I'm aware of the formula, the historical boundaries upon which they were set, and how section 4 could be updated beyond relying on preclearance for historically discriminatory districts. I do acknowledge that the formula is flawed and Congress could do a better job (especially in extending protections to areas not designated historically discriminatory that might be now). However, my specific point on bringing that up is that Scalia can't be counted on to hold to his own originalist views, so I emphasized his deferral to other branches of government instead as the sticking point, as well as his general dismissal of the right to privacy. Any combination of these factors make him pretty hopeless on this case, regardless.
I made a mistake blindly sticking Alito in there, without considering his views on privacy. However, he does have a very strong deference to executive power that would place him in that bucket of deferring to national security agencies (and indeed probably drove his majority opinion on Clapper v. Amnesty).
"One troubling memo concerns domestic wiretaps - a timely topic. In the memo, which he wrote as a lawyer in the Reagan Justice Department, Judge Alito argued that the attorney general should be immune from lawsuits when he illegally wiretaps Americans."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/opinion/24sat1.html
While I have this comment thread going, I'll clarify what I meant by wildcard. I never intended to note this being a special instance for the court, but rather I wanted to emphasize how this particular forum (a hub for technology leaders) can get involved in a deep policy issue like this, and have their views be well-respected. That doesn't happen that often. It was my call to action to this forum, rather than any particular critique of the court.