An open letter from Carl Bernstein to Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger

I see this argument used frequently, and I don't understand it all. I've been under the impression that most people did not know about the scale and capabilities of the NSA. This stuff was not public information. If the average person didn't know about it, why would the people being actively targeted know about it? Does the Guardian have evidence that "the terrorists" know about the sources and methods used by the NSA that are being disclosed now?

Rather than hauling in journalists for questioning and trying to intimidate them, the Commons would do well to encourage and join that debate ...

I can't speak for the UK, since I haven't followed the reaction over GCHQ as much, but the heads of the US intelligence community have been called in front of Congress quite a few times since the leaks started to be questioned regarding these programs. Several of their appearances were public, which is rare for intelligence committee hearings. This debate is happening. That said, if the press is holding onto a trove of information that the government claims could do serious harm to national security, what exactly is wrong with calling them forward to answer questions about how they intend to use it and how they intend to ensure that what they disclose will not affect national security? I would think that answers to those questions would certainly fall in the public interest.

Bin Laden also stopped using Satellite phones after it was clear that the NSA et al were very easily eavesdropping on satellite phones. I don't have any specific sources but this is the sort of the stuff I've read over the years.

Various terrorist groups have been aware of the general capabilities of Intelligence Agencies, whether they knew or understood the nuances of the technology is another thing.

It's us citizens who are shocked about the overarching abuses, I'm sure the bad guys are the least shocked.

Very little of what the media has reported to us has been about who the NSA is targeting or what information they're gathering, though - most of it has been centered on how they're collecting the information. Disclosures of sources and methods doesn't just have the potential to hurt counter-terrorist efforts, they have the potential to affect a much larger scope of national interests. It's dishonest on both the government and media's side to say that this is just a debate about terrorism.

Holding public hearings does harm to no one. No one is being arrested; no one is being charged with a crime. They are answering questions. Both sides are presenting information to lawmakers as well as the public. If this is your definition of fascism, then we must using different dictionaries.

The government doesn't hold a monopoly on lies and misdirection, either. There's no reason that you shouldn't be just as skeptical of the reporting of any news agency as you should from a government press release. Given the number of errors, misdirections and retractions that we've seen over the past few months, one really should be closely examining the reporting and asking how much is truth and how much is either misinterpretation or just hype to draw advertising dollars. A few example that I can recall that you wouldn't have seen on the HN front page:

- Misinterpretation of the BOUNDLESS INFORMANT slides that led to the series of "NSA is collecting millions of a communications inside (insert country here)": http://www.matthewaid.com/post/67998278561/greenwalds-interp...

- Innacuracies in the early PRISM reporting: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-is...

- Innaccuracies in the early XKeyscore reporting: https://medium.com/state-of-play/bb27db32ae38

- Stewart Baker, quoted extensively in the "NSA spies on porn" article, claims the authors omitted key parts of his quotes because it would make them look hypocritical: http://www.volokh.com/2013/11/27/understanding-enemy/

- A long list of early mistakes in NSA reporting: https://medium.com/state-of-play/f49beeaf6a9c

So no, I don't give journalists a free pass. The reporters who are looking at these documents have never touched these systems, and they're getting all of their information from a single source. They're not experts and I expect them to make mistakes. The also have newspapers to sell, and some of those articles are looser on the headlines than others. When they release a document, I expect to see members of the intelligence community come before Congress and get grilled over it, so that the public can get a better understanding of what they're seeing in the papers. In the same manner, when the press has information that could affect national interests, I expect them to answer questions in a public hearing about how they're handling that information, especially when they play such a huge role in guiding our understanding of the debate.

I prefer to apply a good deal of skepticism and critical thinking to anything I read on the internet. I like my Kool-Aid that way. How does yours taste?

Also, your comment focuses on a bit of soap opera (who should be praised) at a time when the story is "Government threatens journalism". You do know that is a propaganda technique? The establishment has people paid to do that - you don't have to do their work for free.