Everyone, including The Guardian, now agrees that Google had "plausible grounds" to "categorize access as indirect", because that's exactly what their access was.
I agree it is a semantic distinction and that your characterization of what Google is doing is probably accurate. I disagree that holding this viewpoint gives you any grounds for attacking Snowden's credibility (as you have repeatedly done) or asserting that widespread claims of inappropriate NSA surveillance are implausible or technically impossible.
