The big issue with the BBC is not bias (I'm not saying there is none - I don't believe that is possible, but I don't think it is a major problem), it is that they're spineless: They try exceedingly hard to avoid taking a stance. Any stance. Even over relatively un-controversial things.
And that is ironically usually what causes them to be attacked as being biased, because people tend to assume that when someone isn't condemning thing they see as obviously bad, then it implies a bias rather than the absence of a stance.
As far as I can tell, the BBC article is actually quite balanced, including both sides views. And while I disagree that the new privacy concessions are sufficient, it seems that the headline is factually accurate.
What the article doesn't do, is actually try to weigh the arguments up against each other or carry out much actual journalism, by for example questioning the statements (of either side) in any remotely critical fashion and arriving at a conclusion.