There is a big difference between "Subsequent facts have shown them to be right" and "Evidence existing at the time already strongly indicated they were right".

It's written as if dubious access to data by US (and other; see ECHELON) security services is a startling new revelation, whereas in fact it has been a known risk for a couple of decades, and certainly a consideration when using hosted services. Here is a European commissioner raising it as a concern with respect to the Data Protection Directive, over a decade ago, for instance: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-01-368_en.pdf

It is a useful response because it allows for the solution to these sorts of things to occur: continued discussion of the need to enlighten oneself, and be aware of the lies of the world as they are told. An apology is not the last step, merely the first, in amending the situation .. and thus a continued dialog is of use.