Something legal applied a billion times doesn't make it illegal.
That's also one of the legal principles underlying mass warrantless surveillance with the third party doctrine.
Carpenter v. United States I think is one of the landmark cases that has started to signal the impending curtailment of unabridged third-party doctrine. Kyllo v. U.S. laid some groundwork as well, I believe unless I've mixed it up with another case in which the court recognized it must balance the ever expanding capabilities granted to law enforcement by new technology against the right of the populace to maintain their expectations of privacy. In part, those tests have to take into account the impact of the particular means being employed. In the Kyllo case, a thermal imager being used to see through the walls of a structure without a warrant constituted an infringement of the 4th Amendment because accepting that law enforcement could do this would be to let law enforcement intrude through artifice where historically they would not have been allowed to tread without warrants. Applied to the entirety of the population, this would represent a wholesale nullification of the 4th Anendment by mere accident of now having a sensor exist that could make that previously private, public. Based on said analysis, your assertion talls short. It is in fact the goal of the Court to specifically not infer that just because something is authorized for use in a singular instance, does not mean it's character does not change when applied a billion times.
Courts are not computers. They are not stupid. They business of weighing nuance is sorta their thing, in spite of how annoying they can be at utterly torturing language when they want to do something a plain reading won't let them do.
This is the world we live in. But I'm sure many of you have money - why not try organizing and changing the law.