Without knowing the details, it seems like they shouldn't really distil 'expectation of privacy' down a simple binary "could someone not breaking the law observ

Without knowing the details, it seems like they shouldn't really distil 'expectation of privacy' down a simple binary "could someone not breaking the law observe them or not" test. IMO, the efforts to which that hypothetical person would have to go should influence just how much privacy a person could 'expect' to have. Otherwise why do people bother putting up privacy fences around their garden, when anyone could just fly over? Or hoist a camera on a stick? The problem being that the more effort required to observe, the more confident an ordinary person could presume to be unobserved. When we have UAVs that can loiter around (in public airspace, of course) random buildings and bounce laser microphones off the windows, along with thermal imaging and gait detection of individuals at a price that is affordable by average people, would that change 'expectation of privacy'? As long as the tech is embargoed or ridicuously expensive, there's a distinct skew where the government can afford it and Joe Shmuck The Reasonable Individual can't. In fact, the mere ability to continuously loiter for extended periods and make recordings is probably beyond an individual who doesn't have refueling support or additional friends in similarly equipped craft to change watches. "If they could, then we can, will, and do"