This debate is decades old, and history shows that complaining about "spying" is not an effective method to keep new technology out of police hands.
If the police use a search light for better visibility a night? Not spying. Use binoculars? Not spying. Fly overhead? Not spying. Look into the windows of a barn which is "accessible only after crossing a series of "ranch-style" fences and situated one-half mile from the public road"? Not spying.
At least, not according to the US Supreme Court. There are of course many who object.
It's not even so much about "keeping technology out of the hands of police", it's about having appropriate safeguards against misuse and accountability for people granted the power to use (and abuse) it.
If we can't even indict police who shoot people in the back to go to trial(1), how can anyone believe cops won't use this to stalk ex girlfriends or anyone else they feel randomly curious about?
(Which is what I started off with, two comments upwards, with the statement 'one of the issues is to get right the level of oversight, transparency, and trust in the system to minimize abuse'.)
If the police use a search light for better visibility a night? Not spying. Use binoculars? Not spying. Fly overhead? Not spying. Look into the windows of a barn which is "accessible only after crossing a series of "ranch-style" fences and situated one-half mile from the public road"? Not spying.
At least, not according to the US Supreme Court. There are of course many who object.