Comment by aksss

It's very true that both citizens' experience with their legal system changes drastically when state interests and national security are implicated. Like China, western legal systems recognize national security and public order as compelling state interests.

The difference is that an individual in China is far more likely to find themselves at an intersection of state and political interest with their individual activity (be it art, speech, action, association, religion, property) than one would find in the west. In China, the NSL structurally defines political security and cultural and social order as being within the national security framework. That's intentional and sits in contrast with the western tradition where the state generally needs to justify restrictions on protected individual conduct with a claim of state interest, and those claims are frequently subjected to an adversarial review process.

As you say, technology has already made surveillance far more intrusive and effective than anything available in the 20th century. Of course, the effect of the Stasi wasn't simply the surveillance, it was the uncertainty of never knowing if your colleagues, neighbors, or even family could be personally trusted - that environment of uncertainty was an intentional social control element. In a similar but not identical way, uncertainty is leveraged in the Chinese legal system: one may not necessarily know when their activity (or even past activities) have suddenly fallen on the wrong side of the national security line. This variability is not a bug in the system but a deliberate feature, and stands in contrast with the western legal systems.

Once entangled, there are bright line differences in the structure of those systems - opportunities to appeal are far fewer in China as a foundational difference, but opportunities to challenge the basis of the laws themselves and the justification for a claimed state interest essentially border on being non-existent. In contrast, individuals or classes of individuals bringing facial or as-applied challenges to overturn regulation or a claim of compelling state-interest is a frequent occurrence in US (for instance).

If we consider it a given that the state naturally seeks greater control of individuals (and I do), then the western legal system and particularly the US legal system, has been uniquely effective at constraining the state. In China, for example, it's not even a consideration that CCP leadership can be curtained through administrative proceedings.

But there's no arguing that in the US, if the stakes are high enough, they'll "get their man". On the flip side, the surveillance of the state itself by the citizens has also restricted the ability of the government to act with as much impunity as they did, say, sixty years ago. Specifically, policy body cams, ubiquitous cell phone video, one-party consent laws, legal clarity on recording public officials in public spaces, FOIA laws, etc. Nonetheless, it's disturbing and frustrating how inscrutable some very public events remain.