&gt; When you stop passive attacks, then attackers will just step up their game to active attacks.<p>Not always. It often changes the economics of the game. Especially when facing mass surveillance, considering the potential risk of detectability. Just because some attackers <i>can</i> step up their game for some targets, it does not imply they will do the same for <i>all</i> targets.<p>&gt; If you want to call something secure...<p>I don&#x27;t disagree with your point of view about what can or cannot be called &quot;secure&quot;. One can debate that definition. However, stopping passive attackers is often NOT <i>useless</i> and it does add value. Security is not a binary proposition.