Earlier quoted context omitted.
Frustrating as well because supporters of the programs like to bring up how they've been challenged in court before so they're perfectly fine and legal. Well, not exactly...
Who says the specific programs have been challenged in court? The argument is that they rest on principles that have been set forth in previous Supreme Court opinions. Look at the EFF's handy image: https://www.eff.org/files/2015/03/19/backbone-2015-color.jpg . Do you see the box labeled "filtering aimed at eliminating fully domestic transactions"? That's there because precedent says the 4th amendment does not protec…
The question already has been litigated in court. To monitor a domestic phone conversion (which prior to digital exchanges the switchboard operator could listen into) requires a warrant to capture. Same principle here.
Just because something can be easily listened to doesn't mean the government doesn't need a warrant.