Quoted:
According to the document linked in the OP, these are only calls associated with Foreign Targets.  The document recognizes that a Foreign Target could order a pizza, and such data should be deleted.  

That is a far cry from EVERY domestic call being recorded and stored, as has been claimed.

I have to assume that you have not actually read the document.

Quoted:


You like to claim "no one's civil rights have been violated" and challenge people to name one case....

You also claim the government violates no rights when they force private businesses to turn over their private data....

Quoted:
The attached document, its findings and conclusions are an interesting read.  The court determined that some activities being requested by the government were not in keeping with the 4th, and are therefore denied, and other parts of the request were found to be in keeping with the 4th, and therefore approved.  The document makes it very clear, that the targets are not Americans, however, if Americans are sending communications that are to or about (contain their real contact info; phone number, email, etc; not just mention of name) the Foreign target they can be targeted.  

Read it before opining on it.  It's only 85 pages, and the last 30 are where the meat of the issue is discussed.

Don't rely on the Washington Post's interpretation, or worse, some politician who didn't read it, either.

Read it yourself.

Quoted:
Please read the document before commenting.

Cincinnatus is only stating what the FISA court authorizes.  He is not saying what Is or isn't happening with the data.  Only what is supposed to happen with the collected data dealing with the, keyword here, "Foreign Target."

Quoted:
From the opinion:

"The Court is troubled that the government's revelations regarding NSA's acquisition of Internet transactions mark the third instance in less than three years in which the government has disclosed a substantial misrepresentation regarding the scope of a major collection program." p.16 n.14.

"Contrary to the government's repeated assurances, NSA had been routinely running queries of the metadata using querying terms that did not meet the required standard for querying.  The Court concluded that this requirement had been 'so frequently and systemically violated that it can fairly be said that this critical element of the overall ... regime has never functioned effectively.'"  p.16 n.14.

"But, for the first time, the government has now advised the Court that the volume and nature of the information it has been collecting is fundamentally different from what the Court had been led to believe."  p.28.

"It appears that NSA could do substantially more to minimize the retention of information concerning United States persons that is unreleated to the foreign intelligence purpose of its upstream collection." p. 61.

"But by not fully exploring such options, the government has failed to demonstrate that it has struck a reasonable balance between its foreign intelligence needs and the requirement that information concerning United States persons be protected."  p.62.

Quoted:

Is this document factual and "proof" of something?   If so, is the entire document to be viewed as factual?

Quoted:
So they can target people that are one or two hops...that might be americans....but in your mind they aren't targeting Americans.

I've realized that you aren't dumb...you are sick.

Quoted:
So they can target people that are one or two hops...that might be americans....but in your mind they aren't targeting Americans.

I've realized that you aren't dumb...you are sick.

Quoted:
everyone is missing the point, they don't collect & store phone calls & e-mails, internet history etc.

Quoted:
Because they would rather abandon their tracking of the Targeted Foreign Terrorist, break the law and track a person who has nothing to do with their operation?   And everyone involved in this operation is in on it?  No shit?

Why?

"Alexander tended to be a bit of a cowboy: 'Let's not worry about the law. Let's just figure out how to get the job done,'" says a former intelligence official who has worked with both men. "That caused General Hayden some heartburn."

The heartburn first flared up not long after the 2001 terrorist attacks. Alexander was the general in charge of the Army's Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. He began insisting that the NSA give him raw, unanalyzed data about suspected terrorists from the agency's massive digital cache, according to three former intelligence officials. Alexander had been building advanced data-mining software and analytic tools, and now he wanted to run them against the NSA's intelligence caches to try to find terrorists who were in the United States or planning attacks on the homeland.

By law, the NSA had to scrub intercepted communications of most references to U.S. citizens before those communications can be shared with other agencies. But Alexander wanted the NSA "to bend the pipe towards him," says one of the former officials, so that he could siphon off metadata, the digital records of phone calls and email traffic that can be used to map out a terrorist organization based on its members' communications patterns.

"Keith wanted his hands on the raw data. And he bridled at the fact that NSA didn't want to release the information until it was properly reviewed and in a report," says a former national security official. "He felt that from a tactical point of view, that was often too late to be useful."

Hayden thought Alexander was out of bounds. INSCOM was supposed to provide battlefield intelligence for troops and special operations forces overseas, not use raw intelligence to find terrorists within U.S. borders. But Alexander had a more expansive view of what military intelligence agencies could do under the law.

"He said at one point that a lot of things aren't clearly legal, but that doesn't make them illegal," says a former military intelligence officer who served under Alexander at INSCOM.
...
But those who've worked closely with Alexander say he has become blinded by the power of technology. "He believes they have enough technical safeguards in place at the NSA to protect civil liberties and perform their mission," the former administration official says. "They do have a very robust capability -- probably better than any other agency. But he doesn't get that this power can still be abused. Americans want introspection. Transparency is a good thing. He doesn't understand that. In his mind it's 'You should trust me, and in exchange, I give you protection.'"