Report comment

I'm puzzled by this article - it seems anachronistic. It makes no mention of the fact that the IPA was ruled unlawful in the High Court only 2 months ago April and the government given until Nov this year to introduce new rules.
The government accepted that the act was inconsistent with EU law because access to retained data was not limited to the purpose of combating “serious crime” and was not subject to prior review by a court or other independent body. The most critical question of whether it is still not "prior" is hazy in the article, to say the least: it reads as though it is prior.
Given that the government wanted a year to fix the act, it's puzzling that there is no mention of this 2 months after the ruling.
There are several other points (particularly regarding public trust) such as bulk collection which seem more important than those raised but are not discussed. It's as though the act has not been found unlawful.