His second objection takes a little bit of reading, but basically, it sums up as, "You can't give law-enforcement a blanket permission to look at everyone on an ISP, trolling for evidence of a crime". His concern, since he mentioned all the other things law enforceement had wanted to use Carnivore to find, was that the police would still be able to use it to find those things, which would be unconstitutional. Reynolds has ben pretty steadfast in noting that there's a difference, Constitutionally, between what can be done in the name of law enforcement and what can be done for national security. I don't know that it's such a reach to get what I said from what he said, especially if you've read Reynolds for any length of time. I'm not at all sure that Greenwald has done that. It certainly doesn't appear that he was writing in good faith.

That's the fundamental difference between the proposed law than and the one now. The present bill mandates that there be specific targets and specific things for which to look that would be done by a national security agency.

It sounds like, based on your desription, there was plenty of good reason to oppose the url-spying program. So while your reconstruction makes sense, I just don't know if one can attribute it to Insty.

It would seem to me to work just like FISA: find someone suspected of terrorism, and spy on their web activity. Reynolds objected to that on Constitutional grounds, not the pragmatic grounds you cite. Given that, it's hard to square his opposition to that with his support of warrantless wiretapping.

The real problem, though, is that Reynolds just doesn't write much, so it's pretty hard to tell where his real objections lie.