But they argued that the IP address is freely given, so they didn't need a warrant for this. However, the IP address was freely given to the FBI when it transmi

But they argued that the IP address is freely given, so they didn't need a warrant for this. However, the IP address was freely given to the FBI when it transmitted the other information as what was to be collected by the warrant from the NIT. So the argument that the IP address was freely given was a consequence of their software running on the person's computer. They pointed out that the warrant was legal and specific, and given in the jurisdiction of the issuing magistrate because it was a "tracking" device and the computer made a digital journey to Virginia and the tracking device went back home with them. But then they go on to say that a warrant was not necessary at all because you have no reasonable expectation of privacy when you're on the internet because a bunch of assholes will hack you anyways, and therefore this is equivalent of a police organization peering into your house through slits in your blinds. Since no expectation of privacy, there can be no 4th amendment violation.