3 ms·

It should cost almost nothing to implement as they already doing it for law enforcement anyway. And it is also an indirect method for them of informing the gene

by doe88 11y ago

It should cost almost nothing to implement as they already doing it for law enforcement anyway. And it is also an indirect method for them of informing the general public that they have the capacity of doing it and therefore it must not come to a surprise if it is also forwarded @fbi. Maybe in their mind it's a way of declining moral responsibility for their spying. And likewise for federal governement as it is certainly endorsed (if not suggested) by them.

pilsetnieks 11y ago
Are you really suggesting that the USPS is opening all letters sent through them, scanning their contents and passing it all on to law enforcement? It's a serious allegation without any proof. If I recall correctly, they are actually scanning the outside of the letter which gets you senders, recipients, sending time (the metadata, so to speak.) Which isn't very nice but also not as brazen as opening and resealing letters KGB-style.
- cm2187 11y ago
  What I don't understand is how the US got not to interpret emails as an equivalent to a letter, and how the secrecy of correspondence that applies to mail didn't extend to emails. As you say, opening and resealing letters is "KGB style", but that's exactly what they do with emails. Even USPS is not allowed to open your mail.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    The argument was that emails are more like postcards, since they aren't "sealed" and you "share" their contents with the provider. That said, I believe the sixth circuit agreed with you in United States v. Warshak, in 2010. Of course, LE is trying its best to read that ruling in the most narrow way possible.
- jluxenberg 11y ago
  doe88 is talking about mail covers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_cover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_cover), a program where the USPS provides copies of the information on the outside of envelopes to the federal agency requesting it. This program is controversial because no lawful order is required for the USPS to collect this information. It's an egregious violation of US citizens' privacy.
  - pilsetnieks 11y ago
    Yes, I know, that's what I was talking about as well. What he was actually saying was "It should cost almost nothing to implement as they already doing it for law enforcement anyway" which would mean that they are actually reading the letter contents - which is just not true, as far as we know.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- steve19 11y ago
  Will never* happen. The Postal Union would have a heart attack at the mere suggestion. They exist to keep delivery postal workers employed, they (rightfully) don't give a damn about what postal consumers want, and they have the ability to seriously disrupt the core usps business: delivering junk mail. They would never agree to email replacing last mile delivery of mail. * not in the next decade.

by doe88 11y ago

pilsetnieks 11y ago

Are you really suggesting that the USPS is opening all letters sent through them, scanning their contents and passing it all on to law enforcement? It's a serious allegation without any proof. If I recall correctly, they are actually scanning the outside of the letter which gets you senders, recipients, sending time (the metadata, so to speak.) Which isn't very nice but also not as brazen as opening and resealing letters KGB-style.

cm2187 11y ago
What I don't understand is how the US got not to interpret emails as an equivalent to a letter, and how the secrecy of correspondence that applies to mail didn't extend to emails. As you say, opening and resealing letters is "KGB style", but that's exactly what they do with emails. Even USPS is not allowed to open your mail.
- icebraining 11y ago
  The argument was that emails are more like postcards, since they aren't "sealed" and you "share" their contents with the provider. That said, I believe the sixth circuit agreed with you in United States v. Warshak, in 2010. Of course, LE is trying its best to read that ruling in the most narrow way possible.
jluxenberg 11y ago
doe88 is talking about mail covers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_cover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_cover), a program where the USPS provides copies of the information on the outside of envelopes to the federal agency requesting it. This program is controversial because no lawful order is required for the USPS to collect this information. It's an egregious violation of US citizens' privacy.
- pilsetnieks 11y ago
  Yes, I know, that's what I was talking about as well. What he was actually saying was "It should cost almost nothing to implement as they already doing it for law enforcement anyway" which would mean that they are actually reading the letter contents - which is just not true, as far as we know.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
steve19 11y ago
Will never* happen. The Postal Union would have a heart attack at the mere suggestion. They exist to keep delivery postal workers employed, they (rightfully) don't give a damn about what postal consumers want, and they have the ability to seriously disrupt the core usps business: delivering junk mail. They would never agree to email replacing last mile delivery of mail. * not in the next decade.