Can someone confirm for me that the 4th Amendment even applies?

[MineralMan]

19. It all hinges on one part of that Amendment.

The "unreasonable searches and seizures" thing is the way out for the government. It's why we have TSA searches, among other things. That phrase is the one that enables such things.

According to statements, the actual contents of the phone calls aren't being recorded and saved. Only the fact of the calls and the phone numbers involved. That information is record keeping that the phone company uses for billing purposes. It contains little information, really, and the FISA has granted permission through court orders like the one that was revealed for the NSA to obtain those records, so they will be able to match phone numbers that communicate with each other.

The contents of the communications are not recorded, according to statements by those collecting the information. I can believe that, since doing that would be very costly and would require large amounts of storage.

Similarly, websites like Facebook and even DU, maintain records of people who use their websites. Those records include things like IP addresses used by members, member email addresses, and similar information. If I recall correctly, they are required to maintain these records for a long period of time. Here's what sometimes happens:

1. Some member posts a threat against the President or some other public official, or posts something indicating that they are planning to commit some sort of crime.
2. Some other user sees this and recognizes the threat, and notifies the authorities about it. Often links to the offending post or statement are included in that report, or even a screen shot. We've seen that happen here, with regard to other web sites.
3. The law enforcement organization contacts the owner of the site and asks for information regarding the member who posted the threat.
4. In most cases, the owner of the site is happy to comply with the request, being concerned about the risk.
5. In some cases, as with a site like, say, Free Republic, the owner refuses to comply with the request because the owner agrees with what was expressed.
6. In that case, the law enforcement agency gets a warrant or court order demanding the information, and authorizing the law enforcement agency to go get the information.
7. The owner of the site is served, and either provides the information, or the law enforcement agency seizes it.

This happens all the time, and leads to the offending person being found and questioned. The record-keeping is required, and is used when there is a reasonable cause to do so.

That simple case is not that dissimilar to the Verizon situation. There, the government got a court order to obtain all of the call records from Verizon, because there is probable cause to believe that some Verizon users communicate with people in planning terrorist or other activities. The records are obtained and stored by the government, because Verizon normally deletes them sometime after the billing cycle.

Then, when there is probable cause, the government obtains another court order allowing them to investigate particular records and to see what numbers connected with that court order connect with what other numbers. No actual content is available, because it is not stored by Verizon.

That is what the government is contending that it does. If so, it doesn't meet the "unreasonable search and seizure" issue, and so is legal and Constitutional. There is probable cause to believe that some Verizon calls may be connected with unlawful behavior, so all records of calls are collected. Then, in specific situations, probable cause is used to get another court order to investigate within those records. That is what the NSA and the government say they are doing.

Is the government lying about that? I cannot say, because I don't know. If they're not lying, though, the 4th Amendment is not being violated, because no "unreasonable search and seizure" has been done. So the courts have ruled in these cases. That's the system.