How do we know this judge hasn't been blackmailed, by the way? The honest protestations of a security agency that genuinely believes the ends justify the means?

How do we know this judge hasn't been blackmailed, by the way? The honest protestations of a security agency that genuinely believes the ends justify the means? The public statements of the NSA imply that there's no choice in this matter -- that this kind of surveillance is mandatory. What hasn't happened is an honest debate about whether the public is willing to trade away whatever remains of their privacy for a fractional increase in "security". I think the public ought to at least have the opportunity to make a voting statement on that matter. Secret privacy invasion programs make the debate impossible, until they're not secret. What's happened is that the NSA has made the decision for us.