Shouldn't the title be instead "UK surveillance powers ruled unlawful" ?
The court ruled agencies had violated rights as there were no proper safeguards.
The court crucially said bulk interception was legitimate...
Apparent contradiction. Further down the page I saw what the reporter was trying to say... maybe. I think it's more likely that he muddled everything and we should wait for better clearer reporting (or read the original court decisions).
It's unclear what - and why - are criteria for sufficiency and adequacy.
It's almost always worth it to find the published opinion and to read that. The language is not that bad.