Obama called war criminal & hypocrite of the century in Irish Parlament

[Tiberius]

Alleged backdoor access and the companies have denied granting such access. I think it is important to note in this case that the companies have denied it and not just refused to comment on it. The later being more likely if indeed they had granted such access.

Firstly, their users were demanding some answer. It's one of those situations where you can't tell from the answer whether they are involved or not, since they are not allowed to speak about it. A refusal to speak on the situation is almost as bad as admitting the situation is real. Denying it doesn't tell us much either, as they aren't allowed to say anything to affirm its existence.

Secondly, the fact that a lot of these companies have started legal action to ask the government if they can release the information they have about NSA requests seems to be more suggestive that they are complying with backdoor access.

Thirdly, Edward Snowden's has said that the NSA can "bug" servers to get access to data. Whether this means a physical piece of hardware or perhaps a piece of software installed somehow, we don't know. It may be that the "backdoors" are actual technicians working for these companies but who are also working for the NSA. I'm just coming up with possible scenarios here.

The courts have the power under the Constitution to issue warrants and interpret laws. This includes deciding if laws conflict with other laws Including the Constitution. If there is a failure with the way the government has handled this situation this is where it is. The courts have had a couple of opportunities to examine the constitutionality of FISA already. To date they have not ruled the law unconstitutional. I believe this is correct. There is nothing wrong with the law itself.

The problem here, if there is one, is that the law was applied ultra vires by the courts when they issued such a broad warrant. It is beyond the authority of the law to allow for such broad reaching search and seizure. It conflicts with the fourth amendment which takes president. Unfortunately under our Constitution the only entity with the authority to decide if the courts have acted outside the authority granted to them under the law are the courts themselves. And the courts have an abysmal record of policing themselves.

From these statements it appears that you actually agree with me. The practice is unconstitutional. It may not be "illegal" in the sense that it is breaking a law, but the law that it relies on to stay legal is in fact, unconstitutional. It all boils down to semantics. Whether it is unconstitutional or illegal, it's still bad.