Just as a matter of optics, some advice would be to provide more "national security" based anecdata. It's just a fact that people are going to look more and mor

Just as a matter of optics, some advice would be to provide more "national security" based anecdata. It's just a fact that people are going to look more and more askance at these technologies when they believe that the best example uses involve apparent street level drug dealers as opposed to, say, international terrorists with dirty bombs. And to be fair to layman, one is a law enforcement issue, the other is a national security issue. So if we're talking about using these things for national security, that's one thing in the minds of the critics. (The reasonable critics anyway.) But if we're talking about giving it to every joe blow cop on the street, people are going to be, understandably, uncomfortable. Why? Because I always say, there are hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations in this nation. There really is no way a regular person can guarantee that they are in compliance with every one of them at all times. So if we're going to, sort of, "automate" the discovery of which crime any given citizen is committing, people can kind of see where that might lead to a dark, dark place. Or, long story short, most people, quite reasonably, believe that tech like this deployed against street level pot dealers will eventually be used against themselves. With all of the societal implications that entails.