> A warrant might just mean that they're asking for the information legally, so that they can use it, rather than relying on their illegally gathered hacked inf

> A warrant might just mean that they're asking for the information legally, so that they can use it, rather than relying on their illegally gathered hacked information. Note that the "warrant", in this case, required that CertiVox hand over the key(s) to the encrypted data. It's possible that the authorities (not necessarily GCHQ itself, as NTAC provides assistance to other law enforcement and intelligence agencies) had already intercepted or seized the data but were unable to read it because it was encrypted.