Far easier to just request and obtain the resulting intelligence from partner intelligence organizations who are using it.
Arms-length collection is less legally perilous.
But which does bode poorly for any assertion of national security in US courts! "Are you using this software?" "Officially, no." "Then on what basis do you claim national security?"
No need to follow the law if you have a secret court where no one has standing to challenge your actions.
There are no illuminati.
There are powerful institutions, who nonetheless fear other powerful institutions.
In this case, intelligence preferring to remain out of the courts and newspapers.
There can also be a future time in which something even stronger exists!
It's annoying to get low-effort whatabout'isms that are justifications for inaction on the basis that nothing will ever change.
It has and it can.
Although, having considered these topics over the years, I am skeptical that we will do better. Humans are flawed. Truth and justice are hard to achieve, even with the best intentions. Anyone involved with these topics -- judges, prosecutors, lawmakers -- should have a very high sense of humility in what they are doing. Often they do not.
Before FISA, they generally just did it, without asking anyone.
And press reports on intelligence operations led directly to the Church/Pike Committees, which led to EO 11905/12036.
Oh, and they went back to doing it after a few decades.
And the fact that subsequent Executive Orders explicitly loosened the reigns on intelligence collection (and assassination with respect to "terrorists") indicates that yes, the original orders did restrict intelligence operations.
They don't "fear" other powerful institution. Just like chess players, they "game" with each other.
There are no illuminati.
Couldnt they ask to spy on a phone owned by them to try to learn how the phones are infected?