edit: It's just one new slide (http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/20...) which says "directly from the servers"...but since Google is ostensibly arguing that the slides are poorly worded, hopefully the Guardian believes the other unreleased slides elaborate? The blog post ends with "A far fuller picture of the exact operation of Prism, and the other surveillance operations brought to light, is expected to emerge in the coming weeks and months...", which means that they will be releasing bombshell by bombshell, or that they think other revelations will be independently reported?
(original comment below:)
I immensely respect Greenwald, but he's setting up presumptions for his reporting that make it unassailable, no matter what the facts are.
1. Our reporting is accurate.
2. The fact that the companies involved deny it is proof that our reporting is accurate, because our reporting said that they would deny the report.
3. Therefore, our reporting is accurate.
It's possible that the reporting is accurate on its face, but the most relevant details (i.e. the ones that would separate this from, egregiously and surprisingly evil to, well, just more of the same) were not reported correctly. Has either the Guardian or the WaPo released the entire slide set?
>which means that they will be releasing bombshell by bombshell, or that they think other revelations will be independently reported?
Presumably, the Guardian is in possession of the full 41 page powerpoint. They'll likely release pieces of it at a time. Nice to see they're waiting for everyone to trip all over themselves first. I can't wait to see how this plays out in the coming weeks.
Funny. When Wikileaks did the same thing people said it was inappropriate and editorializing and dishonest. It seems that the Guardian and Wikileaks strategies for maximizing impact are on the same frequency.
That doesn't explain why the Washington Post hasn't released their copy of the slides, though...those two outlets are competing on this story (it's nice to have two independent established outlets compete on a story of such national and specific importance, fwiw) and the WaPo could have the scoop. Maybe they're waiting for the Sunday edition?
My guess was that the source feared that one or all of the slides have some kind of identifying tag, if not as a meta-watermark but as something tell-tale in the content...and so had requested the Guardian and the Post to release as little as possible.
they're not just maximising impact, they are most likely currently having discussions as to what they can legally release without getting into too much trouble or causing a national security problem (e.g. see redacted names on latest slide).
He explicitly states in those tweets that he reported the claims of both sides, which he was fully aware were in conflict, in the hopes that the truth of the reality would come out.
> The slide, below, details different methods of data collection under the FISA Amendment Act of 2008 (which was renewed in December 2012). It clearly distinguishes Prism, which involves data collection from servers, as distinct from four different programs involving data collection from "fiber cables and infrastructure as data flows past"...Essentially, the slide suggests that the NSA also collects some information under FAA702 from cable intercepts, but that process is distinct from Prism.
This specific paragraph seems like a non-sequitur...did the counter-argument that Google made rely on claim that the news reports conflated fiber optic tapping and PRISM? I thought the argument was:
1. The Guardian has slides claiming that the NSA has direct access to our servers
edit: It's just one new slide (http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/20...) which says "directly from the servers"...but since Google is ostensibly arguing that the slides are poorly worded, hopefully the Guardian believes the other unreleased slides elaborate? The blog post ends with "A far fuller picture of the exact operation of Prism, and the other surveillance operations brought to light, is expected to emerge in the coming weeks and months...", which means that they will be releasing bombshell by bombshell, or that they think other revelations will be independently reported?
(original comment below:)
I immensely respect Greenwald, but he's setting up presumptions for his reporting that make it unassailable, no matter what the facts are.
1. Our reporting is accurate.
2. The fact that the companies involved deny it is proof that our reporting is accurate, because our reporting said that they would deny the report.
3. Therefore, our reporting is accurate.
It's possible that the reporting is accurate on its face, but the most relevant details (i.e. the ones that would separate this from, egregiously and surprisingly evil to, well, just more of the same) were not reported correctly. Has either the Guardian or the WaPo released the entire slide set?