Unless you're a democratic activist: http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2011/eap/187483.htm (Section 2(a)). (" Democratic activists claimed central government authorities closely monitored their e-mails and Internet use. In a Netizens Power survey, 33 percent of users of Golden Forum, a popular local Internet community forum, said they had some of their online posts deleted over the past year and almost half indicated this was because their posted content was 'too politically sensitive.'")

Also, the system they have in place for surveillance of telecommunications seems exactly the same as the one the U.S. does: "The use of covert surveillance and the interception of telecommunications and postal communications can be granted only to prevent or detect 'serious crime' or protect 'public security.' The law establishes a two-tiered system for granting approval for surveillance activities, under which surveillance of a more intrusive nature requires the approval of a judge, and surveillance of a less intrusive nature requires the approval of a senior law-enforcement official." (Section 1(f)).

Indeed, the U.S. system is a bit more stringent, because "surveillance of a less intrusive nature" requires a law-enforcement official to get a FISA warrant (from a court that isn't an Article III court but is composed of Article III judges).