> training people to have always-on surveillance in their homes without a second thought Even worse: when always-on surveillance devices become popular enough

> training people to have always-on surveillance in their homes without a second thought Even worse: when always-on surveillance devices become popular enough that a judge could rule that the technology (in the abstract, not a specific product) is "in general public use"[2] - crossing the bright-line rule created in Kyllo v United States[1] - the police no longe4r need a warrant to use the technology see the "details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion"[3]. I'm not talking about the police being involved with Amazon or using the Echo. When a technology is "in general public use", the police can use their own always-on microphone to transmit previously-private speech to a 3rd party on the internet. Normalizing surveillance devices not harms the person using the device, it also reduces *everyone's 4th Amendment protection. [1] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/27.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/27.html [2] Used throughout the ruling[1], but especially section II of Justice Stevens' dissent. [3] The ruling[1], 2nd paragraph