The meaning is clear from the context as written. I did not respond to the legal ruling but to the article's quote of what the judge actually said. You make som

The meaning is clear from the context as written. I did not respond to the legal ruling but to the article's quote of what the judge actually said. You make some valid and important points here and below, but they are more germane to the procedures of the courts. I am aware of how the courts operate on and respect precedent law and that it is a process with defined protocols of what can and cannot be ruled on. Perhaps now that the implications of the pen tap is more clear it will be revisited in light of what we know now and the nature of the internet which was just inchoate in the telephone industry when the original ruling was made. Edit: To be a bit clearer on my last paragraph. I said the second sentence was "worrying" because it can be viewed as the judge signaling the government to give him proof of success fighting terrorists so he can approve it or it could indicate that he is now questioning the prudence of the pen tap rulings given what we know now. I hope it is the latter but we will have to wait and see.