‘(4) in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was--
‘(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was--
‘(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and
‘(ii) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and
‘(B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--
‘(i) authorized by the President; and . . . .
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h6304/textEavesdropping not designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack is not granted immunity either, I would argue. Anything authorized before 09/11 is also arguably not immunized.