You clearly don't understand the first thing about the legal system then, innocent until proven guilty is kind of a vital tenant of it. The protection of innocents applies to all.
The privilege of operating on public roadways imposes some obligations on vehicle operators. What those obligations should be is a pros-cons trade-off that has little to do with the criminal-guilt threshold.
If the tech is cheap enough, there are a lot of hypothetical upsides to constantly tracking every multi-ton machine on the road. Observe, for comparison, the FAA requirements for flight plans and running a broadcasting transponder to safely operate an airplane.
If the tech is cheap enough, you could argue that there are hypothetical upsides to having a tracker implanted inside every citizen as well. After all those citizens are capable of illegal behavior and must be monitored.
If, some day, most people decide it's worth it to track every individual, the law will bend to allow it.
If you're talking about ADS-B, the only parallel to a database that is owned/operated by manufactures of the vehicles is that they broadcast a signal -- but that's where any form of parallel stops/ends, because the signal from vehicles is not intended not to be broadcasted in such way as to be publicly consumable; which is precisely why the car manufacturers control a monopoly on that data and why law enforcement goes to them for the data.
Planes could arguably operate just as safely before those transponders -- they just couldn't be tracked publicly by anyone (or each other) in real time. Being able to track something doesn't - automatically - infer any upsides, whatsoever, just that we know where the plane is and/or went.