I wouldn't count on The Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches to block enhanced aerial surrveillance and tracking. It is merely a vast computer assisted extension of the observation of what is visible to the naked eye doctrine. In the GPS tracking device attached to a suspect's car cases, the finding of illegality was based largely on the concept that the physical attachment was an illegal tresspass. In the DirtBox cases - fake cellphone towers that can track an individuals movements - the main basis of a ruling of unconstitutionality was that such tracking allowed the tracking of individuals in "constitutionally protected space", e.g., the interior of a person's home or office where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy." There is no reasonable expectation of privacy while walking or driving outdoors in plain view. The Panopticon described in the article accomplishes the same thing as a hugely expanded law enforcement organization equipped with advanced communications gear. IMHO it would take a new law,Constitutional Amendment, or revolution to rationally expect that the Panopticon will be prevented by the rule of law.
Lawsuit fights new Baltimore aerial surveillance program The program could put Baltimore under an all-seeing eye April 9, 2020 https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/9/2...lance-baltimore-police-department-pss-lawsuit ACLU: ACLU Lawsuit Over Baltimore Spy Planes Sets Up Historic Surveillance Battle
Federal judge OKs Baltimore aerial surveillance program to proceed April 27, 2020 https://www.reuters.com/article/dat...surveillance-program-to-proceed-idUSL2N2CF1DP