3 ms·
I don't understand your question. Bigger targets are always more interesting for mass surveillance, because, by definition, they have more users. And that's w
by frank_boyd 13y ago
I don't understand your question.
Bigger targets are always more interesting for mass surveillance, because, by definition, they have more users.
And that's what the recent revelations are all about: Mass surveillance.
Obviously, bitter targets are also more interesting for private/non-NSA/non-state hackers.
- marcosdumay 13y agoThat one piece of news is about corporate spyonage, not mass surveilance. The size of the email provider wouldn't make any difference.