The theory doesn&#x27;t work. It&#x27;s based on the idea that if you go out into public the police could traditionally have followed you to see where you go.<p>Which isn&#x27;t actually true. They didn&#x27;t have the resources to follow everyone everywhere all the time. And <i>if</i> they were following you, it was possible for you to observe them. There are methods to detect a tail, so you could employ them and then not go to the secret place until there is no one watching. To maintain &quot;technological neutrality&quot; it would require there to exist equivalent digital methods for people to use to prevent being observed.<p>Kerr&#x27;s whole premise of technological neutrality is also questionable unless you apply it both ways. But does it really make sense to say that the police can&#x27;t use fingerprints or DNA evidence because it wasn&#x27;t traditionally available? How does that framework make any sense at all?