PRISM

[Griff]

That is the difference and it is kind of a big deal. The Constitution would never have been ratified without it. The seeds of unrestrained power are throughout the Constitution if we do away with the Bill of Rights the people have no protection from the government.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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.


A people, entering into society, surrender such a part of their natural rights, as shall be necessary for the existence of that society. They are so precious in themselves, that they would never be parted with, did not the preservation of the remainder require it. They are entrusted in the hands of those, who are very willing to receive them, who are naturally fond of exercising of them, and whose passions are always striving to make a bad use of them.

They are conveyed by a written compact, expressing those which are given up, and the mode in which those reserved shall be secured. - John DeWitt (1787)

[Lamplighter]

Is the only difference that they needed a warrant for that information in NYPD Blue, and now they don't?

Like many things in life, quick answers are simplistic and time-dependent.

1) In the aftermath of 9/11, the Congress passed the "Patri0t Act"
that stands for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by)
Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept
(and) Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.[1]

This gave the government the legal power to secretly screen communications
between people in other countries and people in the U.S.

2) The government used this power to gather information essentially
without getting a warrant (... as required in Griff's post above)
More recently, the National Security Act has been extended,
with some changes that requires warrants issued via the secret FISA Court.

3) The current PRISM issue has to do with collecting "non-indentified" data,
such as each phone call's caller-ID, recepient-ID, Date, etc.
It also exposes the fact that every call is being collected indiscriminately,
not just those between U.S. and foreign callers.

4) In order to actually use the PRISM data, the government (is supposed to)
gets the FISA Court to issue a secret warrant for the only the particular ID numbers,
which then allows them identify the people's names and to
chase down all sorts of other kinds of information.

--- I think most people (today) understand that the PRISM data is collected "legally".
But that doesn't mean that they think the government "should" be doing so.
.