So, basically court decided that this violation is in general OK and not a big deal at all: "In order to minimise the risk of the bulk interception power being

So, basically court decided that this violation is in general OK and not a big deal at all: "In order to minimise the risk of the bulk interception power being abused, the court considers that the process must be subject to ‘end-to-end safeguards’, meaning that, at the domestic level, an assessment should be made at each stage of the process of the necessity and proportionality of the measures being taken; that bulk interception should be subject to independent authorisation at the outset, when the object and scope of the operation are being defined; and that the operation should be subject to supervision and independent ex post facto (retrospective) review." GCHQ cannot be happier seeing "end-to-end safeguards", "necessity and proportionality", "independent authorisation". So many additional employees will be needed to apply "safeguards" (that we will need to make sure look great on paper), budget will have to be extend to pay all those "independent" authorizators. And what is sweeter than nice "necessity" proof in the days when almost anybody can turn overnight to be terrorist because of some twit. Why the court couldn't just say: this was illegal, all data has to be deleted until X, next time you want to do this, get a court order, as courts are those independent authorizators in all countries that follow Montesquieu's separation of powers system.