 And then maybe an issue that is getting more to the meat of what you guys are interested in. And this is going to be the cutting edge. And I keep having to revise my class slides every semester because there's something new coming up in this area. Warrantless GPS tracking. Warrantless GPS tracking. Now it's clear. If the police go ahead and get a search warrant and comply with a search warrant and a judge approves it, there is no issue. Geospatial intelligence of any kind with a search warrant is going to be OK as long as there was probable cause as we defined it. The problem is in most of these cases, as you've seen, and for reasons that are not entirely clear to me, maybe they don't have enough evidence, the police do this without a search warrant. And if you've followed me from the start, you know then that if the police do it without a warrant, then they have to show that the Fourth Amendment does not apply. To show that the Fourth Amendment does not apply, they have to then show that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in, in this case, a person's movements. Now the police argue when they put the slap GPS trackers onto vehicles, that's mostly what it is, and then track it from satellites, that your movements in a public place, I mean what can be more plain view than that? That is the essence of plain view. You're traveling around on public roads. Where is the privacy? Where is the privacy right? Well, what the courts are starting to say, and this is where this is exactly minute by minute cutting edge sort of development of law. Well, yes, your public movements are open. And yes, in the old days, the cops could have just assigned an officer to follow you 24-7, or I guess three officers on eight-hour shifts to follow you 24-7. And there would be no need for a warrant. They're just following you around where you're driving. Everybody gets that. You don't need a warrant. There's no privacy there if you're driving on the road and they just follow you. But the argument that some judges are starting to make and that I discuss in my IST 452 class is that the nature and the all-encompassing sort of abilities of surveillance technology these days are raising what I call in class and what some legal scholars have called the creepiness factor. Yes, police could have followed you 24-7 for three weeks. But is it likely that they would have done so, that they would have had the resources or the personnel or the money it would cost to do that, to dedicate one or three officers to your case? Now they can do it just by slapping a GPS device on your car. And that's what they do. Your car is parked in a public place, they just slap the GPS device on, and they can track you 24-7. And this is what courts are starting to grapple with.