>>>> The court thus faulted them [the ACLU in ACLU v. NSA, 493 F.3d 644, 648] for “assert[ing] a mere belief” that the NSA eavesdropped on their communications

>>>> The court thus faulted them [the ACLU in ACLU v. NSA, 493 F.3d 644, 648] for “assert[ing] a mere belief” that the NSA eavesdropped on their communications without warrants. Id. This failure of proof doomed standing. Ultimately Jewel may face similar procedural, evidentiary and substantive barriers as the plaintiffs in ACLU, but, at this initial pleading stage, the allegations are deemed true and are presumed to “embrace the ‘specific facts’ needed to sustain the complaint.” [0] >>> EFF is on a fishing expedition. I am not unsympathetic. But this judicial arm-twisting and absurd twisting of language / law needs to stop as the road it opens is not helpful to our democracy. They will never be able to justify their claims with anything that will pass evidentiary muster. Supporting the EFF is all fine but generally a waste of time and money for effecting real change. The only way these programs end is if Congress is full of people who want this to stop and will ensure that it does. If an obscure libertarian like Grover Norquist can dominate electoral cycles with a "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" why can someone not similarly dominate electoral cycles with a "Privacy Protection Pledge"? Demand every presidential candidate sign it, etc. Make it a real wedge issue. I wonder if the answer is that US citizens don't care because they don't really see how they are harmed? They believe the Govt is protecting them by doing this? [0]: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/12/29/10-15616.pdf http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/12/29/10... [pdf]