I think we should be told!!

Panic and paranoia persists in paper. The Guardian had the egregious feature writer C Cadwallader explaining that Brexit had all been staged by sinister and dark forces. There were all the ingredients of a classic conspiracy story and liberal moral panic:

Some suspicions:

did foreign individuals or powers, acting covertly, subvert our democracy?

There are mounting and deeply disquieting questions about the role “dark money” may have played during last year’s EU referendum; and about whether the use of offshore jurisdictions, loopholes in European and North American data laws, undeclared foreign donors, a closed, all-powerful technological system (Facebook) and an antiquated and hopelessly out-of-touch oversight body has undermined the very foundations of our electoral system.

Some 'knowns' [rather variable in terms of how well they are known and to whom]: 

This is what we know: the Electoral Commission is still assessing claims that potentially illegal donations were made; the information commissioner is investigating “possible illegal” use of data; the heads of MI6 and GCHQ have both voiced unprecedented warnings about foreign interference in our democratic systems; the government has refused to elaborate on what these are; one of the leave campaigns has admitted the undeclared support and help of the American hedge fund billionaire who backed Trump; the Crown Prosecution Service is being asked to mount a criminal investigation; and questions have been raised about possible unlawful collaboration between different elements of the leave campaign.

Some [rather general] warnings from authorities:

the man who invented the world wide web, Tim Berners-Lee, who said he was “extremely worried” about the future of democracy; that data harvesting was being used to “chilling” effect; that political targeting on the basis of it was “unethical”; and that the internet had been weaponised and was being used against us....The second came from GCHQ, whose National Cyber Security Centre head has written to the main political parties warning of hostile interference.

A couple of smears'n'fears [of 'new' technology] :

the law demands that coordinated campaigns declare their expenditure and are subject to a strict combined limit. Yet here we see four different campaigns using the same tiny Canadian company based thousands of miles and seven time zones away. Coincidence?  ...we do know that data is power: Facebook admitted [or should that be boasted?] last week that it can use data to swing elections – for the right price. [the source for this was an interview with M. Zuckerberg in something called Quartz, who made that claim and said FB used sophisticated targeting and analysis for its ads. Despite apparent evidence for a shift in intent to support candidates, FB also said it had backed some unsuccessful campaigns too].

And a demand that the authorities tell us what really happened -- and their silence is proof of conspiracy: 

May’s government has refused to tell us what those risks are. What does Younger know? Why has parliament not been told? Who is investigating, and when will we know the results? Where is Dominic Grieve, the head of the intelligence select committee, in all this? And how can any of us have any trust in the democratic process when vital information is being kept from us?

As the headline triumphantly concluded:

Theresa May must not trigger article 50 before these vital questions are answered