It's been posted and debated about here already.

lying weasel glenn

7. Additionally, the NSA whistleblower who provided the information to the Washington Post was quoted as saying, “They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type.” Without direct access to the servers this would be impossible — that is, unless the NSA was intercepting user data in transit. But that’s not what Greenwald reported, which was direct server access. This was the bombshell — that the NSA could grab information at will — and, as of this writing, it’s inaccurate.

holy shit!

By the end of the day Friday, Business Insider reported that the Washington Post had revised its article. The article no longer reported that the tech companies “knowingly” cooperated with PRISM. But, more importantly, the phrase “track a person’s movements and contacts over time” in the article’s lede was revised to “track foreign targets.” There’s a huge difference between the two phrases

UPDATE: This post by ZDNet’s Ed Bott is a phenomenal takedown of the Washington Post‘s reporting on this story, including a side-by-side comparison of the significant changes between the Post’s initial article and what it morphed into later. Clearly the Post rushed to press with a half-assed article, subsequently inciting outrage. Then, while everyone had run off to accuse the Obama administration of being “worse than Bush” the Post altered key facts in the story. It’s a dark chapter for American journalism.

http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-story-in-the-nsa-scandal-is-the-collapse-of-journalism-7000016570/

The real story in the NSA scandal is the collapse of journalism

Wide Spread Ignorance. Willful and otherwise.

of power.

it;s all the same story.

. . . and has even upped the ante by now saying he has a list of names of those surveilled.

My prediction: there's no such list.

around here have very casually, very thoroughly and very DELIBERATELY overlooked the Post's rather astonishing walk back of their original reporting.