Good points, I hadn't realized how involved the Guardian's editors had been in Greenwald's recent stories, especially since he retained sole editorial control o

Good points, I hadn't realized how involved the Guardian's editors had been in Greenwald's recent stories, especially since he retained sole editorial control over his publications in the past. The way my friends in the journalistic world have explained it me was in terms of "breaking unwritten rules." The anti-leaker reaction seems very extreme for simple sour grapes, although I suppose it isn't wise to underestimate the reactionary posturing of an industry in decline. I have heard pretty detailed confirmation that the recent events at the Guardian have really altered the US press's attitude thus far. It's odd to me they didn't redact the program codenames. Since the codenames are legal to know, as long as you don't say the underlying program to which they refer, they're commonly plastered all over unclassified presentations. Once you know the underlying technology, the combination of codename and context gives away a lot of information. I've seen people spidering based upon the program names that were leaked so far. With a little bit of googling and clustering of results, they can figure out which programs relate to e.g. upstream collection. That seems like a bonanza for hostile intelligence agencies, especially since they can add all of those codenames to KWS, and wait until someone accidentally slips and describes them in an open channel.