do (perhaps even more).
> I think this has more to do with our ignorance of how their system works than China having a truly ruleless society. Even the Mafia has rules governing their behavior
I'd have to agree, "rule of law" is one of those concepts that people are happy to agree is VERY IMPORTANT without worrying about whether they agree on what it means.
Citizens in a democracy have rights, but they also have a responsibility to try to understand their system of government and the evil forces they contend with.
If the US wants to ban TikTok (maybe it is in fact in our interest to do so, although I personally disagree), there is a due process. Just like Trump has the legal right to end DACA, the courts have upheld that there is a proper way to do that, and it doesn’t involve being capricious: https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/829858289/supreme-court-uphol...
There is lots of good coverage of China available in the West, and for folks who are interested, here’s a recent article to start with: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwic...
Legal Eagle has a good explainer on this: [video warning] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnjhHPU-uRw
Still, I don’t know if wild threats out of the blue after a 2 year CFIUS investigation counts as due process. Just because power is delegated to the executive doesn’t mean the executive can wield that power with impunity, see recent Supreme Court decisions.
The legal eagle video does raise additional concerns that aren’t being covered here, like first amendment issues. The timing makes it seem like concerns about TikTok are more about anti-Trump content than actual national security concern.
The Legal Eagle video is also very clear that the IEEPA explicitly restricts power over telecommunications platforms, which clearly seems to apply to TikTok. (17 minutes in)
Watching that video makes me think TikTok has an even stronger case than is being widely reported.
Before talks of a ban there were discussions about the TikTok app possibly uploading users’ random smartphone gallery content (photos, videos).. That’s technically possible. I don’t know how the government would enforce the app not to have this sort of behaviour.
In other news, blacks choose not to be slaves to white masters.
Like, if one were to tell a tale of some non-mainstream Christian commune which gave free healthcare to neighboring cities and then one day one of the commune members went to a hospital in a neighboring city and they charged that member a massive hospital bill, that would similarly not generate that feeling of irony.
I don’t mean to say that the US is a tremendous beacon of light in all respects, but we do have this principle that everyone can have their day in court and in some respects that is one wavelength of light which we are a beacon of, and it is not terribly surprising that we cast this light out to a world which does not cast it back to us. (As you might see, in other respects I think that ‘beacon’ is quite problematic. None of my Dutch relatives are looking over at the US and saying ‘you know what the Netherlands needs? More lawsuits!’ But it does give a certain access to structures of power which in China one is often impotent to actually access.)
It is not even a remotely similar situation.
Control over the Xinjiang/Uyghur narrative is paramount in the "New Cold War" declared against China by Pompeo this July, so Facebook's actions are not surprising.
- If you wish to do business in a country you must follow their laws.
- The laws of a country are unjust, oppressive and the government that enacted them is corrupt.
> The laws of a country are unjust, oppressive and the government that enacted them is corrupt.
The laws of a country could be completely just and unoppressive, but it doesn't really matter unless the judiciary has the will and power to use them in the people's best interest.
Bytedance can comply to US’ requirement of untying CCP. but a simple google search tells the truth
https://www.google.com/search?q=%E5%AD%97%E8%8A%82%E8%B7%B3%...
As a Chinese, I want someone be tough on The new Hitler, I don’t care if Volkswagen is caught in the middle.
> Day after day, night after night, he went from one Jewish house to the next, telling his story and that of Malka, the young girl who lay dying for three days, and that of Tobie, the tailor who begged to die before his sons were killed.
> Moishe was not the same. The joy in his eyes was gone. He no longer sang. He no longer mentioned either God or Kabbalah. He spoke only of what he had seen. But people not only refused to believe his tales, they refused to listen. Some even insinuated that he only wanted their pity, that he was imagining things. Others flatly said that he had gone mad.
Is it impossible for history to repeat itself with a new Hitler? If not, how could we recognize him (/her)?
Would it take place in: A) American justice system, or in B) Chinese justice system?
The answer is: B) Facebook would have to sue the Chinese in China, in the Chinese jurisdiction subject to Chinese law. And under Chinese law, it is legal for China to block Facebook, therefore there is nothing for Facebook to do there.
Now... TikTok vs the US is a different case. That would take place in American jurisdiction where TikTok may actually have legal path to make this go away.
American corporations themselves are also a national security threat. Tax evasion, lobbying, etc.
TikTok is an excellent app with great content and an algorithm that works like magic based on your revealed (not stated) preferences. I hope the Microsoft deal comes through without the government demanding a cut.
Edit: According to the company themselves, it was their largest overseas market with a userbase of 200 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Eu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_states_and_unio...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/07/04/tiktok-lo...
Of course it would. The Supreme Court can "invalidate laws, acts and governmental actions that are incompatible with" the Constitution [1][2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_...
It could be "challenged" but it would be dismissed rapidly, because of ample precedent, and the Supreme Court would almost assuredly refuse to take the case.
As for preventing the American subsidiary to be owned by the current owners, Congress has the power to personally sanction foreign individuals.
Alternatively, Congress would have the power to nationalize (in exchange for a fair market price) the American subsidiary of TikTok and then sell it, legally.
Jurisprudence is that Congress can indeed do this, as it has been done and defended many times. As for the executive, that's much dicier.
https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/document...
India, used as the example, has a very flawed democracy and a high degree of corruption.
EDIT: LOL, downvoted to oblivion by the HN India contingent. As provided elsewhere, India's democratic and corruption rankings are mediocre.
How come?
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi
India is no benchmark. There are far worse countries, but if someone cites India's actions as an example, it falls flat.
I went through the list. India is ranked around 50.
If you ignore all the cute european countries like Finland, Denmark, Liechtenstein etc from the top, which doesn't even qualify as a big city in India, I would say India is doing pretty good for a country where 1/6 population of the world live.
Sure, India is by far the most democratic country of its own size or larger.
But that literally just means “not as bad as China”. It's kind of like if the Republic of Korea (which could support stronger claims, to be sure) was said to be “pretty good for a country located on the Korean peninsula”—it is true, but doesn't say a lot.
It's possible that one of the things it says is that democracy (at least the values measured by the index) is not scale independent, and more specifically democratic values are inherently incompatible with large states. I don't think the second part is actually true, at least with current technology and at the scales involved, but that seems to be the “defense” of India here.
I replied to someone saying "ha ha isn't that weird they can contest it in the US look countries like India just went ahead and banned it and there's no recourse". Great. Other countries can talk about it, go through a legislative process (in Japan lawmakers aren't even going to start talking about their possible options until September), then there are legal challenges and normal processes to go through, etc.
The difference is where the corruption happens (lobbying for billion dollar contracts, rather than a private citizen slipping a civil servant a few notes to speed along some approval or another). The former type of corruption doesn't get taken into account in any world corruption index, so Americans think they're not corrupt.
I would say this is not weird by any means, it is by intentions, and is indeed how most things go about in US. I will be more surprise to see Trump's EO go without challenges.
If it’s done right we call this checks and balances.
If it’s done wrong we have lots of other names for it.
The US government does not go after a judges family if they make the "wrong" ruling.
I'm pretty sure there are cases of them going after the judicial branch as well, i'll just have to look for it again.
From what I understand it's common for participants in criminal organizations to be victimized by those same organizations, so this apparent contradiction isn't really unusual.
Just because the executive branch of the government says 'tik tok is banned' doesn't mean that it is. You are allowed to challenge the decision in the judicial branch, which is what is happening here.
This is not unusual, and it is also not unusual for the judicial branch to rule against the other branches of government.
a) It violates the rights of millions of American TikTok users.
b) It violates the rights of thousands of Americans employed by TikTok.
c) It violates the rights of American investors in ByteDance
d) It isn't a security threat---the Chinese don't care what teenagers have on their phones.
Hopefully the courts will side with American rights and the rule of law, here.
I think there is an argument that TikTok needs to be divested from Chinese in the long run. That was already the plan. However, that isn't what's happening now.
Rather, Trump just said he would destroy the company in a short amount of time, creating a firesale (possibly to his friend Larry Ellison). This is property destruction, theft, and gangsterism.
Also, there are many teenagers who are employed by the US government who are entrusted with state secrets, whom any foreign intelligence agency would love to surveil. I would guess that TikTok also has users that aren’t teenagers. The potentiality to steal state secrets over social media is not novel. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a32599593...
I think Trump is threatening to eliminate the app from the app store. Anyway, the app can't really function with a transaction ban, because it generates revenue from advertisements.
> Also, there are many teenagers who are employed by the US government who are entrusted with state secrets
Members of the military, some federal employees, and the children of some federal employees (e.g. the children of diplomats, for instance) should be banned from using TikTok, out of an over-abundance of caution. My understanding is that this was already the policy (or at least, parts of it were) before Trump decided to destroy TikTok.
Hard to see that you are making a genuine argument here. I mean, the fact that some teenagers are soldiers (for instance) does not begin to justify a blanket ban on the product.
> In addition, ByteDance on April 25, 2019, signed a strategic cooperation agreement with the Ministry of Public Security's Press and Publicity Bureau (公安部新聞宣傳局) in Beijing. The agreement was billed as "aiming to give full play to the professional technology and platform advantages of Toutiao and Tiktok in big data analysis," strengthen the creation and production of "public security new media works," boost "network influence and online discourse power," and enhance "public security propaganda, guidance, influence, and credibility," among other aspects.
1. Chinese companies are extensions of the state in a way not analagous to anything in the developed world. This creates a valid national security interest in giving Chinese companies access to telecoms (Huawai), personal information (TikTok) and many other areas; and
2. There is no huge market opportunity in China for Western companies so these companies should stop pressuring politicians to look the other way on China (and, arguably in some cases, to kowtow to beijing). The Chinese government will ensure no Western company "wins" against homegrown companies, all the while dangling that carrot of 1B customers and handout out enough crumbs to keep interest.
As for this lawsuit, I'm no lawyer so can't speak to its merit but consider this: trade agreements (WTO/GATT) call for reciprocity. In trade terms, I'd say the US is well within its right to deny access to the US market to Chinese companies in the same way US companies are denied access to the Chinese market.
Enforcement of censorship in China is painted as just obeying local laws. Ok, but what's to stop the US arguing that they require companies operating within its borders not to enable spying on citizens, religious persecution and other human rights violations?
1) China is very developed and developing fast. US companies are also extensions of the state, especially when things like National Security Letters come into play. There’s no transparency or oversight (or constitutional rights) when NSLs are involved. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter Note: there are rules, but rule violations (that we know about) numbered in the thousands a decade ago.
2) Apple is going to lose _a lot_ of current and future customers in China if the WeChat/Tencent ban moved forward, to name just one $2 trillion example.
You’re right about one thing: if we want to go after China, we should be using a principled approach on trade.
It isn't binary, the powers would never be the same even if they sound similar.
What if the US State Department uses PRISM or a related program instead?
And again, it isn't binary. You can't say the USA and China's systems are just as bad, one is much worse than the other even if neither is perfect or even good.
As for FISA court, the government is allowed to destroy the paper trail and the public is not allowed to know the justification, so it might as well not exist.
Also, the NSA spying on US citizens illegally and covertly without a warrant is worse than a public Chinese courts, undeniably.
No, you are just incorrect here. You can’t really compare a country that doesn’t even subscribe to the ideal of rule of law as being somehow equivalent to one that does and has actual enshrined rights and an independent judiciary to back them up. Yes, the USA could be a lot better, but it doesn’t have much in common with a characteristically illiberal system.
Yup, restricted as in asking multiple companies to give away almost all of their data. A ton of restraint, limiting yourself to the very minimum of data, such as oh I don't know the entirety of phone call logs for every single user? That makes it functionally as bad as China.
As for PRISM, I think you missed the mark almost entirely. Glenn Greenwald, after contact with Snowden, gave a description that goes something like this :
"Also according to The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald even low-level NSA analysts are allowed to search and listen to the communications of Americans and other people without court approval and supervision. Greenwald said low level Analysts can, via systems like PRISM, "listen to whatever emails they want, whatever telephone calls, browsing histories, Microsoft Word documents.[30] And it's all done with no need to go to a court, with no need to even get supervisor approval on the part of the analyst"
Does that seem like a system that takes and stores photographs of passports? This is literally the #1 Google result for PRISM, by the way.
>No, you are just incorrect here. You can’t really compare a country that doesn’t even subscribe to the ideal of rule of law as being somehow equivalent to one that does and has actual enshrined rights and an independent judiciary to back them up. Yes, the USA could be a lot better, but it doesn’t have much in common with a characteristically illiberal system.
Something said very confidently for someone that doesn't know how FISA courts operate or anything about the PRISM program. I don't think "* low-level NSA analysts are allowed to search and listen to the communications of Americans and other people without court approval and supervision*" reflects "enshrined rights and an independent judiciary to back them up". But calling dragnet spying without a warrant characteristically liberal is an interesting take.
All in all, you seem very willing to defend the US Government without having the most basic knowledge of their abuse. It is impossible to evaluate the Chinese vs US practices in reality if you have a stereotypical view of one and an at best theoretical view of the other.
As for the source, you'll find it quite obvious : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#E...