I do not believe this to be the case. We have been reassured multiple times that our agencies are not eavesdropping, etc., yet revelations have continued to emerge that these reassurances have been lies.
> Whatever you call it, this happens everywhere,
The fourth amendment is fairly unique in the world. It (and the first and second amendments) are even unique in the western tradition rooted in English common law. So yes, I know it happens almost everywhere. That does not mean it should happen here.
I'd also comment that there must be a bizarre, un-American cynicism among the people who write things like the "Patriot Act" and the sorts of legal briefs that allow agencies to burn the bill of rights at will. Who are the monsters who want to destroy the few things that could be considered unique cultural and humanitarian achievements of our nation? And why do you defend them!
Did you forget that we have had no evidence that our agencies are eavesdropping despite having access to an indiscriminate drop of data from Snowden?
> The fourth amendment is fairly unique in the world.
As is every single other American law. You have given no justification for why in-house counsel should treat the Fourth Amendment differently from any other Bill of Rights issue. If in-house counsel believes a program's legality can be justified, the program will proceed -- this happens regardless if counsel is retained by a government agency or a private entity.
> And why do you defend them!
I am not defending the authors of the Patriot Act. I am correcting your obscene misconceptions of what programs were actually in place. The programs you thought were in place would be clearly unconstitutional like the sections of the Patriot Act that were struck down in 2007, but the programs that were actually running were not even close to what you have somehow come to imagine.
Did you forget that this metadata collection ended? Did you forget that when it was collected, the only way to query it was to find anonymized IDs of contacts to issue court orders to deanonymize? I explained both of these earlier in this very conversation. Or do you think that Trump doesn't understand these nuances and thinks he has the the ability to spy on anybody?
> Obama wanted a Muslim registry and utilized it for several years as well.
Did you forget that NSEERS isn't a Muslim registry but a registry of visiting foreigners from specific dominantly Muslim countries, as I just explained in my previous post, which is different from an actual Muslim registry that Trump has suggested he supports?
> Right, it's a risk mitigation strategy not a law-compliance strategy.
Whatever you call it, this happens everywhere, so it's amazing to me that you would think public debate would be necessary before implementing those programs.