> > The government argued that, since the "inspection" of the data was to be carried out by a machine, they were exempt from the normal search-and-seizure prote

> > The government argued that, since the "inspection" of the data was to be carried out by a machine, they were exempt from the normal search-and-seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment. > That's insane. It's also immaterial. In this case DOJ got an Article III warrant (if not several), which was specific in what was to be seized. This is the system that Snowden claimed to be trying to defend by revealing "warrantless wiretapping" working exactly as designed. DOJ got a warrant for the exact thing they wanted, and all of sudden Constitutional separation of powers became inconvenient to Levison (even though he complied with such warrants before, and eventually offered to comply in this case for cash).