How does this, in their response, not confirm the PRISM info in at least some way? Or am I meant to take this as "any confidential info is potentially dangerous

How does this, in their response, not confirm the PRISM info in at least some way? Or am I meant to take this as "any confidential info is potentially dangerous"? And even then, are they admitting this is authentic confidential info? >The unauthorized disclosure of a top secret U.S. court document threatens potentially long-lasting and irreversible harm to our ability to identify and respond to the many threats facing our nation. >The article omits key information regarding how a classified intelligence collection program is used to prevent terrorist attacks and the numerous safeguards that protect privacy and civil liberties. And that's exactly the transparency we're interested in. Help establish a bit of trust, because right now I trust the least trustworthy person I know more than the NSA. And their last defense is FISA/FISC and they're still pretending that only applies to foreign nationals? Or is "only meant to be used on... foreign nationals"?