NSA's bulk phone data collection ruled unconstitutional by federal judge




Yes! Way too early to break out the champagne, but still...


Yes, this is round one of approximately infinity.


Chief Justice Roberts, the prick, will put Judge Leon in his place.


OK, progress. Now let's see if it sticks. They are going to come back strong. We have to plan for it and hit them even harder.


Yes. The price of eternal vigilance is extreme amounts of repetition.


Cool, now they can say they've stopped until a couple years from now it comes out that they haven't.


I wonder if Snowden is considering offering amnesty for the NSA, if they clean up their activities.


This is just what I needed to rinse the 60 Minutes out of my mouth.


Admittedly, I am still quite saddened by the presence that process even existed. The Bill of Rights was set up in order to give any citizen the rights of a respectable sovereign king / queen. We need to stand by them, humans will always fall into a state of ego driven manipulation. The rights of humans are accountable.

Just want to make an observation; When you hear some Americans who want to make sure their bill of rights are accounted for (specifically the 2nd Amendment), do not judge them; Merely understand their view point. No man is safe without the ability to defend themselves. Humans will always be a rough ashlar.

“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.” ― Alan M. Dershowitz

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ― Thomas Jefferson


Hope Judge Leon checks his brake lines meticulously from now on.


Don't remind me. Had a cow-orker shocked that I didn't consider Snowden a criminal.

"But, the NSA showed 60 Minutes last night. . . . "

Indeed, they did. The showed them EXACTLY what they wanted them to see. As opposed to, oh, the whole picture. . .


It will be more likely his internet browser history that brings him down. The NSA can doctor that without having to leave their cubicles.

Tomorrows Headlines Today, "Federal Judge Child Porn Narco Terrorist Shock!"


You forgot "Communist" in there.


This is a dangerous precedent though - if it can be the case that the admissibility of one pen recorder in 1979 that monitored the pulse dialling of one suspect on a piece of ticker tape doesn't automatically imply the legality of an automated surveillance system that encompasses the phone records of all 300 million Americans in real time, after a mere 34 years of technical development - then maybe the 2nd amendment which was written in the late 1700's when people were armed with ball muskets didn't automatically envisage the early 21st century, when we have 1500 ft/s muzzle velocity semi-automatic AR-15's armed with depleted uranium rounds for sale at every Walmarts?

Surely we have to keep warrantless, suspicionless mass-surveillance in order not to revisit the logic behind our verbatim interpretation of the 2nd amendment today, despite 200 years of technical progress? Down with Judge Leon! out of our cold dead hands!


Though that was a beautiful run-on like sentence, I would like to point out several observations:

  • You can not buy uranium rounds at Walmart.
  • The writers of the Bill of Rights did perceive that weapons would be more advanced in the future. This is why the 2nd amendment states "shall not be infringed".
  • Then revisit it when they take something from you. Something that is of worth.

Will it then, be important to stand your ground? I know who I will be; A kind human with the will to live, respectful of other sovereign human beings, insistent that I or my friends shall not be tread on.

"Human rights originate in Nature, thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable" - Thomas Paine


I heard and interesting quote on NPR the other day that made me shudder. It was along the lines of "We aren't against the 2nd amendment. We just believe it should be regulated." My reaction was to immediately apply the same logic to other amendments. The 4th and the NSA came immediately to mind. Shudder.

Yes, "regulated" may have a different meaning with the 2nd. But the philosophy that rights can be shaved here and there for expediency gives me the creeps.


I don't like that line of thinking. The thought should be that our rights are inherent to our existence and that the laws merely define them and give our legal system the ability to enforce them. For instance, you shouldn't get murdered or robbed. The law shouldn't be the only reason people don't murder or rob, you just plain shouldn't murder or rob people. It's actually considered quite rude to do either of these things to someone. A lot of religions have these sort of 'laws' too.


Honestly curious; how does the perception of the authors that weapons would be more advanced in the future directly lead to the inclusion of the phrase "shall not be infringed"? Can you please explain the logical connection? Thanks!

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


I would never conceive of hurting anyone. I would however like the right to defend myself. As a human being deserve that.