Then the courts are wrong, as they often are when it comes to constitutionality. Domestic dragnet surveillance is a very obvious violation of the 4th amendment.
In what sense are they “wrong”? You don’t agree with them. But theirs is the final word on the matter until a new court or new law comes around. The interpretation of the Bill of Rights has varied greatly over the last 250 years even though the words have stayed the same. The law isn’t based on our ideas of what it is, the law is based on what is enforced.
Multiple revelations including Snowdens reveal that the data is not uncorrelated/anonymous, if it were I'd imagine it'd be of little use for intelligence purposes. Maybe I am too dismissive/cynical but I don't put much stock in what the courts decide or why on issues like this, they're all under somebody's thumb from what I can tell. They're the same folks that brought us such hits as "corporations are people and money is speech", call me crazy but I don't think they're making their decisions based on high-minded constitutional principles
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war.
People were imprisoned for handing out isolationist pamphlets during WW1 (that’s where we got the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” gem).
Germans and Japanese were imprisoned without trial during WW2.
The FBI illegally spied on pretty much any domestic political organization (and even infiltrated many of them) from the 50s to the 70s.
Now we have pervasive NSA spying on Americans and third parties facilitating the circumvention of any privacy laws we thought we had.