professor vladek, he, certainly even you agree with that. >> i disagree with that. i think if the tree falls in the forest and makes a noise whether you are there or not. >> colbert: yes, it makes a noise at the, that the nsa was listening to. and it is important that the tree never find out. or, rather, rather, let me give you another tree analogy. let's say instead of falling in the forest the tree is standing outside your house and i am hiding in it watching you shower. now, so far, so far, i am not violating your privacy, but the second you see me through the window, suddenly i am the criminal? what about my privacy any am trying thomas bait here. >> i am trying to masturbate here. >> now, come to think of it .. >> now, there are really all sorts of victimless crimes like this. we know people get assaulted because they call the police, but i have never heard of anyone calling the comes because they were murdered. therefore, clearly, no one was killed. now, by the same logic, by the same logic, folks, i have not insulted mike rogers as long as he never hears me s

a quick one to professor vladek. 702 is kind of a competent a program. if you can speak for yourself or any of the ngo's you have had how would you characterize the main concern of outside groups about the way 702 operate? i think we all agree that they had congressional authorization to begin with, so it is not a 215. >> i would not speak for anyone other than myself. >> that is good enough. >> my biggest concern about section 702 is the volume of communications of u.s. persons that are, at least ostensibly available to be picked up. contemplate, based on my understanding of our technological capacities, the collection of data that on a scale that makes the incidental u.s. communications acquisition not just likely, but certain. theiggest concern is that unintentional environment is a bit this ingenuous. >> how would you correct that? >> there are a couple of possibilities. they all get to the same place. one is, not to allow the government to file for a directive if they have reason to believe that a certain percentage of the intercepted mutations will

a quick one to professor vladek. 702 is kind of a competent a program. if you can speak for yourself or any of the ngo's you have had how would you characterize the main concern of outside groups about the way 702 operate? i think we all agree that they had congressional authorization to begin with, so it is not a 215. >> i would not speak for anyone other than myself. >> that is good enough. >> my biggest concern about section 702 is the volume of communications of u.s. persons that are, at least ostensibly available to be picked up. contemplate, based on my understanding of our technological capacities, the collection of data that on a scale that makes the incidental u.s. communications acquisition not just likely, but certain. theiggest concern is that unintentional environment is a bit this ingenuous. >> how would you correct that? >> there are a couple of possibilities. they all get to the same place. one is, not to allow the government to file for a directive if they have reason to believe that a certain percentage of the intercepted mutations will

. >> or fester vladek, earlier you mentioned 702, one could read the statute to say providers can onlychallenge the program but not the specific tasking orders. is that your view, and if so do you do that as a shortcoming of the statute? >> to be frank and i think because it's never been litigated i think it could be argued both ways, and i would've hoped that a provider would have tried to litigate it the other direction. we learn from the letter from judge walton said to senator leahy that no one ever challenged it. i do think any opportunity for more presentation of adversarial arguments in the fisa court, at least after the government has been able to obtain the authority, is worth pursuing. and i think we can get anything from the contrary from the government this morning. whether you would need that on top of a provision for some kind of special advocates i think it's an interesting question because you could have a potential redundancy problem. in the absence of that i think would be a relatively easy sell to congress to do that. i think the artist is getting the recipients to a