4 ms·
I agree, if I'm reading this correctly. From the article: "Pauley is essentially saying that the targets of the order have no recourse to challenge the collect
by muaddirac 13y ago
I agree, if I'm reading this correctly.
From the article: "Pauley is essentially saying that the targets of the order have no recourse to challenge the collection of their personal data because Congress never intended for targets to ever know that they were subject to this sort of spying."
I don't think that's true...I think the judge is saying that the targets of the order have no recourse to challenge the collection of their personal data because there's nothing to challenge (it's legal), regardless of whether or not Congress intended for the targets to know about it.
Am I misreading it?
- marcosdumay 13y agoI read it differently. I read: Targets of the order have no recourse to challenge the collection because they don't have legally acceptable evidence that the collection exists. Altough, the fact that the evicende osn't acceptable isn't in your quote.