Neither of these refutes the PRISM denials. One is about the Verizon court order story, which (while thematically related) is not directly relevant, the other seems intended to be refer to the PRISM stories in the Post and Guardian, but seems to be an attempt to characterize the program referred to in the story as being radically different than either what the story describes or what the providers have denied, so it cannot be a refutation of the denials.

Wrong, read them. They refer broadly to both the Washington Post article (PRISM) and the Guardian article regarding "collection of communications".

I did; one refers explicity to the Guardian article on the Verizon wireless FISA order, the other refers to supposed Guardian and Washington Post articles referring to data collection under Section 702 of FISA, and accuses the articles of misrepresenting basically everything about that collection. Neither the Post nor the Guardian article abouut PRISM actually says anything about data collection under Section 702 of FISA, and, even if it did, the DNI press release claims everything substantive about the article is wrong, and doesn't in any way refute the denials by the providers (which deny peripheral elements of the story and aren't, actually -- as I address in other posts in the thread -- actually denials of the substance of the stories, anyway.)