The Supreme Court actually has in the past ruled that a technology that is cheap and can be applied without public knowledge is constitutionally different from

The Supreme Court actually has in the past ruled that a technology that is cheap and can be applied without public knowledge is constitutionally different from direct observation. See e.g. United States v. Jones, which ruled that a GPS device placed under a valid warrant could not be used to continue tracking a person outside of the scope of the warrant. "Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben[15] began his argument for the United States by noting that information revealed to the world (i.e. movement on a public road) is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.[16] Dreeben cited United States v. Knotts as an example where police were allowed to use a device known as a "beeper" that allows the tracking of a car from a short distance away.[16] Chief Justice Roberts distinguished the current case from Knotts, saying that using a beeper still took "a lot of work" whereas a GPS device allows the police to "sit back in the station ... and push a button whenever they want to find out where the car is."[17]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)