Theory: In-Q-Tel funds - pushing the envelope means having opportunity to fund more stuff that breaks the new, harder stuff. Some opponents use the harder stuff already, it's just harder to fund if it's not widespread.
The article reaches a bit in drawing conclusions, and offers little support. The picture painted is of a coherent judicial system - the opposite is true, each state even municipality treats the novel application of surveillance technology differently, holds different standards for 'public / private' and when, where and how you can expect privacy. Notable are the ways different courts treat cases of indecent exposure, when that exposure occurs on 'private property' (such as in an open window).
The point illustrated, though, is valid - some clarity around what constitutes a 'search' beyond 'privacy mores in vogue' needs to be provided and codified, otherwise the US risks allowing widespread complacency to further continue the erosion of privacy.
-Travis