They greatly expanded the definition of what's a "serious crime" - any crime for which you could get 6-months in prison. Also, I don't understand why they act

They greatly expanded the definition of what's a "serious crime" - any crime for which you could get 6-months in prison. Also, I don't understand why they act so surprised that it wasn't in accordance with the EU ruling. The EU ruling happened like 6 months before they passed Snooper's Charter. They didn't even bother to consider the ruling before passing the law? I also don't think this solves that issue with the judge having to give warrants for surveillance requests. When they passed it they allowed a single permanent judge to "review" the order passed by the Home Secretary after the fact, and I don't think that judge can even ask for more details about the requests. Not to mention pretty much all surveillance requests are "thematic" aka mass surveillance, and they're both both against EU's Fundamental Charter of Rights and ECHR's right to privacy rulings. The "due process" in Snooper's Charter is an absolute joke. The new changes won't stop the GCHQ from doing mass surveillance at all. This is mainly about the police not being able to do the same level of mass surveillance, too, which was beyond ridiculous and extremely anti-democratic to begin with. People like Theresa May should be put in prison for even proposing anti-democracy laws like that, not be the PM of the country. May is an enemy to democracy in the UK. The U.S. isn't far off right now, thanks to Obama signing an order allowing 17 law enforcement and intelligence agencies to access upstream cable-tapping data before any minimization procedures are done - all in his last 4 days in office. The new FISA renewal is also about to make such shameless domestic mass surveillance law, too.