Sure, just like there's a 4th Amendment right to not be the target of unreasonable search and seizure, and a constitutional right (Section 9) to "a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time". Oh, there's also a 5th amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury for a capital or infamous crime.
But you're also almost certainly snooped on every telecomm session, and the US Government has a program for assassinating US citizens.
The US government doesn't enforce laws strictly, or by what the obvious wording says, nor does it enforce laws uniformly. In practice there's a "high court" for large corporations and rich people, and a "low court" for commoners and other smaller personhoods.
I get your point, but a legal opinion from the Department of Justice is not the same as a "program." Set the hyperbole aside and realize that laws are always in flux, and that the courts largely define things like "unreasonable search," etc. The statement from the parent is still true. There are penalties on the books. It takes people bringing abusers to court, though, to decide the exact nature of those penalties.
In the case of the near-universal snooping by the NSA and related agencies, the courts have ruled, I believe: nobody has standing. Virtually every time the US Government uses the "State Secrets" privilege, the courts just let it go. For all practical purposes, what seems to me as clear wording of the 4th Amendment gets taken to mean something else. It's not really hyperbole. There are penalties on the books, agreed. They're toothless for various factors, except maybe for the very wealthy personhoods among us.
Not officially, but in practice, there's a "high court" for those entities (corporations, people, etc) with a lot of money. Defendants either don't get charged with as serious crimes for the same or worse actions, and those few found guilty don't receive equal punishment. In practice, there's a "low court" for the less well off entities. Laws are applied far more broadly (any excuse for a guilty verdict) and far greater punishments are assessed.
Again, this distinction is somewhat de facto, rather than any official status that mean "use the high court" or "subject to the low court". It's just a double standard that seems to be in place unofficially.
Sure, just like there's a 4th Amendment right to not be the target of unreasonable search and seizure, and a constitutional right (Section 9) to "a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time". Oh, there's also a 5th amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury for a capital or infamous crime.
But you're also almost certainly snooped on every telecomm session, and the US Government has a program for assassinating US citizens.
The US government doesn't enforce laws strictly, or by what the obvious wording says, nor does it enforce laws uniformly. In practice there's a "high court" for large corporations and rich people, and a "low court" for commoners and other smaller personhoods.