Yes, the NSA's surveillance is unconstitutional according to a federal judge. According to the judge bulk telephone metadata collection and analysis violates citizens expectation of privacy. For phone companies to act as an extension of a surveillance agency is absurd. Customers do not sign phone contracts expecting their private conversations to be heard and read by third parties.
The NSA's mass surveillance of United States citizens constitutes as a major invasion of privacy and is absolutely unconstitutional. If the President had any backbone, he would dismantle the program and apologize to the American public immediately. Instead, we are seeing a continuation of the Patriot Act era that contributes to the slow degradation of what it means to live in this country.
I think that the United States National Security Agency has a lot of explaining to do. However, knowing what surface details we have been permitted to understand, it does seem that the NSA's domestic surveillance program might indeed be unconstitutional. The bigger question, I guess, is whether or not this is one of those times when we actually do have to give up some liberty for security?
The NSA's surveillance plans are extremely evasive and intrude on our lives in a very disturbing way. Knowing every move, every phone call, keystroke is unconstitutional. It is wrong because we did not give the NSA permission to spy on us and collect all of our data and information and store it.
The number of cries of "unconstitutional" during the Obama tenure has been absurd and largely unfounded, but in the case of the NSA, there's a valid talking point there. The NSA was more or less given the green light to do what it needed to do in order to get certain information, we're supposed to be protected better than that.
This is not a way to protect us, it is storing our information in a place that can easily be hacked, which is in another words violating the fourth amendment and therefore is unconstitutional. I'm guessing the ones that say no to this debate are actually people working under the NSA's supervision.
For the sake of this argument I am operating under the assumption that any challenger has a reasonable grasp of the background of this issue and the question of constitutionality falls under the purview of the fourth amendment. As for a summary to any spectator, months ago through leaked documents to the public-at-large it became apparent that the NSA, under authorization of the POTUS, has been compiling domestic communication metadata.
When you take in account the full text of the fourth amendment, "the right of the people to be secure... Against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...," it becomes incredibly difficult to argue successfully that the compilation of metadata violates your fourth amendment right, especially when you take in account the amendment reads, we are protected against "*unreasonable* searches and seizures." The conversation between my girlfriend and I is private, but is the physical electronic connection between her # and mine, also, private? The Google searches I conduct are private but are the connections between my anonymous IP address and the servers at Google? The camping trip you're planning through email with your buddies in Colorado is private, but is the data denoting an email exchange between Fratboy87@yahoo.Com and ChugChampion_1@gmail.Com occurred at 3:13 am on June 13, 2012? I think it is an unreasonable claim to make that they, too, are private. That data doesn't actually belong to you. The content of your emails and phone calls belong to you, but you are accessing your family, friends, and collogues by using equipment, cabling, servers, and software owned by someone else. The only thing you technically own is the phone or PC. The metadata collection of the NSA is the functional equivalent of a surveillance camera scanning a crowd at a busy mall, and like to the NSA, your personal identity remains anonymous to the operator of that surveillance camera and only serves as empirical documentation of the events that took place at any particular place or any particular time. The only time your anonymity ceases to remain just that is either you reveal it or your person is tied to a criminal act, e.G., you're either a part of a robbery caught on surveillance or a witness/connection. The same anonymity concept applies to the NSA's surveillance but on a much larger scale. An NSA analyst and their software peruse their vast collection of metadata and flag phone numbers, IP#, and email addresses that are a match for known terrorists and criminals. What's the key difference between your anonymity as a witness/connection on mall surveillance and your anonymous IP or cellular # connecting with a known malicious entity? A warrant is need by the NSA, as outlined by the fourth amendment, "...And no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The NSA must obtain a warrant from the FISA to pin that your IP address belongs to you.