News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:All Activities Monitored by X6S1x6Okd1st on Wednesday November 13, 2019 @03:56PM (#21529464)
The reason why we haven't seen use of atomic weapons is that it's clear that use of atomic weapons will be met with more atomic weapons.

It's not clear that the state is worried about retaliation against wide area surveillance.

Re:All Activities Monitored by kian on Thursday November 14, 2019 @06:52PM (#21540884)
It will be once it's used against the people running said state.
Re:All Activities Monitored by whatshisface on Wednesday November 13, 2019 @04:03PM (#21529529)
I don't think it was ever clear that atomic weapons wouldn't be used, especially not near the time of their invention. Remember the Cold War?
Re:All Activities Monitored by jdbernard on Wednesday November 13, 2019 @04:40PM (#21529905)
He didn't say they wouldn't be used, quite the opposite. He said there was certainty that if they were used, your opponent would respond with more of the same. This led to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction from the Cold War.

Stated another way: if we use them we know they will be used on us, so we'd better not use them.

OP's point was the there is no similar guaranteed retaliation that might motivate restraint in the use of surveillance.