what about minimize aith, mr. jafer? doesn't that require a little more carefulness? >> i think it does, mr. conyers. the way minimization works right now, the government is required to minimize only in so far as the information obtained isn't foreign intelligence information, but foreign intelligence information is defined extremely broadly. any communication oforeign affairs is one that the government under the statute can disseminate and americans talk about foreign affairs all of the time over the phone and e-mails and i think it's unacceptable to say to americans that when you are communicating about foreign affairs in an e-mail, that is something that the government can have access to even if you've never done anything wrong and even if the person you're talking to isn't believed to have anything wrong. mr. conyers, if i could say one more thing about the transparency point that you raised

my question is for mr. jafer. your concern is the administration conducting bulk collection of american communications. i was hoping you could explain that term and see if this is occurring? and they explained that one and meaning non-individualized collection. in that kind of situation the government doesn't go to the court ask say we want to target this specific person. instead they say we want to target people overseas, generally, and we of the to target everybody in this particular city and we want to target everybody in this particular country. >> to be clear, they can be every e-mail from karachi or something like that, hypothetically or mexico or -- right, absolutely. and do you have any evidence that this is occurring? >> well, you know, this is something that came up in clapper versus amnesty and the case that we're litigating right now involving this act and the administration is asking this question and the obama administration issing can this question by the southern district and by the appeals court a