Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't American constitution apply only to US' citizens? Even in the ideal case, were it to perfectly protect Americans from three-letter agencies' weaseling, it offers absolutely zero guarantees for non-citizens, which is 95% of world population or so. Americans could pressure USG to stop spying on foreigners, but why would they? I don't see any incentive for an average John Doe to do so.

So, overall, there's not that much of a difference for most of the world. One might even argue that for outsiders Chinese relatively stable direction and autocracy is marginally better than American flipping every 8 years, since it allows you to better assess threat profile.

Edit: added a bit about assessing threat.

It's corporations have rights to and if they want to have a global reputation, fighting for users' privacy makes business sense. Or at least so I would hope.

US laws are pretty clear in that foreigners (AKA non-citizens) don't have those rights their Constitution give to their people, so, again, what changes?

The Constitution calls out 2 groups of people: "Citizens", which it uses when referring to voting rights and who can run for office, and "People", which refers to everyone, citizen or not, within the jurisdiction of the US.

> which refers to everyone, citizen or not, within the jurisdiction of the US.

Only a tiny percentage of non-Americans are within the jurisdiction of the US. This means that the vast majority of them are not protected by the constitution - which was the parent's point.