Well I call bullshit on this whole story. From the linkbait heading to the complete distortion of the facts of the ruling. If you actually read the ruling (ok I just skimmed through it but I'm pretty sure I got a much better grip than this blogger who is only commenting on a Wired article which itself seems wildly biased and inaccurate) the whole point of the ruling is to determine whether the FBI acted improperly and the conclusion of the ruling is that yes they did act improperly. I can't see anywhere that it says that breaking the law is legal, as this blogger claims. Perhaps I'm mistaken and someone could point this out to me but I don't see it. As for the linkbait heading. It's ALWAYS been legal for the FBI to access phone records. That is, after all, what police do these days. There are two relevant questions: did they follow proper legal procedure (the answer is no) and are they allowed to continue flaunting the law (the answer is again no).  So what's up with this heading of "It's legal for the FBI to access phone records"? Of course it's legal, if they follow the law and it's not legal if they don't. Sounds reasonable to me.