Errr, reading the actual decision, i don&#x27;t see a lot of support for the EFF&#x27;s claims. It seems pretty cherry picked.<p>In fact it clearly states they can only retain stuff long term if the DOJ notifies them explicitly that they have a continuing litigation&#x2F;preservation hold necessity (which is usually not the DOJ doing it,but say, a civil lawsuit that carries with it preservation obligations).<p>It also makes further clear that in all cases, the only people with access to most of any retained data is system administrators, not investigators, and that it can&#x27;t be used for investigative purposes.<p>It does say general querying is allowed, but only people explicit 702 access rights are the ones who must be making such queries, or making such decisions. In all cases all records of who accessesd what with what query terms and their access level are explicitly logged, etc.<p>It also explicitly states that information acquired under section 702 will not be introduced as evidence against a person in a criminal proceeding, without
1. Explicit approval of the attorney general
2. in criminal cases related to national security crimes<p>In any case, this is not new, this viewpoint is something going back to FISC precedent from <i>2002</i>.<p>So it&#x27;s not like this <i>just</i> happened.<p>Additionally, the <i>statute</i> is pretty clear here.<p>It says:
&quot;
(h) “Minimization procedures”, with respect to electronic surveillance, means—<p>...
(3) notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), procedures that allow for the retention and dissemination of information that is evidence of a crime which has been, is being, or is about to be committed and that is to be retained or disseminated for law enforcement purposes; and&quot;<p>So again, nothing new here, this has been law for quite a while.<p>In short, i may hate a lot of things about FISA&#x2F;FISC&#x2F;etc, but i think the EFF is stretching to say this is a new problem, or to blame the court for it.