I find these arguments laughably bad. He claims the Nixon-era programs were worse because they were "targeted." Clearly it's better to have the Stasi than "targeted" spying. He claims the Nixon-era programs were "against governing law," even while he admits that the current programs may be illegal. The author of the Patriot Act certainly believe he authorized no such program.
The constitutional argument comes down to warrants being "unconstitutionally vague." The fourth amendment states that warrants must be "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." That the NSA asked for FISC approval for the programs means they realized they can't just dragnet data from the American public of their own volition, even only metadata (contrary to what the author says). However, getting a judge to sign a warrant that says, "you can do whatever you want" doesn't pass constitutional muster. Therefore, the program is unconstitutional.
And really, am I supposed to believe that no one at the NSA has a phone book? Just because this one database only contains phone numbers doesn't mean other databases with personal identifying information don't exist. It doesn't mean they can't be electronically or even automatically correlated. And if the NSA is willing to run an illegal an unconstitutional data collection program, why wouldn't they?
Ultimately, though, I agree that the secrecy around the program helps no one and should be eliminated. The secrecy around the program bothers me more than the details of the program itself.