So you're saying that the SAFEST of all tracking devices should be the one used as a test-case to set a legal precedent against the harm that tracking devices c

So you're saying that the SAFEST of all tracking devices should be the one used as a test-case to set a legal precedent against the harm that tracking devices could cause? This reminds of the legal urban-myth(?) where if you grievously injure someone but had the intent to kill them, you get less time than if you didn't intend to hurt them at all.