I guess the law is one thing and the interpretation of it is something completely different, especially where there is no oversight or public inspection. If activities can be performed and judged by the government, with no opposing council or public inspection, how can they not get out of control?
The first document (64 pages) shows this in spades, where the FISA court justices can't understand that tapping the phones of provably innocent people isn't constitutional because they aren't aware of it. A good article about it is (as usual) on Techdirt.
It also shows contradictory statements of facts
'"There is no database," says Gregory Garre, before having to admit a few sentences later, that incidental data is retained (and distributed)'[page 8] In the following quote, the Yahoo attorney (Zwillinger) is relating that in spite of monetary compensation for their time and effort they are still injured.
Justice Arnold: Well, if this order is enforced, and it's secret, how can you [yahoo] be hurt? The people don't know that -- that they're being monitored in some way.