Sometimes, the intelligence community does legal collection against a legitimate foreign intelligence target and that target interacts with U.S. persons, against whom our people thus end up collecting information as a collateral matter.

In this quote, Benjamin Wittes is discussing the complexities of intelligence gathering, particularly in the context of legal collection. He explains that when the intelligence community is tasked with gathering information on a legitimate foreign intelligence target, there may be incidental collection of data on U.S. persons. This means that while the primary goal is to gather intelligence on foreign entities, individuals in the U.S. may have their information collected as a byproduct, even though they are not the primary targets.

Wittes points out that this situation occurs when foreign intelligence targets interact with U.S. citizens or residents. The legal framework governing intelligence collection often allows for this type of collateral collection, where information on U.S. persons is unintentionally gathered during the investigation of foreign entities. This happens because U.S. intelligence agencies are primarily focused on foreign threats but must sometimes operate within the global flow of communication that involves U.S. persons.

The mention of legal collection is significant because it indicates that the intelligence gathering is done within the boundaries of the law, meaning that the collection of data on U.S. persons, though incidental, is still subject to legal oversight and regulations. Wittes is acknowledging the tension between national security concerns and the privacy rights of U.S. citizens, a balance that is often difficult to strike in intelligence operations.

Ultimately, Wittes' quote highlights a key challenge in intelligence work: ensuring that while pursuing legitimate foreign intelligence targets, agencies do not infringe upon the rights of U.S. persons. It underscores the complexity of modern intelligence gathering, where the lines between foreign and domestic interests are often blurred, and where oversight and legal safeguards are essential to protect civil liberties.