Please think about your "reasonable expectation of privacy"

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Where have you got "a judge signs an order on each individual case" from?

It might be true; but, at this stage, we have to realise that, unless they have explicitly stated something, we shouldn't assume that any kind of interpretation of what they say is correct.

For instance, looking at the AP stories on what Clapper has said this night:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/intelligence-chief-blasts-nsa-document-leaks
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NSA_PHONE_RECORDS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-06-07-03-17-07

The court also prohibits the government from indiscriminately rummaging through the phone data, which he said can only be queried when there are specific facts to back up a reasonable suspicion of an association with a foreign terrorist group. He says officials allowed to access the records must be specially cleared and are trained in the court-approved procedures.

House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said that once the data has been collected, officials still must follow "a court-approved method and a series of checks and balances to even make the query on a particular number."

Now, that doesn't say they have to go to a judge each time. It just says there are 'court-approved procedures'. It doesn't say that a judge has to agree about the 'reasonable suspicion'; it may well mean that an NSA employee can say "I have a reasonable suspicion", write down what it is, and, if necessary, another NSA employee will review it.

There's nothing in either article about a court, or a judge, getting involved in individual cases - just the renewal every 90 days of the blanket "collect all call data, and don't tell anyone you're doing it" order, and that a court approved the process, at some time.