[idrathernot]

Even if congress ends their blatantly unconstitutional endorsement of Section 702 spying, I still don’t see why anyone would believe that the government is going to do anything other than massively expand their ability surveil every living moment of our lives. I don’t see the point in them trying to play it off like the system has any integrity whatsoever.

[duxup]

Congress has been woefully short of curiosity or oversight that doesn't involve partisan politics ... let alone leadership.

[impossiblefork]

Why do you think section 702 seems unconstitutional? It looks pretty legal to me at least.

[raincom]

The Fourth amendment "protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government". Then, third-party doctrine created by SCOTUS is a loophole for the fourth Amendment. Third-party doctrine says 4A "does not apply to information that is voluntarily shared with third parties".

Section 702 allows to collect all communications between American citizens and non-citizens, and communications between non-citizens, without any warrant. The issue is: does one need a warrant to search any data about a US citizen in 702 collections? Here, the court says it violates 4A.

[rurban]

The federal court ruled otherwise.

[impossiblefork]

I feel that it just forced them to actually folllow section 702 rather than letting them go about things as they liked.

[rurban]

section 702 applies different unconstitutional rules for citizens and foreigners. foreigners have no privacy rights there.

which is per-se unconstitutional, violating postal secrecy. they still think they are in war-times since the 30ies, and can store all meta-data and content in full. they are in war actually with all citizens.