Does it matter? There's affirmative process for targeting people abroad believed to be involved in terrorism; that is to say: the FVEY IC is practically compelled to target them. It doesn't need permission from any court to do so.

You can argue that the legal protections from housing your data in US jurisdictions is marginal. I won't argue. But you can't argue that your legal protections are worse in the US, because the places you put your data outside of the US have no legal protections at all.

People always misinterpret these arguments as somehow sticking up for the US and the protections it offers residents. No. It's a descriptive argument, not a normative one.

Not only is there not due process for actual dangerous people, but the IC secretly collaborates internally and utilizes parallel construction to enable criminal prosecution of people who've been illegally targeted by mass surveillance and other capabilities possessed by global passive adversaries.

Ross Ulbricht's indictment relied in part on deanonymization through Tor likely performed by timing analysis at the global backbone level, but the investigating agency (FBI) conveniently isn't required to reveal their methods.

These days though, you don't even need to be guilty of horrific crimes like setting up websites that reduce real-world violence, merely publicly criticizing Israel is enough to have gangs of plainclothes deep state goons abduct and deport you, even if you're a lawful resident or citizen.

These are the dividends we're paid for trusting a government that acts like an organized crime group. Democratic oversight mechanisms mean nothing when the heads of the intelligence community can lead a criminal conspiracy to conduct unconstitutional warrantless mass surveillance of the entire country and lie about it to congress, like when James Clapper lied to Ron Wyden's face while under oath, and face no consequences for doing so.

Yes.