Lack Of Privacy In Judge Lynch's Clapper

Throughout my reading of Clapper, I found myself conflicted on whose side I supported. Near the end of Judge Lynch’s decision, he wrote how a contraction of privacy could be required by national security when dealing with domestic and international terrorism. I believe that this is the case, as long as we as citizens depend on the government for our protection, we should expect some violation of our previously defined bounds of privacy. Judge Lynch continues by saying that this contraction though should face a momentous decision, with substantial debate, and expresses in unmistakable language. The unmistakable language, he speaks of is what aided in me deciding that I do support Judge Lynch’s interpretations.

His discussion of “tangible things” was short but agreeable. The government is required to provide the FISC with a statement of facts showing that the list of “tangible things” is relevant. Judge Lynch correctly points out that this
The government has failed to identify any particular “authorized investigation”. While I believe the fight against terrorism is an important fight to fight, simply using that as a reason to collect this data is too broad. Additionally, I support Judge Lynch’s finding that Congress meant to exclude this broad collection of data, and that if he agreed with the government it would cause a reading out of the term “authorized investigation”.

If Congress wanted to enact a law that allowed the government to collect the amount of data they were attempting to collect under Section 215, I would support it. I also believe that there is no expectation of privacy, due to the applicability of the third party doctrine. But I agree with Judge Lynch in this case, the government incorrectly used Section 215 to collect more data than was originally intended with this