It's also an overcomplicated solution. OBD can get pretty nasty if you want access to esoteric stuff or manufacturer proprietary crap; but a basic, bluetooth-capable, OBD dongle that'll report the rough outlines of how a vehicle is being used is quite cheap indeed and not especially complex. I wouldn't necessarily want to try dead-reconing with nothing but that output; but answering "Am I driving right now?" is considerably less demanding.

It's not really polite to say so that bluntly; but the difference is that measles deaths are basically optional(1st world anti-vaxxers) or just another bad thing that happens to poor people in poor and unpleasant places. By contrast, Ebola is currently just another bad thing that happens to poor people in poor and unpleasant places; but we've got basically nothing available to do about it if it spreads beyond the usual outbreak sites(yes, unlike the usual outbreak sites, we have limited supplies of high grade medical isolation gear and some interesting experimental drugs; but nobody has enough of the cool tech to deal with an outbreak of nontrivial size, especially if they want their medical and logistical systems to continue handling routine functions and care at the same time).

There are loads of places far less poor and squalid than Liberia and the other oubreak sites; but without any good options on the table it wouldn't take long to run through your supply of isolation wards and fancy positive-pressure protective suits even in the most upmarket first world locations with well regarded research hospitals and such, were the population to be affected.

Obviously, implicit in that "potentially" is that it would require a case to come before the Court.

That was my only point.

including the Supreme Court's ability to overrule laws and executive actions that are Constitutional violations.

And they can only do that insofar as a case comes before them. They can't just pick up the newspaper and seeing that Congress passed some law say, "Hey, that's unconstitutional, let's declare it unconstitutional".

The Supreme Court is a reactive body. Unless someone brings suit, they have no power to do anything. As you say, there are some cases working their way up to SCOTUS, but until they get there, all Sotomayor can do is talk. So far, she's saying all the right things. In the cases she's adjudicated, she seems to be a pretty firm supporter of a right to privacy.

While true in a strict sense, in a broader sense the Supreme Court has the ability to shape jurisprudence around bigger issues.

But only as far as the cases that come before it, whether or not they accept them.

That's true both in the strict sense, and the broader sense. The Supreme Court can not initiate any action.

She's worried that common, private citizens can get camera drones and fly them above your property as if that ability wasn't available before now in multiple forms?

To be fair, "private" means corporations, too. Until I see a vote on a lower court decision, I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt. She's been only one of maybe three Supreme Court justices who seem to believe in privacy. And one of the others seems to think privacy only applies to men and corporations.

Maybe because she's one of only NINE people in the United States who potentially have the direct power to constrain a surveillance state

Until a case is before her, Sotomayor can do absolutely jack shit. Where does the notion come from, that so many people here seem to have, that a Supreme Court justice has any "direct" power to initiate some kind of policy change? This is why they should never have stopped teaching civics in school.

if only she were in some sort of position to do more than talk to oklahoma students about the topic.. ah well.

Do you understand how the Supreme Court works? They can only adjudicate cases brought before them. They can't make policy outside of those cases, so in fact, she is not in a "position to do more than talk" until a case comes before her challenging surveillance. And even then, she's one vote out of nine.

A Supreme Court justice can do three things in their official capacity: talk, write and vote, and the talking they do is mostly asking questions. They can't initiate any action at all.

If you want something "done", you've got to talk to your congressbum.

Was she asleep for, oh, the past quarter century?

She's been a Supreme Court justice for five years.

She's probably just fine with the *state* peeping into your (not her) business.

No, Sotomayor sees limits to government surveillance, unlike many of her colleagues.

I'm guessing that this argument will be used to put limits on individually owned drones, not on government owned drones.

Or on corporate drones. Many of the surveillance drones used by the government are actually owned and operated by contractors. The big corporations won't have any problem owning drones.

How high above the dirt do I own?

Zero. Since the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, you don't "own" a goddamn thing. You have property only at the pleasure of the government, and as long as there isn't a corporation who can make better use of your property. And by "better use", I mean, will pay more in taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Was she asleep for, oh, the past quarter century? We've put together a neat little system (really an untidy patchwork of them) such that you can't touch something Turing-complete, drive on a substantial percentage of reasonably major roads, or do just about anything involving commerce without it dropping into the gigantic database somewhere and she's freaking out about somebody's little model airplane with a gopro?

It is the case that there are quite a few values of 'somebody' where worrying might be a good idea; but as a relatively petty footnote to the Orwellian world we've already put into operation. Pretending otherwise is clueless at best and actively dishonest at worst.

Per the European Edgar DB, Figure 2.4, American per capita in 2012, was 16.4. In Germany, it was just under 10. That is a factor of 1.5, and no where NEAR 3x.

in 2012, China's per capita was at ~7.2, while Europe's was at ~7.3. That was two years ago.
Since that time, Chinas CO2 emissions have risen more than 20%. China now accounts for more than 1/3 of the global emissions, with less than 1/6 of the world population.
And all of that is based on numbers that Chinese gov. has given up. OCO2 is about to shock the world and liars like yourself.

Per edgar, EU27 was at 4.12 in 1992. In 2012, you were at 3.74. That is a 10% drop.
Now, in the same time span, we increased heavily due to W (from 5->5.91), and then due to our cheap nat gas, we dropped BELOW 5, though, edgar shows America at 5.19 in 2012. However, other groups show that 2013 was a major drop for America, pretty much a fixed level for Europe (esp. due to Germany's killing of their nukes and their massive build-out of coal plants), and a REAL MASSIVE increase for China's emissions.

Several things wrong with that BS.
1) China has NEVER been transparent with their budget.
2) much of what is considered military in America and the west, goes under civilian budget, but military control, in china.
3) China is not a TRUE capitalism. As such, all those that work on the military side, are paid a fraction of what they are paid elsewhere. As such, building an AK-47 in China is a REAL fraction of what it would costs to build in America.

Far more important, is the speed with which China is growing their military, combined with the large number of military secrets that China has stolen from the west (esp. America).