[Cboldt]

There is a long history government wiretapping. In the Olmstead case (1928), SCOTUS said there is no expectation of privacy in a phone call. No warrant required. That changed in 1967, in the Katz case, whereby investigators need a warrant (with some exceptions).

So, the government gets around that by saying the NSA is not an investigating body. It merely gathers information. The investigators still need a warrant, but once they have the warrant, they can access the NSA database.

[indthkr]

"So, the government gets around that by saying the NSA is not an investigating body. It merely gathers information. The investigators still need a warrant, but once they have the warrant, they can access the NSA database.

In theory, this should work just fine.

Even if the government doesn't collect this information, it doesn't change the fact that the information is still there to be collected by those that have the means to do so (i.e. corporations, or foreign governments).

NSA or not, there can be no expectation of privacy in an electronic communication of any kind.

[OneWingedShark]

So, the government gets around that by saying the NSA is not an investigating body. It merely gathers information. The investigators still need a warrant, but once they have the warrant, they can access the NSA database.

The problem with that rationale is that using it they have a "information-gathering" crew could go into your house collect everything, have the investigation-crew talk to people and then have "suspicion of reasonable cause" wherewith to get a warrant and go through your things.

No good will come of this.