This isn't excusing the behaviour, it's pointing out that "privacy" is not a justification for not using Chinese goods, because American goods have evidence of exactly the same compromise.

I assume it's the Australian Assistance and Access Bill that's being referred to here. It has nothing to do with privacy. It's prime job (which isn't hidden - it's spelt out in the explanatory notes) is to circumvent encryption by accessing the data at the end points, where it isn't encrypted. It must be unencrypted at the end points because humans can't read or listen to encrypted data. https://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/Australian-...

The bill gives several government agencies the legal right to coerce any software company to "assist" them by writing a bug that is invisible to the OS. The "access" part gives them right to coerce a software company to distribute software to any device they target (there is legal oversight on who they can target).

To fill this out with a concrete example, they could compel Google to provide a version of the Android Google Keyboard that records all key strokes and the name of the application it is are sending them to. They can then force Google to install that keyboard via their auto update mechanism. Notice that using an open source program like Signal that securely and correctly encrypts everything, and comes from a trusted source is not a useful defence against this.

Both of these powers are accompanied by an automatic gag mechanism, meaning if Google revealed they were asked to do either of these things someone would go to jail. The provisions in the act for reporting when and where these powers are used, so the voters could have some say are to put it mildly weak.

Although Australia is very clearly a country that operates around "the rule of law", in the end the only difference that has made is we know they are doing it, whereas China could deny they are doing it. In reality, I don't think China tries to deny the Great Firewall of China, or the invasive probes they force citizens to install to support their social credits system.

So yeah in my view OP is quite correct. If there are differences they revolve around how widely these things are deployed, not over whether they exist. I presume my home country, Australia, deploys them a lot less, but they go to a great deal of trouble to ensure there is no way to be sure.