Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard To date I have yet to see where there is a problem with any of this. The vast majority of these cases are local police departments getting warrants for local crimes, not the NSA targeting Americans because they think they might be terrorists. .....

HUH? Local police at the FISA Court?

ACLU v. Clapper
https://www.aclu.org/national-securi...pper-complaint

Oral argument on the ACLU?s motion for a preliminary injunction and the government?s motion to dismiss is scheduled for November 22 in New York.
https://www.aclu.org/national-securi...-call-tracking

So, if the second time is the charm it's all over. If not -- be careful who you talk to the G is listening -- and I don't mean Google.

Nothing is illegal until you get caught -- mass interception of even the meta-data of domestic telephone calls, by persons in the US without a warrant is illegal and unconstitutional.

Quote:

50 USC § 1802, a, A, (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

Quote:

CAUSES OF ACTION 36. The Mass Call Tracking exceeds the authority granted by 50 U.S.C. § 1861*, and thereby violates 5 U.S.C. § 706**. 37. The Mass Call Tracking violates the First Amendment to the Constitution. 38. The Mass Call Tracking violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. *50 U.S.C. § 1861 (2) An investigation conducted under this section shall? (A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and (B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. **5 USC § 706 - Scope of review (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be? (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;

This has been in the federal courts since June 11, 2013 -- still pending

"The ACLU's 2008 lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the FISA Amendments Act, which authorized the so-called ?warrantless wiretapping program,? was dismissed 5?4 by the Supreme Court in February 2013 on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not prove that they had been monitored. The ACLU does not believe the issue of standing to be a problem in ACLU v. Clapper because of the FISC order showing that the NSA is collecting the telephone records of all Verizon Business customers ? including the ACLU."

Snooping on foreign communications is another issue -- diplomacy has its role there.