That seems a little poorly worded. The court ruled that a US citizen's communication that was monitored while they were targeting the foreigner he was communicating with is valid under 702. A win here would have contracted the precedent pretty substantially, but the loss doesn't really expand it beyond what we already have.
I agree with you on your points on setting precedent, but respectfully disagree regarding the practical use of the law as the evidence apparently shows the US targeted this individual thorugh a 'backdoor search.' The article explains this in more detail:
> “Second, the court said that the surveillance of the defendant did not involve a ‘backdoor search,’ that is when the government collects communications by targeting foreigners, but then turns around and searches its databases using email addresses or other identifiers belonging to Americans,” Crocker said.
> “On this second point, however, we think the court almost certainly got the facts wrong. Based on public evidence in the case, it seems the FBI did in fact search its database for Mr. Mohamud’s emails — which would be a serious violation of his rights, according not just to EFF and ACLU, but also to lawmakers like Senator Ron Wyden who have been trying to stop this practice.”
2 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 6.8 ms ] thread> “Second, the court said that the surveillance of the defendant did not involve a ‘backdoor search,’ that is when the government collects communications by targeting foreigners, but then turns around and searches its databases using email addresses or other identifiers belonging to Americans,” Crocker said.
> “On this second point, however, we think the court almost certainly got the facts wrong. Based on public evidence in the case, it seems the FBI did in fact search its database for Mr. Mohamud’s emails — which would be a serious violation of his rights, according not just to EFF and ACLU, but also to lawmakers like Senator Ron Wyden who have been trying to stop this practice.”