But this isn't news. It's apparently been public knowledge since 2009, when the redacted Yahoo! ruling was released http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ru... . That ruling (even the redacted version which was relased) clearly lays out and upholds the concept of the "special needs"-based foreign-intelligence exception to the US' Fourth Amendment:
2 . The Foreign Intelligence Exception . The recurrent theme permeating the petitioner's arguments is the notion that there is no foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment's Warrant Clause. 6 The FISC rejected this notion, positing that our decision in In re Sealed Case confirmed the existence of a foreign intelligence exception to the warrant requirement.
This ruling isn't secret, it's just been hiding in plain sight. Even after the NYT reported the Yahoo! connection to the verdict in an article which directly linked the ruling PDF, it was still apparently impossible to get people to read the ruling and see what it says about the Fourth Amendment for themselves. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5923606
2 . The Foreign Intelligence Exception . The recurrent theme permeating the petitioner's arguments is the notion that there is no foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment's Warrant Clause. 6 The FISC rejected this notion, positing that our decision in In re Sealed Case confirmed the existence of a foreign intelligence exception to the warrant requirement.
This ruling isn't secret, it's just been hiding in plain sight. Even after the NYT reported the Yahoo! connection to the verdict in an article which directly linked the ruling PDF, it was still apparently impossible to get people to read the ruling and see what it says about the Fourth Amendment for themselves. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5923606