GCHQ(NSA) tap fibre-optic cables for secret access to world's communications

[Monkie]

75. the thing to understand is there are more than one program, some names were redacted in the slides

you have different sets of slides, and different programs, thats where some of the confusion comes from.

now looking at what catharina posted..
you have the data from the eff, which i think one can assume is trustworthy, which is META, it is analysis not pure tech, or pure dump/leak.
the cryptome site is well known, but for raw leaks only, that is the "original wikileaks" it is just raw dumps of data, you still need to understand it.
then you have wired magazine, well respected in tech circles, they probably have the best explanations for a non-tech or semi-tech-literate person, but some of the guys there are quite close to the 3 letter agencies, they often speak to "anonymous sources", and you have no idea how much of what they say is the whole truth. but again, they are well respected in tech/nerd circles for their coverage.
then there is gibson, you have to understand something about the whole tech/net/software world, it is so complex, no one person can begin to understand it all.
gibson used to be very relevant, was well known for developing some software, 10+ years ago, but this was software mainly for working with hard disks, and some basic security stuff if i remember right, what i do remember is he started/had these newsletter/podcasts about security issues, some of it good, some of it soso, but my recollection was that it was often simplified for those with the most basic understanding of computers, so in the eyes of those with more experience in a "given subset of expertise" he sometimes missed part of the point, or was flat our wrong, but this was more to do with how he simplified things for the non-technical user.

so without even going into any detail i hope you see how complex this is and how someone can say that gibson is wrong for example.
it is just a hugely complex subject, there are so many different layers to the technical side of it, and there are few people that can actually give you a full picture, and all those people will have their own biases as well.

this is why i say, focus on the released data and the lies, and nothing more, because that is already a lot to take in and for you to line up all your ducks. but if you do, this is where you have the obvious proof to show anyone, technical or non-technical, where the problems are. and then it does not matter what the technical story is of someone trying to throw you of course, because there is no machine that can explain the lies.