How does the absurdity of that result not serve as its own refutation?

Why is that absurd? The theory is well defined and defended.

The theory doesn't work. It's based on the idea that if you go out into public the police could traditionally have followed you to see where you go.

Which isn't actually true. They didn't have the resources to follow everyone everywhere all the time. And if they were following you, it was possible for you to observe them. There are methods to detect a tail, so you could employ them and then not go to the secret place until there is no one watching. To maintain "technological neutrality" it would require there to exist equivalent digital methods for people to use to prevent being observed.

Kerr's whole premise of technological neutrality is also questionable unless you apply it both ways. But does it really make sense to say that the police can't use fingerprints or DNA evidence because it wasn't traditionally available? How does that framework make any sense at all?

>There are methods to detect a tail, so you could employ them and then not go to the secret place until there is no one watching. To maintain "technological neutrality" it would require there to exist equivalent digital methods for people to use to prevent being observed.

Honestly Tor seems like a great analogy here. It makes it far more difficult to be observed, but it's fallible, as is trying to spot a tail.

But the question isn't whether someone could use a welding torch to break into your safe, the question is whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Because the consequence isn't that the police can't get the information, it's only that they need a warrant first.