Probably not. Apparently they're running all these articles by the NSA, GCHQ, etc first. Which I think is beyond ridiculous at this point. This is probably the most damning article of them all so far, and we all deserve to know the precise scope of these organizations' cryptanalytic capabilities that regard the public as "adversaries."
So this whole thing is one big "limited hangout" - designed to get some info out there and let the angst swell, then subside -- alowing for nothing to change.
It's basically one globally conditioning effort to reveal and get the world to accept, there is utterly zero privacy. Everything you do is monitored and watched. Period. Oh - and we forcefully and violently protect our stealing of your income to fund this.
I agree it's ridiculous. However, given what happened to Chelsea Manning, and given that the Guardian, NYT, etc can't always know in advance what could be construed as "aiding the enemy" it's sensible (in a self-preserving sense of the word) for them to get a NSA/GCHQ opinion on what pieces would "aid the enemy" and what wouldn't. They don't necessarily have to listen to the NSA or GCHQ, but later in court they can legitimately claim that they made an honest effort to avoid divulging information that would aid the enemy.
Actually it's a good thing they are able to get a response from agencies about their information. Their response in this case supports that the leaked information is real and also that the agencies care about its release. This just strengthens the case against them and reinforces the idea that they are the bad guys in the story.
