If a man bursts into the room armed to the teeth, points pistols at us and yells that the problem in society today is too many guns, it's okay to attack that me

If a man bursts into the room armed to the teeth, points pistols at us and yells that the problem in society today is too many guns, it's okay to attack that messenger and point out that he is part of the problem. Yes for brevity I skipped a couple of steps in my argument that I knew/assumed most folks on HN wouldn't need spelling out >> surveillance can be beaten by various forms of anonymizing technology >> such technology requires control of your technology environment, hardware & software >> big media companies such as the one printing the article (albeit one by a respected security researcher whose articles I read - via Google Reader - le sigh) are among those entities most aggressive in restricting access, by you and I, to control over our technology choices. [Updated to correct imprecise language] So... the messenger - or at least the part I criticized, CNN - is not a neutral party in this story and as such it's perfectly legitimate to question their role and interests in the message. Clearer?