Originally Posted by foundit66
Not my "contention" as much as it is the finding of the court. I am simply repeating a fact about an EXISTING legal standard.
That's your interpretation of standard. The reality is much different. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to ever surveil anyone for fear we might actually witness them going home.
The retarded argument is your assessment that that is my argument. It isn't.
I just stated, quite succinctly: "Whether the resolution of "tracking" includes differentiating between "potty" and "not potty" IS IRRELEVANT."
Yet somehow, you think that the above on going to the potty is my argument?
Simple English comprehension. That's all it takes.
What's amusing is that you actually seem to think the technology CAN track you movements inside a home. (without a tin foil hat, of course)