To rephrase, the article seems written from the idea that the journalists have found some innovative change in how the law was applied by the FISC. But it's not

To rephrase, the article seems written from the idea that the journalists have found some innovative change in how the law was applied by the FISC. But it's not really innovative since the journalists didn't understand the reason why 'relevant' in this context would not be the same 'relevant' from the Supreme Court case they were discussing. They are trying to play law and messed it up, must like the first time I used Python I messed it up because I didn't realize that it's pointers, pointers everywehre. So PRISM and all the rest may very well be bullshit, but it will be because it's actually bullshit and not because (in this case) some reporters have spotted some glaring bright-line change instituted by a panel of 12 judges. The risk with these types of arguments is that the technically skilled opponent points out the flaw in your reasoning and derails the whole thing, even though your overall point may have actually been valid. In this case, the government can go 'No conspiracy here, the reporters didn't understand that the definition of relevance for these cases comes from <whatever case law>, so all hunky-dory now, eh. Oh look, Egypt!'