If the PRC were merely snooping, and not actively attacking, that equivalence would work.
I was also under the impression that this is already in violation of treaty, the only saving grace for the PRC being that it hasn't been proven it's them.
I was also under the impression that this is already in violation of treaty, the only saving grace for the PRC being that it hasn't been proven it's them.
Remotely transmitted malware.
Hardware caught in transit and infected by malware.
Firmware infected with malware at factories.
Bricked backbone routers, causing widespread outage during civil war.
Hacked phone companies.
Stuxnet, a computer worm designed to sabotage industrial centrifuges.
A $6 billion trade contract being manipulated in favor of Boeing.
A $1.3 billion contract trade contract being manipulated in favor of American defense contractor Raytheon.
Weakening products and standards that Internet users.
Should I continue? The list goes on and on and on as more leaks are reported on. Using that definition of snooping, we can just call PRC action snooping too.
For data acquisition (snooping).
> Hardware caught in transit and infected by malware.
For... hmm... backdoors to data? (Laptops with Stuxnet covered below)
> Firmware infected with malware at factories.
For, yes, transmission snooping. The PRC has also altered routers and other computerized electronics, including those intended for use by militaries in various Western countries.
> Bricked backbone routers, causing widespread outage during civil war.
Yes, by accident [1] while attempting to surveil (snoop). Not sure if disabling Syria's internet is worse or better than China's DNS poisoning which affected everyone... by accident.
> Hacked phone companies.
For what purpose, I wonder?
> Stuxnet, a computer worm designed to sabotage industrial centrifuges.
A. Not done over the internet, done by sneakernet. B. Nuclear reactor facilities in Iran are really not the same as GitHub.
> A $6 billion trade contract being manipulated in favor of Boeing.
That's nefarious, I'll agree... except, the NSA just blew the whistle on Airbus who was bribing Saudi officials. The information was indeed gained from--wait for it--snooping. [2]
> ...Raytheon
Same deal there... The CIA was the whistle blower against the French competition. [3]
> Weakening products and standards that Internet users.[sic]
LOL.
Of the two actions you do cite that aren't surveillance, one has nothing to do with the internet and the other was for the purpose of surveillance. So no, the U.S. government's surveillance program is not the same as the PRC performing a DDoS attack on Github.
[1] http://gizmodo.com/snowden-the-nsa-turned-off-syrias-internet-1621068611
[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/820758.stm
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#cite_note-60Backdoors has a lovely side effect, in that they are backdoors. They can be used to take control over devices, as in. That they can also be used for data transfer is a side effect of the active attack called "implanting an backdoor".
But okey, if all those are just snooping and not active attacks, let just assume that PRC gained the information to attack github by snooping. DONE. It is now just snooping as per your definition.
> A DDOS attack on github.
>> except, the PRC just used information, information which was indeed gained from--wait for it--snooping!
In computer security, we have terms to distinguish this. Its called passive and active attacks. PRC and NSA both perform active attacks on other nations infrastructure, businesses, governments and military. The purpose: To gain political, economic and military benefits.