Jeremy Streich

Milwaukee, WI, United States

Someone is shy

Jeremy hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Jeremy Streich
Posted 8 months ago
Catherine Crump: The small and surprisingly dangerous detail the police track about you
"18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines 'international terrorism' and 'domestic terrorism'"... "'Domestic terrorism' means activities with the following three characteristics: Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. 18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term 'federal crime of terrorism' as an offense that: Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.)." The problem isn't wholly with the definition, but with the fact that no evidence is needed, just to be "suspected of terrorist activity."
Noface
Jeremy Streich
Posted 8 months ago
Catherine Crump: The small and surprisingly dangerous detail the police track about you
1. No. An email address is not necessarily personally identifiable. Anyone can get an email anonymously, especially if it is only accessed through a web proxy or TOR. 2. You chose to comment, it isn't a mandatory act. Your comment is added of your own free will, and following the contract you voluntarily agree to by using the site. 3. The party that is gaining that information isn't a government body with armed forces at their disposal, and it isn't taken without your consent of knowledge. The owner of the site, TED, has no authority over you beyond what you personally agree to give them, and cannot enforce that agreement with lethal force.
Noface
Jeremy Streich
Posted 8 months ago
Catherine Crump: The small and surprisingly dangerous detail the police track about you
So was Martin Luther King. So were most, if not all, of the people tried by the senate during the red scare. Why do assume that everyone on the "police force of [your] country" is infallible, and none of them are corrupt enough not to use the information against you in illegal ways. Moreover, there have been a number of high profile hacks of system containing citizen data, and no system is ever perfectly secure. The government databases that exist the more likely one of them containing your data is going to be exploited and your information released. I'm glad that you are so easily pacified from seeing real privacy concerns caused by government mass surveillance, but luckily the founders of the US were more skeptical and wrote the 4th Amendment. If is a travesty of the system that government is breaking its own laws and acting like criminals at war with the people they are supposed to represent.
Noface
Jeremy Streich
Posted 8 months ago
Catherine Crump: The small and surprisingly dangerous detail the police track about you
Everything I said is true. I challenge you to find inaccuracies in it. You haven't heard of anyone being detained yet, except GITMO of course, only because there is currently an injunction due to reporter Christopher Hedges bringing a lawsuit. The Supreme Court already denied hearing the case once, and the case is pending in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The law is currently on the books, and if this court case fails the federal government can begin using it. The Obama Administration has been very active in trying to the injunction and case thrown out. Did you also miss the drone assignation of US citizens (Anwar al-Awlaki) on foreign soil without due process. The 13 hour filibuster of CIA Director Brennan which forced the executive branch to release a letter acknowledging that Brennan statement about executive authority to use military drones on US soil isn't constitutional (although they did hedge it with "except extraordinary circumstances" and ").
Noface
Jeremy Streich
Posted 8 months ago
Catherine Crump: The small and surprisingly dangerous detail the police track about you
Yes, they can. The Nation Defense Authorization Act contains a clause that federal agents can detain "citizens suspected of terrorist activity" indefinitely without trial. The bill doesn't appropriately define "terrorist activity" and without trial, they could detain anyone without the burden of proof or any appeals that could land at the Supereme Court to challege the constitutionality. Moreover, the US laws are such that most/all people are guilty of violating some federal law everyday simply by living the lives. The laws are so poortly written, and so vauge that there are situations where following one law will force you to break another. Moreover, if nothing else they can always charge you with "breaking the peace," "obstruction of justice," or find a way to hold you in contempt; as the bar for those are way to low and poorly defined. Lastly, they don't need to arrest you to make your life uncomfortable. On the federal level they have no fly lists, watch lists for extra searches at the air port, etc. On the local level, asking neighbors pointed questions about your comings and goings insinuating that you are up to no good, dinging you for any real or made up minor offense like parking tickets, jay walking tickets or selling individual cigarettes. I know, you'll say I'm paranoid; but... Look at Snowden, Manning and Assange; look at Furgeson; look at the tear gas they used on peacful protestors during the OWS movement; look at the documents about collecting dirt to deform the character of "political dissidents;" look at the Martin Luther King "Suicide Letter" written by the FBI; look at the CIA documents about prisoner torture in GITMO. I don't think it is a stretch to be a little "paranoid" about what they will do with our data.
Noface
Jeremy Streich
Posted almost 2 years ago
Chrystia Freeland: The rise of the new global super-rich
"We are in debt because of war... not because of capitalism." We are in debt because of keynsianism. The US debt was all war related until FDR. The current military actions are drops in the bucket in comparison to the social programs. Defense was 25% of budget under Bush, while entitlements accounted for 60% of the budget. It is not capitalism or war, but because the government doesn't trust us to take care of ourselves. That said, we should not have gone to war, and we should pull our troops out of the 104 nations we have them stationed in. It would save money, but it isn't a largest hole to plug. We have $165 trillion to $185 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next 50 years. We can't keep doing what we are doing with our social programs. "No other country in the world has spent near as much as we have fighting there" Any evidence for that baseless claim? "Fix the debt first," Yes! " and the social programs can resume." Depends on how you pay for them, how they are invested and how they run. We can not do Social Security the way it works now.
Noface
Jeremy Streich
Posted almost 2 years ago
Chrystia Freeland: The rise of the new global super-rich
I was with you... I was... and then you said: "rather forced into a 401k program" It is not the job of government to FORCE us to save and invest. We should, and government may incentivize good behavior, but forcing free citizens to invest is as bad as forcing them to be in the social security program. I really wish I could opt-out.
Noface
Jeremy Streich
Posted almost 2 years ago
Chrystia Freeland: The rise of the new global super-rich
"its worst than slavery because they choose to work like slave with these giant companies" Actually, they choose to work, so it cannot in fact be slavery. This is one of the major differences between low paying jobs in the US vs lowing paying jobs in countries like China. Here, if they want to get the millions, they can choose to be chiefs.