The amendment is described as a way to prevent reverse targeting-- circumstances in which the Government would target persons overseas when its actual target is a person within the United States with whom the overseas person is communicating. The fact is, reverse targeting is prohibited under FISA today. I repeat, it is prohibited under FISA today. If the person in the United States is the actual foreign intelligence target, the Government must seek a FISA order, and, in fact, the Government would have to have every incentive to do so in order to conduct comprehensive surveillance of such a person. What is more, the base bill, S. 2248, makes the prohibition on reverse targeting explicit. The Government cannot use the authorities in this legislation to target a person outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target for surveillance a person within the United States.
Jay Rockefeller: “The amendment is described as a way to prevent reverse targeting-- circumstances in which the Government would target…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a FISA amendment during Senate floor debate.
Share
More from Jay Rockefeller
one of the things that happened with the CBO scoring was that yes, there was a cost because you were keeping CHIP operating, but there was a savings because the children were not transferring into the Affordable Care Act, for example.
I ask unanimous consent to speak in a seated position. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
If we keep the Senate, if we do not keep the Senate, that will have its affect.
Furthermore, if we are going to potentially burden our government agencies with increased costs that will be associated with complying with the bill, then I think Congress should also provide these agencies with sufficient funding to deal…





