I’m dubious about the number of targeted persons being 15K, otherwise we would see even more arrests touted on TV.
In the case of FISA they are violating the 4th amendment.
The present an affirmation of “reasonable cause”.
The fourth is specific about the requirement being “Probable Cause”
Important distinctions. Reasonable cause merely implies one might conclude for a variety reasons a persons involvement. That however is rather ambiguous.
For it may mean merely the person “Might” fit a profile. Said profile can even be precognitive but, doesn’t have actual hallmarks or evidence of a specific crime.
However, Probably Cause, would contain a more stringent definition. That is; There an actual crime suspected/alleged and there is actual evidence leading one to believe a certain element or thing relating to proving the prosecution of a specific crime is located in a specific place.
Further, the problem with FISA is there is no specific prohibition against sweeping up huge swathes of information not related, in way, shape, form or fashion, the specific crime being investigated.
The various agencies use a process called “Whole Pipe Access” when they trawl through a service providers network.
That is; they search for records and transmissions across a very wide part of a network or storage medium.
They then look and listen through all that information to get to their target.
In the process they will uncover information that is not covered in the warrant.
Who is to say they couldn’t then use reasonable cause, once again, to obtain another warrant based on the one previously gained and the new “evidence” has absolutely nothing to do with the 1st and original case.
That is; they search for records and transmissions across a very wide part of a network or storage medium.
They then look and listen through all that information to get to their target.
In the process they will uncover information that is not covered in the warrant.
Who is to say they couldn’t then use reasonable cause, once again, to obtain another warrant based on the one previously gained and the new “evidence” has absolutely nothing to do with the 1st and original case.
Yup. That's one of the problems with these unconstitutional fishing expeditions, among others.