I'd disagree that he ignored it. A later question covers the same (or very similar) ground. """ Q. Can analysts listen to content of domestic calls without a

I'd disagree that he ignored it. A later question covers the same (or very similar) ground. """ Q. Can analysts listen to content of domestic calls without a warrant? A. NSA likes to use "domestic" as a weasel word here for a number of reasons. The reality is that due to the FISA Amendments Act and its section 702 authorities, Americans’ communications are collected and viewed on a daily basis on the certification of an analyst rather than a warrant. They excuse this as "incidental" collection, but at the end of the day, someone at NSA still has the content of your communications. Even in the event of "warranted" intercept, it's important to understand the intelligence community doesn't always deal with what you would consider a "real" warrant like a Police department would have to, the "warrant" is more of a templated form they fill out and send to a reliable judge with a rubber stamp. """ What I took from this is that the process is so 'optimised' that even a court order doesn't mean what most people would think it does (i.e proper oversight and consideration).