I think the question is relevant but you do bring up a good counterpoint in a sense. For bike touring all sorts of things may have the potential to be helpful. A bike stand, several changes of clothing, 10 gallons of water, a dutch oven... and we all have to make the choices where along the spectrum we draw the line. In my case I see remote tracking to be unnecessary because I can't think of a situation that couldn't just as easily be handled by the smartphone most people who carry trackers would already have.

I have also served on a SAR team in the past and am very aware of the unintended consequence that ease of access cell phone use has created, chiefly, people not preparing properly because they assume they will simply "call" for help. When we talk about bike touring and passive tracking I also see the same issue. Either you will back up the tracker with a cell phone (which makes the tracker sort of pointless) or you set off unprepared assuming you are being tracked and not paying any sort of attention to where you are or what you are doing. The tracker does not prevent any sort of accident or incident from happening - it only affords the illusion of safety that someone, somewhere, will know where you are. In my mind, that is too little too late. I would rather put my eggs into strategies that prevent the incident in the first place.

I have discussed this issue quite a bit in diving where equipment based safety solutions are endemic. As you may guess I promote a counter argument of safety being centered in a skills based approach. Same here. I get the novelty aspect but if someone actually thinks passive tracking will keep them safer I would question exactly how that might occur and whether skills might just as easily address it. If I have a choice between a skill or piece of equipment I will usually choose skill. In this case I see passive tracking having no value in enhancing skills and only the potential to erode them.

That's just me. You may be different and that is ok. If we met on the road I wouldn't say much about it at all other than to show a curiosity about how it worked perhaps. But this is a discussion board so I am expressing my POV. I see argument (in the Greek sense) as a test of ideas. We discuss points and if they hold up to the test of argument perhaps they are valid, if not perhaps they need to be reconsidered.