> One student asks, “What’s the distance?” > Vass tells him it’s about a quarter mile. “The advantage of this is you don’t have to be on a property to scan it,

> One student asks, “What’s the distance?” > Vass tells him it’s about a quarter mile. “The advantage of this is you don’t have to be on a property to scan it,” he says. “You can be on a public street and scan your suspect’s yard.” So this guy is claiming he can track someone in a closed house from room to room from a pretty reasonable distance away. Ignoring the more obvious problem that this isn't true, if it were true would this require a warrant? I guess it might depend partially on the mechanism of how it works? Which is of course convenient since there is no formally defined mechanism of how it works. But it's funny to me that the way that the police are getting around needing a warrant is to say, "oh, it's fine, we had probable cause because someone magically invaded your privacy on our behalf." It's a bit like saying, "we have probable cause to search your house because we heard you say something suspicious after we bugged it."