OK, I've finally been motivated to go read the law itself. You can find it at <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1881a" rel="nofollow">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1881a</a>.<p>There are a lot of interesting things in there. For instance g.1.B allows wiretapping BEFORE they get the FISA rubber stamp. (But the warrant is still required to be sought. Whether this is done in practice is another question, but the warrant is still needed.)<p>However to me the single biggest red flag is g.4 which reads, <i>A certification made under this subsection is not required to identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property at which an acquisition authorized under subsection (a) will be directed or conducted.</i><p>Why is this interesting? Well compare with the 4th amendment, with the important bit highlighted by captitalization, <i>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 person or things to be seized.</i><p>How can anyone pretend that this law is constitutional???