5 ms·

I like the idea from the point of view of 'making things better', but from the philosophical perspective of publicly funded entities should not give benefit and

I like the idea from the point of view of 'making things better', but from the philosophical perspective of publicly funded entities should not give benefit and preferential treatment to private and proprietary enterprises and systems. I think if the USPO was capturing this data, then it should be available to everyone.

jasode 9y ago
>publicly funded entities should not give benefit and preferential treatment to private and proprietary enterprises and systems. It wouldn't be a "gift" from the USPS. It would be a mutually beneficial financial contract. (E.g. 5 year multi-million dollar contract to mount Google cameras.) Similar to how private events pay the government for extra police officers to direct traffic or supplement security. Or how the Pentagon charged the Top Gun film production $25,000 to turn an aircraft carrier around.[1] Government entities have set the precedent that they will sell services to private companies. The citizens' access to the USPS photos would a given and be part of the contract. [1] https://www.quora.com/Why-did-it-cost-25-000-to-turn-the-ship-in-Top-Gun-during-filming https://www.quora.com/Why-did-it-cost-25-000-to-turn-the-shi...
- fletchowns 9y ago
  I don't think those two examples are very good for your argument. One is about public safety and the other is basically about military recruitment. There is a lot more precedence for those sorts of things than there is for mounting Google cameras to USPS trucks.
  - jasode 9y ago
    Well, there's a precedence for the government wanting to preserve jobs. USPS lost $5.6 billion last year.[1] A rich Google contract wouldn't solve all their financial problems but conceivably, USPS would hire extra workers to help manage the camera equipment, the photos, and interface with Google Inc. If not that reason, the government could come up with other justifications. (The US government is very good at coming up with justifications for anything.) In any case, getting some extra revenue from trucks already burning up huge amounts of fossil fuel to deliver mail seems like an eco-green win/win. [1] https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2016/pr16_092.htm https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2016/pr16_092....
    - Aloha 9y ago
      the post office isnt the government - its owned by the government, but is not part of the government.
    - whathaschanged 9y ago
      USPS didn't 'lose' money. They were railroaded into paying for pensions in an attempt to kill them off. http://m.govexec.com/management/2017/09/usps-defaults-billions-mandatory-payments-despite-scheduled-relief/141404/ http://m.govexec.com/management/2017/09/usps-defaults-billio... The postal service owns tons of valuable land and also could easily charge amazon, etc. competitive rates when abused for their last mile services. I'd rather my postal service not be treated like another shitty wall street commodity. We all benefit from its continued existence, warts and all.
      - yeukhon 9y ago
        I am not sure about not losing money. Please see https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2017/pr17_007.htm https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2017/pr17_007.... Summary: - operation cost reduced - holiday sales saw growth - first-class mail saw continued loss It is known USPS has been losing money for many years now due to the raise of emails and now social media and instant messaging. This is a strong reason some people proposed to privatize USPS instead.
  - quesera 9y ago
    Amazon pays the USPS to roll trucks on Sundays for exclusive (Amazon-only) package delivery service. So there is precedent for a private company paying a pseudo-USG entity for private benefit.
Aloha 9y ago
The Post Office isn't a publicly funded entity - it self funds thru user fees.

jasode 9y ago

>publicly funded entities should not give benefit and preferential treatment to private and proprietary enterprises and systems. It wouldn't be a "gift" from the USPS. It would be a mutually beneficial financial contract. (E.g. 5 year multi-million dollar contract to mount Google cameras.) Similar to how private events pay the government for extra police officers to direct traffic or supplement security. Or how the Pentagon charged the Top Gun film production $25,000 to turn an aircraft carrier around.[1] Government entities have set the precedent that they will sell services to private companies. The citizens' access to the USPS photos would a given and be part of the contract. [1] https://www.quora.com/Why-did-it-cost-25-000-to-turn-the-ship-in-Top-Gun-during-filming https://www.quora.com/Why-did-it-cost-25-000-to-turn-the-shi...

fletchowns 9y ago
I don't think those two examples are very good for your argument. One is about public safety and the other is basically about military recruitment. There is a lot more precedence for those sorts of things than there is for mounting Google cameras to USPS trucks.
- jasode 9y ago
  Well, there's a precedence for the government wanting to preserve jobs. USPS lost $5.6 billion last year.[1] A rich Google contract wouldn't solve all their financial problems but conceivably, USPS would hire extra workers to help manage the camera equipment, the photos, and interface with Google Inc. If not that reason, the government could come up with other justifications. (The US government is very good at coming up with justifications for anything.) In any case, getting some extra revenue from trucks already burning up huge amounts of fossil fuel to deliver mail seems like an eco-green win/win. [1] https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2016/pr16_092.htm https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2016/pr16_092....
  - Aloha 9y ago
    the post office isnt the government - its owned by the government, but is not part of the government.
  - whathaschanged 9y ago
    USPS didn't 'lose' money. They were railroaded into paying for pensions in an attempt to kill them off. http://m.govexec.com/management/2017/09/usps-defaults-billions-mandatory-payments-despite-scheduled-relief/141404/ http://m.govexec.com/management/2017/09/usps-defaults-billio... The postal service owns tons of valuable land and also could easily charge amazon, etc. competitive rates when abused for their last mile services. I'd rather my postal service not be treated like another shitty wall street commodity. We all benefit from its continued existence, warts and all.
    - yeukhon 9y ago
      I am not sure about not losing money. Please see https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2017/pr17_007.htm https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2017/pr17_007.... Summary: - operation cost reduced - holiday sales saw growth - first-class mail saw continued loss It is known USPS has been losing money for many years now due to the raise of emails and now social media and instant messaging. This is a strong reason some people proposed to privatize USPS instead.
- quesera 9y ago
  Amazon pays the USPS to roll trucks on Sundays for exclusive (Amazon-only) package delivery service. So there is precedent for a private company paying a pseudo-USG entity for private benefit.

Aloha 9y ago

The Post Office isn't a publicly funded entity - it self funds thru user fees.