Why western governments cry foul while doing the same by Thanos Kalamidas

In recent years, Western governments have raised alarms about Chinese technology companies, accusing them of collecting private data on behalf of the Chinese government. From TikTok to the AI-powered search engine DeepSeek, the narrative remains the same: these platforms pose a national security risk because they could potentially hand over user data to Beijing.

But what these same governments fail to mention is that their own tech giants including Meta, X (formerly Twitter), Microsoft, OpenAI, and Google, engage in similar data collection practices, often in close collaboration with Western governments and intelligence agencies. The hypocrisy is staggering, and recent developments, such as the British government demanding access to Apple’s iCloud, only reinforce this double standard.

Western authorities have repeatedly targeted Chinese tech firms, citing concerns about data security. TikTok has faced bans and restrictions in multiple countries, including the U.S. and the UK, on the grounds that it could potentially share user data with the Chinese Communist Party. Now, the spotlight has shifted to DeepSeek, an AI platform accused of being a vehicle for Beijing’s surveillance ambitions.

The fear-mongering follows a familiar pattern: accusations of mass data collection, national security risks, and the potential for foreign influence. However, what’s rarely acknowledged is that there is no clear public evidence proving these claims. While China’s cybersecurity laws do require companies to comply with government data requests, this is no different from the legal frameworks in the U.S., UK, or Europe.

On the other hand, Western companies have a long history of working hand in hand with intelligence agencies to monitor user data. Revelations from whistleblowers like Edward Snowden have exposed how American tech companies, including Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook, were deeply involved in the National Security Agency’s (NSA) PRISM surveillance program. PRISM allowed the NSA direct access to user data, including emails, messages, and cloud storage.

Moreover, recent reports indicate that governments in the West continue to exert pressure on tech firms to grant them unrestricted access to private information. The UK government’s push to access Apple’s iCloud, a demand that could potentially compromise every user’s private data, serves as a glaring example of this double standard. The British government, along with U.S. and European counterparts, argues for "national security" while condemning China for similar practices.

While Western governments criticize China for its alleged control over tech companies, they pass their own invasive laws to ensure access to digital communications. In the United States, the CLOUD Act (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act) enables the government to demand data from tech companies regardless of where it is stored. The UK’s Investigatory Powers Act (often dubbed the "Snooper’s Charter") allows authorities to intercept and store internet traffic and communications data on an unprecedented scale.

The European Union, despite its championing of data privacy through GDPR, has also faced scrutiny over its surveillance laws. France, Germany, and other EU nations have pressured tech companies to weaken encryption and provide backdoor access to government agencies. The idea that Western democracies uphold stronger privacy protections than China becomes difficult to defend in light of these realities.

It is evident that concerns about data privacy are selectively applied as a tool of geopolitical strategy rather than genuine consumer protection. By painting Chinese tech firms as national security threats, Western governments create justification for banning competition while shielding their own corporations from scrutiny.

At the same time, the argument that Chinese firms are uniquely dangerous ignores the simple fact that all major tech companies, regardless of their country of origin, operate under government oversight. Whether it’s Beijing, Washington, or London, governments demand access to data under the pretence of security.

If Western policymakers truly cared about data privacy, they would hold their own tech giants to the same standards they demand of Chinese firms. Instead of banning TikTok or DeepSeek while allowing Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI to continue their mass data collection without scrutiny, they should push for stronger privacy protections for all users regardless of which government seeks access.

The real issue is not whether Chinese or American companies collect data, it’s that all major tech firms do, and governments on both sides of the geopolitical divide exploit that data for their own interests. Until we acknowledge that reality, discussions around privacy and security will remain nothing more than a political smokescreen.