> I don't think a minute of googling will give you a full picture of the situation

Nobody claimed it does. I explicitly said "tip of the iceberg". For future reference, what you're using here is called a straw man argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

> I wonder if supposedly no reliable source from china then how does one reliably assess the authenticity out of China?

If you are in China, you will not hear anything about it from the authorities (who are acting unlawfully), from the media (which are not free) or even online (unless you go out of your way to get around the Great Firewall and access foreign news). The only way you will hear about any of this is if you, your family or close friends are subject to it. And only close relatives of a publicly known dissident are likely to be targeted. Do you know any such person? If not, there is no reason at all to expect to have ever heard about such things in China.

Outside of China, on the other hand, dissidents are free to speak out, the press is free to report what they say, and they are harder for Chinese authorities to silence. Harassing their families back home is then an obvious way to put pressure on them when personal intimidation doesn't suffice.

And that's why you are far more likely to hear about this outside of China than inside of it.

> It is very naive to ignore the obvious bias + conflict of interst(For whatever injust big or small no doubt and the interest of foreign press).

Are you seriously suggesting that these stories are made up by the press? That would work in China, where the media are all under control of the CCP, but not in the West. If the Wall Street Journal made up a story, the Washington Post would have a field tearing it to pieces; if the New York Times slipped, Fox News would be at its throat. And so on.

> the chances are in the end most are lack of evidence

"The chances"? Did you actually look at any of it?

> and later when it was debunked in China it won't be covered in UK/US press

Do you have any concrete example of such a "debunking"? Or do you simply mean denial?

> So I actually believe that my close friends working in the system can provide much more insight, despite I have never been subject to any of the suspected situation.

In other words, you are close friends with members of the Chinese police and/or judiciary, which is entirely controlled by the CCP, and you don't know any dissidents. Your views are thus entirely predictable.

> So respectfully I doubt the law in national security can force every citzen to oblige spying duty

That's not what I responded to; I provided examples of Chinese police harassing the families of dissidents (see "straw man" above).

But if you insist, the discussion about China's national security law centers on Article 7, i.e. the part which says

All organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Law_of_t...

That certainly seems to imply that Chinese citizens and organizations must hand over any information they may have on request from China's intelligence agencies, and was a strong argument for excluding Chinese equipment providers from information infrastructure, as seen e.g. here

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/05/huawei-would-have-to-give-da...