It's interesting that this is one area of technology where no one wants to say that they are the best. Discussions about the moral high ground on one side or the other are ultimately not all that relevant, especially since this is much more than a two-horse race. Spying and gathering intelligence is a fact of life on every level. Individual people do it, companies do it, and nation-states do it. When individuals or companies do it they are subject to being held accountable to laws that can punish them. Nation-states may or may not regulate their own activities in this area. Often they claim exceptions to those laws or try to cover up what they are doing. When they are caught doing that other nation-states may try to make them change their behavior. Sooner or later they negotiate expectations as to what is and isn't acceptable behavior. If they can get there without shooting at each other then all the better.
I have little doubt that the Chinese are spying big time, but the pot can't be calling the kettle black. When the NSA uses criteria such as allowing itself to monitor communications three times removed from some "person of interest," surely everyone must know that this will cover just about 100 percent of US citizens. And that particular criterion only applies to spying on US citizens!
The most cogent counter-argument I've heard from our own spying efforts is that we aren't targeting companies, for our financial benefit. Well, good for us. At the same time, let's not get too self-righteous about this. It sounds hypocritical.
This is a professional forum with a focus on technical discussion. I am surprised that such a propaganda article was placed in the front page.
U.S government never hesitate to hack foreign companies, both in Asia and Europe, as admitted by the NYT:
"The National Security Agency has never said what it was seeking when it invaded the computers of Petrobras, Brazil's huge national oil company, but angry Brazilians have guesses: the company's troves of data on Brazil's offshore oil reserves, or perhaps its plans for allocating licenses for exploration to foreign companies."
"The agency's (NSA) interest in Huawei, the giant Chinese maker of Internet switching equipment, and Pacnet, the Hong Kong-based operator of undersea fiber optic cables, is more obvious: Once inside those companies' proprietary technology, the N.S.A. would have access to millions of daily conversations and emails that never touch American shores."
"the government does not deny it routinely spies to advance American economic advantage, which is part of its broad definition of how it protects American national security. "
Also, keep in mind that U.S government is not only hacking companies in China and Brazil, but also constantly hacking its allies, including the government network of various EU countries, and tapping the personal phone of German Chancellor and French President ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2474635/German-fury-US-deny-Merkel-phone-hacking.html ). All I see are some shameless hypocritical americans, trying to claim moral high ground when there is no moral high ground for them to claim.
I am not sure if China is world's leading cyberspy, but americans are definitely leading in hypocrisy and double standard.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.