11 ms·

Americans Are Receiving Unordered Parcels from Chinese E-Criminals

88 points by colinprince 9y ago

tomohawk 9y ago
Reminds me of Bill the Galactic Hero (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill,_the_Galactic_Hero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill,_the_Galactic_Hero). He solves an important waste management problem by using the free postal service.
Invictus0 9y ago
I believe I got one of these. It was a book I didn't order, "Getting Things Done" by David Allen. The people at the Post Office said it was mine to keep and there was nothing I could do about it.
- the-dude 9y ago
  Did you get stuff done?
  - asah 9y ago
    Post on HN, nuff said.
_red 9y ago
>Due to the unbalanced pricing policies of the United Postal Union and subsidies from the U.S. Postal Service, it costs people in China virtually nothing to ship small packages to the U.S. I'm so happy my tax dollars are going to subsidize this.
- gruez 9y ago
  USPS receives no taxpayer money, so no.
  - cabaalis 9y ago
    Even worse then, the USPS is using the limited money they collect to subsidize this. https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/11/05/how-the-usps-epacket-gives-postal-subsidies-to-chinese-e-commerce-merchants-to-ship-to-the-usa-cheap/#6270479240ca https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/11/05/how-the-...
    - frostwhale 9y ago
      While I agree this seems fishy, there is probably a reason the USPS did this which we have not discovored yet.
      - gh02t 9y ago
        It's an obligation to the United Nations. The original intent was to make it possible for poorer countries to send mail to wealthy countries. Basically, members agreed that they would offer a service to deliver mail within their own borders for free/cheap so that sending mail in poorer countries would be affordable. It makes sense if the volume of mail is relatively low and symmetric, but it wasn't really intended for the sort of volumes Chinese discount sellers are using nowadays. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union There have been reforms in the works to help cover the costs in the terminal country, but I'm not sure if they have been effective or not. http://news.upu.int/no_cache/nd/member-countries-adopt-new-terminal-dues-system/ http://news.upu.int/no_cache/nd/member-countries-adopt-new-t... Alibaba also has some sort of logistics deal in place with the USPS to cut costs, but I can't really seem to find much in the way of details. http://postalnews.com/blog/2015/09/16/chinas-alibaba-and-usps-sign-deal-to-increase-cross-border-logistics-services/ http://postalnews.com/blog/2015/09/16/chinas-alibaba-and-usp...
  - sbuttgereit 9y ago
    You're technically correct when thinking of only the transfer of money, though that's not the whole story. Many here would call tax breaks to regular businesses a tax subsidy to those businesses... after all, there are services those tax advantaged businesses are using that are being paid for by others. In this sense, there is a transfer of "something" from taxpayers to the business, it's just not hard "taxpayer dollars". However, we see that the USPS does get a lot of advantages that are effectively subsidized by others: http://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/ http://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/ There are real subsidies that the USPS gets that are funded by taxpayers, it simply that those are not paid in cash. So I think the person you were responding to has a completely valid point. They are not competing and doing business on the same terms as other businesses and squandering their cash is enabled because of the subsidies of other expenses that they don't have to bear directly.
- UncleEntity 9y ago
  > I'm so happy my tax dollars are going to subsidize this. Yep, me too. I get to try out all sorts of different vape gear by buying direct from China. Have to wait 3-4 weeks for stuff to show up but the savings are definitely worth it. Quality on some of the clone stuff isn't always the best but for the price of a Big Mac meal you can try out a fairly decent atomizer to see if it's even worth buying OEM (which reminds me that the next time I go to the vape shop by my work I need to replace one of my clones before they stop selling it).
crispyambulance 9y ago
I have ordered stuff from aliexpress and got "ePackets." It always seemed strange and now it is even stranger because, apparently, the shipping costs are subsidized NOT by China but by the USPS itself (https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/11/05/how-the-usps-epacket-gives-postal-subsidies-to-chinese-e-commerce-merchants-to-ship-to-the-usa-cheap/#1078f4dd40ca https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/11/05/how-the-...). How did this "deal" happen? Who is getting paid, and what benefit does the USA get from this? I mean this is just consumer shipping we're talking about, small potatoes compared to commercial B2B shipping. But still it must add up to something significant as well as being demonstrably hurtful to US-based small business.
- analog31 9y ago
  It may be small potatoes, but international shipping certainly affects my side business. From what I can tell, China is not the only country where there's a big asymmetry between postal costs for shipping to and from the US. When I get things delivered from England (obscure bike parts, related to my hobby), the postage cost always seems like a fraction of the cost for me to ship something of similar weight to England. And shipping to Canada just went through the roof.
- nikanj 9y ago
  When the "deal" (international postal agreements) happened, nobody could foresee a country sending 10000 packages for each package received. They guessed the balance would hang close to 1:1, with the western industrial powers (i.e. major exporters) probably sending more packages than they received. Thus it made sense that USPS carries Chinese parcels for free, if China post carries US parcels for free in return.
- tyingq 9y ago
  It's the UPU, or "Universal Postal Union" http://fortune.com/2015/03/11/united-nations-subsidy-chinese-shipping/ http://fortune.com/2015/03/11/united-nations-subsidy-chinese... It's a function of the United Nations: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union Basically, China is being subsidized because they qualify as "third world".
bcoates 9y ago
Of course they do, a three way handshake at that distance takes way too long.
LV-426 9y ago
This article appears in the second top post of this (currently front page) thread, made 9 hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15940318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15940318 It was also submitted seven hours ago, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15944653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15944653 The original submission 19 days ago is here, with 90 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15803725 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15803725
- dang 9y ago
  Ah thanks! With that last link this is unambiguously a dupe.
cardamomo 9y ago
The USPS Inspector General did an audit [0] of the ePacket program in 2014, finding that the cost of the program could not be effectively calculated, though the USPS certainly lost money on this service in the preceding two fiscal years: > ePacket volume and revenue have increased, but the Postal Service still lost at least $39 million during FYs 2011 and 2012. Until accurate costs for ePackets can be identified and used as a basis for pricing, the risk of revenue loss for ePackets remains high. Wade Shepard first wrote about this [1] for Forbes in 2011, following the USPS's announcement of the program [2]. His commentary sets the program against a backdrop of a global shipping war and plummeting postal service revenues. He writes, "Essentially, U.S. shippers are partially paying higher shipping rates to make up for the hit the USPS takes giving subsidies to the Chinese." [0]: https://www.uspsoig.gov/document/inbound-china-epacket-costing-methodology https://www.uspsoig.gov/document/inbound-china-epacket-costi... [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/11/05/how-the-usps-epacket-gives-postal-subsidies-to-chinese-e-commerce-merchants-to-ship-to-the-usa-cheap/#6e70553f40ca https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/11/05/how-the-... [2]: https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2011/pr11_037.pdf https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2011/pr11_037....
- crispyambulance 9y ago
  > He writes, "Essentially, U.S. shippers are partially paying higher shipping rates to make up for the hit the USPS takes giving subsidies to the Chinese." Yeah, but why?? What is the intent of this program? Is it some kind of global trade "kick-back" in exchange for something else or is it just a dumb idea? Even the audit doesn't address the reason for this bilateral agreement made in 2011. Moreover, even if the program "makes money" for the postal service it comes at the expense of hurting competitiveness of domestic mail-order. There must be some other side to the story, right? Protectionism is harmful in itself, but this seems like the exact opposite: active harm to domestic business in favor of Chinese business.
  - AnssiH 9y ago
    From the linked Forbes article: > They came up with the ePacket, which is actually meant to be an improvement over the rates set by the UPU. In exchange for providing tracking and faster delivery times, ePacket partner countries agree to pay slightly higher rates. So the Chinese pay more for ePackets than they would for standard mail by UPU rates.
userbinator 9y ago
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0181-unordered-merchandise https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0181-unordered-merchan... Fortunately, it seems unordered merchandise is yours to keep. If I was targeted by this, I'd probably find a local store to take them rather than just throwing it all away.
notacoward 9y ago
Title is clickbait. "E-criminal" implies that the contents of the packages are bugged or something, but it's just a specific form of growth hacking.
- dis-sys 9y ago
  by Chinese law, it is criminal offence to do this to fake the sales number to mislead other buyers. e.g. see report below (in Chinese), 5 years and 9 months in jail for doing something similar http://news.ifeng.com/a/20170621/51293545_0.shtml http://news.ifeng.com/a/20170621/51293545_0.shtml
- soneil 9y ago
  The act is criminal. It's just that the recipient isn't the victim, but merely incidental.
msie 9y ago
Ha! After reading the article...this is not a huge problem folks. If people were shipped drugs to be picked up by criminals then i would be more alarmed.
dwagnerkc 9y ago
Our great mail mystery has finally been solved! ~50 hair tie packets, ~5 beanies, a scarf, and some makeup. My wife sometimes wears the light blue beanie they sent and the scarf. I still hear her say "I need a hair tie. Can't find one anywhere" every couple of days. Keep 'em coming guys.
- pault 9y ago
  I laughed so hard when I saw this article; a few months ago a got a package that contained another package that contained another package that contained a single scrap of Chinese newspaper. It was so bewildering I took pictures of it and sent them to my friends to see if anyone could make sense of it. This is the second mystery HN has solved for me this week. :)
  - mavelikara 9y ago
    Whats the other mystery?
    - pault 9y ago
      A mystery truck with radioactive material warnings on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15897238 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15897238
ufo 9y ago
Why do they send the packages to random people instead of sending them to accomplices or just faking everything and not even sending the package? Is it to avoid fraud detection by the marketplace?
zeep 9y ago
I only got 1 unordered package from china so it probably was not part of that scam... it was worth $10 too...
hollander 9y ago
Is there a risc for the receiver of the packages?
- beamatronic 9y ago
  Yes, there's only a very small set of things you can do. But you can do them very quickly.

88 points by colinprince 9y ago

Reminds me of Bill the Galactic Hero (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill,_the_Galactic_Hero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill,_the_Galactic_Hero). He solves an important waste management problem by using the free postal service.

Invictus0 9y ago

I believe I got one of these. It was a book I didn't order, "Getting Things Done" by David Allen. The people at the Post Office said it was mine to keep and there was nothing I could do about it.

the-dude 9y ago
Did you get stuff done?
- asah 9y ago
  Post on HN, nuff said.

_red 9y ago

>Due to the unbalanced pricing policies of the United Postal Union and subsidies from the U.S. Postal Service, it costs people in China virtually nothing to ship small packages to the U.S. I'm so happy my tax dollars are going to subsidize this.

gruez 9y ago
USPS receives no taxpayer money, so no.
- cabaalis 9y ago
  Even worse then, the USPS is using the limited money they collect to subsidize this. https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/11/05/how-the-usps-epacket-gives-postal-subsidies-to-chinese-e-commerce-merchants-to-ship-to-the-usa-cheap/#6270479240ca https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/11/05/how-the-...
  - frostwhale 9y ago
    While I agree this seems fishy, there is probably a reason the USPS did this which we have not discovored yet.
    - gh02t 9y ago
      It's an obligation to the United Nations. The original intent was to make it possible for poorer countries to send mail to wealthy countries. Basically, members agreed that they would offer a service to deliver mail within their own borders for free/cheap so that sending mail in poorer countries would be affordable. It makes sense if the volume of mail is relatively low and symmetric, but it wasn't really intended for the sort of volumes Chinese discount sellers are using nowadays. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union There have been reforms in the works to help cover the costs in the terminal country, but I'm not sure if they have been effective or not. http://news.upu.int/no_cache/nd/member-countries-adopt-new-terminal-dues-system/ http://news.upu.int/no_cache/nd/member-countries-adopt-new-t... Alibaba also has some sort of logistics deal in place with the USPS to cut costs, but I can't really seem to find much in the way of details. http://postalnews.com/blog/2015/09/16/chinas-alibaba-and-usps-sign-deal-to-increase-cross-border-logistics-services/ http://postalnews.com/blog/2015/09/16/chinas-alibaba-and-usp...
- sbuttgereit 9y ago
  You're technically correct when thinking of only the transfer of money, though that's not the whole story. Many here would call tax breaks to regular businesses a tax subsidy to those businesses... after all, there are services those tax advantaged businesses are using that are being paid for by others. In this sense, there is a transfer of "something" from taxpayers to the business, it's just not hard "taxpayer dollars". However, we see that the USPS does get a lot of advantages that are effectively subsidized by others: http://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/ http://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/ There are real subsidies that the USPS gets that are funded by taxpayers, it simply that those are not paid in cash. So I think the person you were responding to has a completely valid point. They are not competing and doing business on the same terms as other businesses and squandering their cash is enabled because of the subsidies of other expenses that they don't have to bear directly.
UncleEntity 9y ago
> I'm so happy my tax dollars are going to subsidize this. Yep, me too. I get to try out all sorts of different vape gear by buying direct from China. Have to wait 3-4 weeks for stuff to show up but the savings are definitely worth it. Quality on some of the clone stuff isn't always the best but for the price of a Big Mac meal you can try out a fairly decent atomizer to see if it's even worth buying OEM (which reminds me that the next time I go to the vape shop by my work I need to replace one of my clones before they stop selling it).

crispyambulance 9y ago

I have ordered stuff from aliexpress and got "ePackets." It always seemed strange and now it is even stranger because, apparently, the shipping costs are subsidized NOT by China but by the USPS itself (https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/11/05/how-the-usps-epacket-gives-postal-subsidies-to-chinese-e-commerce-merchants-to-ship-to-the-usa-cheap/#1078f4dd40ca https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/11/05/how-the-...). How did this "deal" happen? Who is getting paid, and what benefit does the USA get from this? I mean this is just consumer shipping we're talking about, small potatoes compared to commercial B2B shipping. But still it must add up to something significant as well as being demonstrably hurtful to US-based small business.

analog31 9y ago
It may be small potatoes, but international shipping certainly affects my side business. From what I can tell, China is not the only country where there's a big asymmetry between postal costs for shipping to and from the US. When I get things delivered from England (obscure bike parts, related to my hobby), the postage cost always seems like a fraction of the cost for me to ship something of similar weight to England. And shipping to Canada just went through the roof.
nikanj 9y ago
When the "deal" (international postal agreements) happened, nobody could foresee a country sending 10000 packages for each package received. They guessed the balance would hang close to 1:1, with the western industrial powers (i.e. major exporters) probably sending more packages than they received. Thus it made sense that USPS carries Chinese parcels for free, if China post carries US parcels for free in return.
tyingq 9y ago
It's the UPU, or "Universal Postal Union" http://fortune.com/2015/03/11/united-nations-subsidy-chinese-shipping/ http://fortune.com/2015/03/11/united-nations-subsidy-chinese... It's a function of the United Nations: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union Basically, China is being subsidized because they qualify as "third world".

bcoates 9y ago

Of course they do, a three way handshake at that distance takes way too long.

LV-426 9y ago

This article appears in the second top post of this (currently front page) thread, made 9 hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15940318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15940318 It was also submitted seven hours ago, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15944653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15944653 The original submission 19 days ago is here, with 90 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15803725 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15803725

dang 9y ago
Ah thanks! With that last link this is unambiguously a dupe.

cardamomo 9y ago

The USPS Inspector General did an audit [0] of the ePacket program in 2014, finding that the cost of the program could not be effectively calculated, though the USPS certainly lost money on this service in the preceding two fiscal years: > ePacket volume and revenue have increased, but the Postal Service still lost at least $39 million during FYs 2011 and 2012. Until accurate costs for ePackets can be identified and used as a basis for pricing, the risk of revenue loss for ePackets remains high. Wade Shepard first wrote about this [1] for Forbes in 2011, following the USPS's announcement of the program [2]. His commentary sets the program against a backdrop of a global shipping war and plummeting postal service revenues. He writes, "Essentially, U.S. shippers are partially paying higher shipping rates to make up for the hit the USPS takes giving subsidies to the Chinese." [0]: https://www.uspsoig.gov/document/inbound-china-epacket-costing-methodology https://www.uspsoig.gov/document/inbound-china-epacket-costi... [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/11/05/how-the-usps-epacket-gives-postal-subsidies-to-chinese-e-commerce-merchants-to-ship-to-the-usa-cheap/#6e70553f40ca https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/11/05/how-the-... [2]: https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2011/pr11_037.pdf https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2011/pr11_037....

crispyambulance 9y ago
> He writes, "Essentially, U.S. shippers are partially paying higher shipping rates to make up for the hit the USPS takes giving subsidies to the Chinese." Yeah, but why?? What is the intent of this program? Is it some kind of global trade "kick-back" in exchange for something else or is it just a dumb idea? Even the audit doesn't address the reason for this bilateral agreement made in 2011. Moreover, even if the program "makes money" for the postal service it comes at the expense of hurting competitiveness of domestic mail-order. There must be some other side to the story, right? Protectionism is harmful in itself, but this seems like the exact opposite: active harm to domestic business in favor of Chinese business.
- AnssiH 9y ago
  From the linked Forbes article: > They came up with the ePacket, which is actually meant to be an improvement over the rates set by the UPU. In exchange for providing tracking and faster delivery times, ePacket partner countries agree to pay slightly higher rates. So the Chinese pay more for ePackets than they would for standard mail by UPU rates.

userbinator 9y ago

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0181-unordered-merchandise https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0181-unordered-merchan... Fortunately, it seems unordered merchandise is yours to keep. If I was targeted by this, I'd probably find a local store to take them rather than just throwing it all away.

notacoward 9y ago

Title is clickbait. "E-criminal" implies that the contents of the packages are bugged or something, but it's just a specific form of growth hacking.

dis-sys 9y ago
by Chinese law, it is criminal offence to do this to fake the sales number to mislead other buyers. e.g. see report below (in Chinese), 5 years and 9 months in jail for doing something similar http://news.ifeng.com/a/20170621/51293545_0.shtml http://news.ifeng.com/a/20170621/51293545_0.shtml
soneil 9y ago
The act is criminal. It's just that the recipient isn't the victim, but merely incidental.

msie 9y ago

Ha! After reading the article...this is not a huge problem folks. If people were shipped drugs to be picked up by criminals then i would be more alarmed.

dwagnerkc 9y ago

Our great mail mystery has finally been solved! ~50 hair tie packets, ~5 beanies, a scarf, and some makeup. My wife sometimes wears the light blue beanie they sent and the scarf. I still hear her say "I need a hair tie. Can't find one anywhere" every couple of days. Keep 'em coming guys.

pault 9y ago
I laughed so hard when I saw this article; a few months ago a got a package that contained another package that contained another package that contained a single scrap of Chinese newspaper. It was so bewildering I took pictures of it and sent them to my friends to see if anyone could make sense of it. This is the second mystery HN has solved for me this week. :)
- mavelikara 9y ago
  Whats the other mystery?
  - pault 9y ago
    A mystery truck with radioactive material warnings on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15897238 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15897238

ufo 9y ago

Why do they send the packages to random people instead of sending them to accomplices or just faking everything and not even sending the package? Is it to avoid fraud detection by the marketplace?

zeep 9y ago

I only got 1 unordered package from china so it probably was not part of that scam... it was worth $10 too...

hollander 9y ago

Is there a risc for the receiver of the packages?

beamatronic 9y ago
Yes, there's only a very small set of things you can do. But you can do them very quickly.