I am a little surprised that nobody else has thought of this.

[thucythucy]

30. Actually, it's in the warrant that Snowden produced

as evidence of his vast conspiracy to listen in on all our conversations.

"Telephony metadata does NOT include the substantive content of any communication, as defined by 18 U.S.C. 25100 (8), or the name, address, or financial information of a subscriber or customer."

The warrant authorizing the storage of metadata specifically prohibits looking into the details of any specific communication without a further warrant. (The warrant, BTW, is also time limited, it expires next month).

Thus far, though I keep asking for further evidence of all this amazing government eavesdropping on millions of people, the only thing people provide is what Snowden says. And what people say Snowden says. And what people are saying in reaction to what people say Snowden says. And when anyone questions Snowden's veracity--citing matters both large and small that he has been less than accurate about--they get accused of being haters of freedom, desecraters of the Constitution, sock puppets for the Stasi, etc.

As I've said now again and again, it's impossible to come to any conclusions about this without more information. Snowden says Snowden says Snowden says doesn't cut it. Even saying "Snowden looked at the data without a warrant" is based entirely on the word of, guess who? Snowden.

Now, if Snowden had produced some of the president's e-mails, like he said he could, or demonstrated how he had "the authorities" to tap into someone's phone calls or e-mails, or even, God help us, "bring down" the entire NSA in a single afternoon, we might have something. But he didn't. Not yet anyway.

Until I get more information from a more credible source, I'm not willing to hand the reactionary right a perfect cudgel with which to bring down this entire administration. Not after "palling with the terrorists," birthergate, death panels, ACORN, Benghazi, the IRS "scandal" that "goes right to the White House," etc. etc.

So produce something that shows me that "they" -- meaning the federal government -- are doing what you and Snowden say it's doing. Because simply saying "I believe the data has been looked at by a lot of people" doesn't cut it.

Not when we're talking about such a crucial matter as the life or death of the Fourth Amendment.