I think they are blaming the court for finding the statute you quoted is constitutional, when they believe it clearly should not be. Warrantless mass surveillance is bad enough for the special purpose of national security. It&#x27;s obvious they would never be allowed to perform the same exact wiretaps directly for use in non-national security cases. So why is the obvious loophole a get-out-of-Constitution free card?<p>Information <i>aquired</i> under 702 may not be introduced.... Exactly, we call this parallel construction.<p>Those limits on retention you mention, which don&#x27;t apply to evidence of a crime which has been, is being, or could possibly be committed (aka &quot;about&quot;)... are those the same limits FISA just recently blasted NSA for not following and hiding from  the court that they weren&#x27;t following? [1]<p>They are not saying this is a new problem. This is a very old problem and also a very big problem. And for finding this constitutional, the only one to blame is the court.<p>[1] - <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.politico.com&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;under-the-radar&#x2F;2016&#x2F;04&#x2F;government-surveillance-fbi-nsa-violations-222162" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.politico.com&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;under-the-radar&#x2F;2016&#x2F;04&#x2F;govern...</a>