[betawolf33]

There are a number of misrepresentations in this article.

He talks of the impossibility of the 550 (where has this number come from?) GHCQ and NSA analysts reading all this data. As if people are claiming that humans are individually watching it themselves. Even if they were, he completely ignores the obvious method: that machines under those agencies' control are the ones collecting this data, in favour of a hand-waving 'it's impossible'.

His statement that it's illegal for the NSA analysts to read these communications nicely sidesteps the strong evidence that they are doing it.

Even the focus of the article, the 21 million GB claim, tries to stoke up something much madder than what actually happened. The Guardian's reporting of the potential volume of data on the cables is not 'wild' in any sense. That the telephone game translated that potential figure into an actual one is not desirable, but also not particularly surprising. Notably, he doesn't take the opportunity to find out the actual average data rate on those cables and correct what he's criticising.

Of course, he also takes the opportunity to ladle on some criticism of Greenwald and the Guardian, and play up the 'it's a complex issue' angle which discourages any kind of public outcry.