The Fourth Amendment issues are straightforward. It sounds like the program involves only non-content surveillance, which means that it presumably doesn’t implicate the Fourth Amendment under Smith v. Maryland.

You have no 4th amendment right to things that computers log.

First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone rather than some other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information [442 U.S. 735, 736] to the police.

Think about that the next time you use Google. BTW, I don't like this precident either.
Here is an insightful comment from the Volokh Conspiracy:

It is a planned tactic. Disclose early a lesser problem, deny that it is really a problem, hint at something else while denying it and then, later, disclose what was initially denied.

If enough noise is heard, it is termed "old news," and we just need to move on. Too many people forget about it or are labeled "tin-foil hats."

All of this intrusions into our lives is for our good and safety.

It is a way to "slow boil" the mythological frog.