I'll read that comment in a sec.
I'll state this for the committee. I think there's always a balance—and we've talked about this for many months—between liberty and security. Liberty comes with a cost, but it should never be forfeited for security without extreme reasons.
Your quote in an article I read last night basically said that the judge makes it clear that the information that is sought by police should be really limited to the purposes of the investigation. It should not be a fishing expedition.
Recognizing that there's obviously a balance between what the police need to know and a person's privacy, could you elaborate on that case and what happened there in the background?