There are many obvious errors in your claims, such as this:
> Tempora is not even a US program, so clearly neither can violate the 4th Amendment
The NSA is a partner in the program (led by the British, with whom the US has a very close intelligence partnership). The program does bulk collection on undersea cables which do carry Americans' data. This is prima facie a violation of the 4th Amendment.
> which is why no lawsuits were brought against either program
The reason why lawsuits so rarely get anywhere against any of these mass surveillance programs is that in the US legal system, you have to be able to prove standing in order to challenge them. The US isn't like other systems with dedicated constitutional courts that can review laws on their own initiative. Someone has to be able to show that they themselves have been specifically harmed. Unless you can prove that the NSA specifically looked at your data and used it against you in some way, you can't challenge the NSA's surveillance. By the very nature of these programs, it's nearly impossible for anyone to prove that.
> The New York Times [2][3] and CNET [4] subsequently correctly described the program
The NY Times article you cite describes it as a program that collects information from the largest US tech companies on the basis of FISA requests. Just so you recall, FISA is a court that operates in secret, that grants virtually all requests, and that has demonstrably signed off on Unconstitutional bulk surveillance (e.g., mass collection of call logs).
And by the way, the type of behavior we're discussing here, which we know for a fact the US government has engaged in, is exactly what people in this thread are alleging the Russian government might theoretically do to Kaspersky.
> High school dropout Snowden
Yes, a "high school dropout" who was paid 200 grand a year and given access to the NSA's classified networks. What a dummy!
> The program was limited to collecting millions of call logs instead of all call logs after the leaks, and that was considered so obviously constitutional that nobody sued.
This is not how the process of challenging an Unconstitutional law works. You can't just say, "That's Unconstitutional" and then sue. You have to show that you have personally been targeted. That's why Rosa Parks had to physically sit down on the bus and wait to get thrown off. That's what gave her standing to challenge Montgomery's segregated bus system. Just knowing that a surveillance program exists and has probably illegally collected your information does not automatically give you the ability to challenge said program in court.
Bulk collection of records of millions of Americans (this is just the warrant that we know of, and there were almost certainly similar warrants covering most Americans, because by design, the program was meant to do bulk analysis of all call records) is obviously unconstitutional, but also very difficult to legally challenge.
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/assets/2858265/prism-slide-7.jpg){kind=link}