&gt;But not useful for the purpose of protecting users against surveillance.<p>I&#x27;d argue that it can be useful for that purpose without being perfect. If it stops my communication from being caught in a mass dragnet, then it&#x27;s useful for protecting me against surveillance even when it&#x27;s possible to circumvent the security on the scale of individuals (rather than populations).<p>&gt; skrebbel made a blanket statement, which I was replying to.<p>Right, they did. They made the statement that even flawed security makes mass surveillance much more difficult than an unencrypted system would (or words to that effect). It seems like &quot;stop mass-scale surveillance&quot; is a separate goal from &quot;stop individual-scale surveillance&quot;. I feel like you set up a strawman, rather than actually addressing what skrebbel originally said.