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?