Actually have very, very stringent and effective rules in that regard. For example, under one particular provision of fisa, were not allowed to target either United States persons or persons within the United States. Sometimes it happens that we think somebody is not a u. S. Person and then we discover, oh, my gosh, this person has a green card. We didnt know that before. And the rules are at that point, you have to go and purge the collection you have to report it to the fisa court. You have to purge the collection and you have to purge any downstream reporting that comes from that, as well and all of this is overseen within the government, reported to the court and also reported in summary fashion each year to congress. So it actually it actually is possible to get rules and procedures that do protect against these kind of mistakes. Supply want to thank our panel for sharing their thoughts and wisdom with us this important and thanks to the audience for your participation and i under
The Intelligence Community to try to increase the amount of transparency about what that community does but thats running against the culture of that community and its a challenge because there are legitimate security reasons you dont blab about what you do but i do think that the lessons the last two years are that to the extent to a much greater extent than in the past the Intelligence Community would benefit from Greater Transparency about what its doing and why. Which is easy to say and hard to do. Do any of our panelists have any comments on the usa freedom act pending in congress and the differences between the house and the Senate Version of the bill, one of our questions related to the provision thats not in the house bill but in the senate bill regarding the special advocate for to be present before the fisa court. There was a provision in the house bill thats somewhat different than the senate bill. So i mean the house bill also had its not exactly special advocate. What it i