the Fourth Amendment is not what you think it is, and was designed for eavesdropping at someone's house window. listen to Dario's perspective, the guidance of Claude to executive law enforcement, as well as the following caselaw: Kyllo v. United States (533 U.S. 27, 2001) - intrusive thermal imaging is allowed with both a warrant *and exigent circumstances* Carpenter v. United States (585 U.S. 296, 2018) - likewise, accessing historical cell-site location information from third-party providers and real-time tracking with Stingrays is allowed with a warrant with such information, and the predominance of *probable* cause warrants, what stops a hostile jurisdiction from searching you all the time with AI-augmented surveillance?