GEN Alexander has... been forced to acknowledge is that we do collect it, we just don't process and exploit it... IMO, the current state of collection and storage is a ticking time bomb. I just no idea HOW it will explode.

I'll give you an idea of just how it will explode: in a massive, Geek-led Plaintiff's class action claim against the Secretary of Homeland Security under Section 1983, for violation of the Constitution's probition of "unlawful search and seizures" under the 4th Amendment, for searching and siezing (collecting) the communications and electronic documents of Americans without a search warrant for each item searched and collected, seeking punitive damages on behalf of everyone whose information has been unlawfully searched and siezed (punitive damages payable to every Geek in America).

Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code is part of the civil rights act of 1871. This provision was formerly enacted as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 and was originally designed to combat post-Civil War racial violence in the Southern states. Reenacted as part of the Civil Rights Act, section 1983 is as of the early 2000s the primary means of enforcing all constitutional rights.

Section 1983 provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...

The Supreme Court has also held that, similar to tort law, Punitive Damages are available under section 1983 (Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 103 S. Ct. 1625, 75 L. Ed. 2d 632 [1983]). A plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages if the jury finds that the defendant's conduct was reckless or callously indifferent to the federally protected rights of others or if the defendant was motivated by an evil intent. The jury has the duty to assess the amount of punitive damages. Because the purpose of punitive damages is to punish the wrongdoer, such damages may be awarded even if the plaintiff cannot show actual damages (Basista v. Weir, 340 F.2d 74 [3d Cir. 1965]). As in tort law, the judge has the right to overturn a jury verdict if the jury awards what the judge considers to be excessive punitive damages.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Elements+of+a+...

The manner in which the data and communications are being scanned and collected could certainly be construed by a jury to be "reckless and callously indifferent" to the rights of Americans.

;-)