How on Earth did the Supremes come up with that interpretation???
My lay reading of that judgement is that the Supremes said, its ok to collect the data, but you cant look at it!
But since there is no point in collecting the data in the first place if you're not allowed to look at it, why would the data need to be collected? So effectively, the judges were daring the intelligence agencies to collect and use the data, and if they got caught using it, the judges could simply deny they ever gave them premission to look at it.
Gobsmacking really. Thank diety for the ECHR!
Biting the hand that feeds IT
