> It involved telephone companies Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, and other tech companies were also named as defendants in the case; calling them "

> It involved telephone companies Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, and other tech companies were also named as defendants in the case; calling them "telephone companies" is a stretch. > who cooperated You're perhaps right that we need to demonstrate that the companies did not cooperate. The judge's ruling in that case includes that the companies were under a FISA warrant, thus, not willingly. (The companies own public statements also demonstrate this, but those are not under oath.) A warrant of the size alleged in the case would be unconstitutional, unless you believe searching millions of American's communications can someone be considered "reasonable", but it should at least be challengable in a court of law. But further I worry this will be used for other (non-PRISM) programs, that did not involve warrants or cooperation, and were blatantly unconstitutional. If I have the timing of events here right, the Klayman case was a few months too soon; shortly after its filing, information about MUSCULAR (an NSA program capturing internal datacenter traffic in several tech companies, "the exploitation relied on the fact that (at the time at least) data was transmitted unencrypted inside Google's private cloud"[1]). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUSCULAR_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUSCULAR_(surveillance_program...