My point was that this technology should not be used as evidence, and should not be grounds to take any forceful action against someone. If a cop abuses this, it is the cop's fault and we should hold them accountable. If the cop acted ignorantly because they were lied to by marketers, their boss, or a software company, those parties should be held accountable as well.

If your strategy is to get rid of all pretexts for police action, I don't think that is the right one. Instead we need to set a high standard of conduct and make sure it is upheld. If you don't understand a tool, don't use it. If you do something horrible while using a tool you don't understand, it is negligent/irresponsible/maybe even malevolent, because it was your responsibility to understand it before using it.

A weatherman saying there is a 90% chance of rain is not evidence that it rained. And I understand the fear that a prediction can be abused, and we need to make sure it isn't abused. But abolishing the weatherman isn't the way to do it.