>It's an irrelevant question. They don't have to consider it acceptable--they do it because they can. There are many things that states can do but don't. Why s

>It's an irrelevant question. They don't have to consider it acceptable--they do it because they can. There are many things that states can do but don't. Why states don't do those things can be for self-interested, ideological, social, culture, ethical or constitution/legal reasons. >And the major powers don't do it, in turn, because they have more to gain from trade than from piracy. I think there is a good argument to be made that destroying the internet via proxy conflicts for limited intelligence gain is not in any of the big players long term interest (although it may be in the interests of state security organisations as it expands their mission/importance). Schmidt seems to agree with me.