In many cases these were just reasonably ordinary people off gthe street - well one had to read and write it seems and show a little aptitude. But long gone are the days of the old boy networks and the Ian Fleming story book image. This was down to earth nitty gritty stuff carried out by people who could be your next door neighbour - perhaps even a close relative!!
well, these are the grunts. Their main use is logistic support for actual spies (carrying messages, equipment, doing the usual grunt jobs) and low-sensitivity info gathering networks (as they lack the skills to get anything particularly secret on their own). These always existed, and any good 007 always had the help of dozens of these guys.
The scariest bit was the cyber spying stuff and it quoted that China has an army of people who do nothing else but hack into everything even encrypted material.
US have one too, and it's called NSA,
and probably CIA has its own hackers as well. That's normal, they are just a geek version of 007 and have the same general role (looking at what the competitor is doing), but instead of girls they have computers.
They actually showed footage of the latest American stealth fighter and also the almost identical aircraft built in China being flown incredibly just after the F-22 was rolled out
Nothing to worry about. The only resemblance is the looks. Even if they had the blueprints they would lack the technology to build more than the frame of a F22.
The links you provided explain why it's not anywhere near a copy of the F22.
-engines are old soviet designs (AL-31 turbofans), if they cannot even design their own engines...
-avionics are very basic
-no weapons nor sensors nor anything else.
-china R&Ds Soviet-style, preferring field test to rigorous prototype test (which means they will send them sooner to their air force, but will likely have more hidden flaws)
I don't know about anywhere else but law enforcement here is known to be watching paedophiles for example so if they can do that what about the rest of us?
you have any idea of the sheer amount of data they have to move through to find pedos by going right against privacy?
The only realistic ways to get them are traps (either fake sites or agents disguised as innocent girls in chats or files with police's own virus on P2P) and people reporting odd behaviours to them.
Spying has a limit, and the limit is how many people are needed to process all the information gathered.