And the NIT program didn't give them anything about the person except for some identifying info. They went to the ISP located in florida to find out information

And the NIT program didn't give them anything about the person except for some identifying info. They went to the ISP located in florida to find out information on this and then got a traditional warrant to search the house which resulted in them finding the material. They waiting to install the NIT until the person went into a forum and tried to access the pornography. Everything about this to me makes sense with one exception. The judge handled that the warrant was topical and specific, which I agree, and argued that the issuing magistrate could issue it seems like a reasonable interpretation of the rules but I wish they would update those instead of let precedent twist the words a little. But I disagree with the finding that despite all of these hoops the judge finds that a warrant wasn't necessary in the first place. That to me is a stretch. Seems like a better thing was that the system worked. There was suspicion, description of what information to seize, and a triggering event. These were all met and a judge had allowed the deploying of the NIT in these circumstances. Why say that despite all of the checks being satisfied they weren't necessary in the first place, especially with the argument that there can be no expectation of privacy simply by being on the internet.