That's pretty ridiculous. If you get the chance to actually take a look at the documents provided to the ACLU, it looks like a satire of what happened in the Cold War: 2 pages of introductory text followed by 55 pages of blacked out documents.
That's just hilariously terrible!
Well... okay, but without a warrant, doesn't that mean that the government has unlimited power as to how they spy on you? They can read your emails, or perhaps listen to your phone calls, as a warrant allows an authority to violate liberties, yet warrants also limit the liberties that can be violated. If the saying goes that "you have the right to remain silent" because what you say can be used as evidence in a court, surely that the FBI is able to do this is bad?
Yeah. And in some cases there are clear limits on what the FBI should be able to do ... but again, I don't really mind if the FBI scans my emails for keywords - they won't find any. As far as limiting their power does go, however, I'd much rather err on the side of security than on that of privacy. A 50/50 balance, while ideal, is impossible.
This is madness, pages upon pages of redacted information is the complete opposite of the transparency I would like to see from government agencies. Especially in a case like this where I don't see how it could really affect national security by disclosing how this law is interpreted. That, and the court system should provide clearer rulings on cases that affect the privacy of citizens.