Not only the title -- the article is horribly muddled. Just look at these two lines: The court ruled agencies had violated rights as there were no proper safeg

Not only the title -- the article is horribly muddled. Just look at these two lines: 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).