[shakna]

> The entire reason why the court ruled that physically attaching a GPS tracker to a car is against the fourth amendment is because attaching the device involves physical trespass on a suspect's vehicle which they considered part of his "personal effects."

I understand how you're just trying to reason from the other side. Just trying to show how the reverse argument might happen.

As far as I'm aware, one of the reasons "hacking" has been defined to be a crime, is that unauthorised access to someone's machine has also been defined as a kind of trespass. Allowing them to rule that deploying code from one location to another is also trespass against the physical location.