That isn't confirmed, no. What is confirmed is that the NSA has been collecting and analyzing metadata on the phone calls of American, the browsing habits of non-Americans accessing American servers and the surveillance of foreign governmental communication. The rest is speculation.

What we also know is:

The information the NSA has gathered is a small fraction of, and pales in comparison to, the information gathered daily by companies like Facebook and Google. If we're so willing to sacrifice our privacy so we can be advertised to, why is less intrusion in the name of security a worse thing?

International espionage, even between allies, has existed since the first secret that one group of people wanted to keep from another group of people. American spying MAY be on a grander scale than any of it's allies have been doing back on it, but that's a function of our increased ability, and does NOT mean that, say, France or Germany doesn't have a spying operation running in the US. All countries spy on all other countries all the time.

The value of Intellectual Property stolen by government sponsored and directed Chinese Hackers is estimated to be $300 billion a year, with a total value of $3 trillion. This is the largest transfer of value from one country to another, ever. That's greater than the value of Hong Kong when handed back by the British. That's greater than the value of the Louisiana Purchase. That's greater than the value of the reparations demanded by the Allies in the Treaty of Versailles. That is staggering to me. Quantifying that, and countering that as effectively as possible, is the responsibility of the American government. It also highlights the difference in spying done by Americans, and the spying done against the Americans: The US is conducting surveillance for it's own security, China (and Russia and many others) are conducting surveillance for their own economic gain, at the expense of the US.

Finally, because of the nature of what we're specifically talking about, we'll never actually know the other side of the story. We'll never know what, if any attacks have been foiled by NSA surveillance, because to disclose them would undermine the ability to prevent further attacks. Information coming from one side of this debate, I'll call it 'All of Reddit,' is wildly speculative, jumping to conclusions, treating possibilities as facts and making assumptions it shouldn't, all the while having a very specific and vested interest: This is a site for technically oriented people, who have a global mindset because many posts and comments are from non-Americans, from sites who believe in the freedom of information as an ideal above real world limitations. The other side in this debate can't actually even properly defend itself because it's handcuffed by it's own intentions.

And that's all fine. I understand why people from other countries are mad, because nothing the NSA has been reveled to be doing is in their direct interests. If I weren't American I would be a lot more pissed off than I am, that's makes total sense. But that's the nature of the beast, countries act in their own best interest, and the opinions of non-Americans aren't the responsibility of American decision makers, as it's not their mandate to protect them. Also, you're specification that the NSA is spying on innocent people, something I've heard a lot, if kinda silly. How would the NSA establish someone's guilt without spying on them in the first place? It's not CHOOSING to spy on individuals it knows has no connections to terrorism, it's spying on everyone at a very low level to determine who has those connections. That's a pretty clear distinction.

However, like I said, I'm not in favor of what the NSA is doing, I'm waiting for more information about it. There could be quite a bit of things the NSA could be doing that would be going way too far. For example, it could actually be confirmed that it is directly storing the audio of phone calls. Or, for me, the real red line, is if the government were actually taking any actions based on information gleamed from the PRISM program. When the government starts invading my privacy to actually do something that harms me, is when I'll actually be concerned. Notice that hasn't happened. What is the actual harm of the government having the data it does? No one has been arrested for, say, pot possession, with the evidence against them having been collected by the NSA. That would be a serious issue.

There are also many kinds of revelations that would make what the NSA has been doing more acceptable to me and to the general public. In addition to previously foiled attacks, catching specific threats against civilians, realizing increases in the capabilities of terrorists, and protection of American businesses IP are all very real and very possible positive outcomes of the PRISM program. What if it came out tomorrow that Al-Qaeda had been sold a nuclear weapon by the Pakistani Taliban, who got it from the ISI, and we knew about it because of PRISM? Would that make it more palatable to you? The problem is we'll never know that stuff.

So yes, I'm going to wait a while before I start sharpening my pitchfork and making torches. More is going to come out about this. It'll very likely continue to make the US look worse. It's just a shame there isn't a Chinese Eric Snowden or a Russian Bradley Manning to provide counterweight, because in those countries whistle-blowers ARE actually dissapeared and killed, without the benefit of a trial. The world is a lot more complex than those who believe all information should be free and available to all (the Snowdens and the Assanges of the world) want to believe it is. To them, their ideal is most important, and if a people have to die because of that being the norm, than that's an acceptable loss for them. Other people think security is more important than marginal privacy. I'm not one of them, again I'm on the fence about the issue, but that side of the debate does exist as well you know, it's just not represented here.