[landryraccoon]

Can you explain why? That doesn’t seem like sound reasoning to me.

If you believe the reason is corruption, what personal incentive would the courts have to rule this way? Judges can easily be the victim of government overreach as well.

[idrathernot]

And having a log of every conversation and keystroke that any outspoken judge has ever made gives you all sorts of ways to align their opinions with the above all importance of “National Security”

[notjoemama]

They were being sarcastic with no reasoning or explanation and there's no logical reason it ought to be the top comment in this thread.

[svachalek]

Data is wealth and power, and today's Supreme Court will always side with wealth and power.

[Aloisius]

I'm not sure what this means. The Supreme Court will side with data because it is wealth and power? What side is an inanimate object on?

[RiverCrochet]

Data in this case is on the side of wealth and power. You're also wrong about it being an inanimate object for two reasons. Reason A: Data is not an object but a pattern of objects or attributes of object(s) wherein the arrangement forms symbols according to a standard or protocol. Reason B: Data is quite animated when moving e.g. in response to searches or otherwise (re)-transmitted.

[Aloisius]

We have more than one wealthy and powerful person. They're rarely all on the same side.

So regardless of how courts rule on most issues, one could almost always argue they're taking the side of wealth and power and against the side of wealth and power.

And data is inanimate in the dictionary definition sense of it not being alive. That other things can move it doesn't make it animate.