4 ms·

Inspectors can and do inspect the contents many types of mail, though, so I'm not sure this example is a good one for those championing privacy... To elaborate

Inspectors can and do inspect the contents many types of mail, though, so I'm not sure this example is a good one for those championing privacy... To elaborate: when using the US Postal Service, only domestic "First Class Mail" and "Priority Mail" (these are different and distinct from standard mail) is protected and requires a probable cause warrant to open and inspect. Other types of mail, as well as all packages shipped through private companies like UPS and FedEx, do not require warrants and can be opened and inspected whenever the post office or UPS/FedEx feel like it. There isn't an expectation of privacy for these packages, and certainly no constitutional protection of it.

4ntonius8lock 7y ago
fuzz4lyfe > When you send a letter it does not belong to the post office while in transit txcwpalpha > Inspectors can and do inspect the contents... of mail txcwpalpha > ...for packages There's a scarecrow argument if I've ever seen one. Someone says A is 1. You say A isn't 1 because AB is 2. Sneaky. There certainly is an expectation of privacy in my mail CORRESPONDENCE (which is what this whole thing is about... communication, not package sending). Why shouldn't there be for my e mail correspondence?
- txcwpalpha 7y ago
  I did not say that A isn't 1. In fact, in my comment I specifically acknowledge that A is 1 (some types of mail are protected by the 4th amendment). Please do not try to construct a straw man. The point is that there is already a determination that not all items sent through mail services have an expectation of privacy. If we're drawing a parallel between physical mail and e-mail, this lends to the belief that such a determination could also be made for items sent through electronic media, especially items sent through electronic media that is owned by private companies (ISPs), similar to how private shipping companies do not provide 4th amendment protection. >There certainly is an expectation of privacy in my mail CORRESPONDENCE Not all mail correspondence, which is the point. If you send a letter through USPS standard mail, there is no expectation of privacy. If you send a document through UPS, there is no expectation of privacy. Also, you're getting hung up on the usage of the words "package" vs "correspondence" vs "mail" vs "letter". This is an unnecessary distinction. A letter is just a "package" that contains paper with information on it. The law doesn't see a difference. In my original comment, you should read the words package/letter/mail/correspondence interchangeably.
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    > some types of mail are protected by the 4th amendment > The law doesn't see a difference Wow the cognitive dissonance in that is painful to read. Your argument sounds like "Shrodingers cat". It is and isn't at the same time. Ultimately though, it has to collapse into one objective reality ;) > If you send a document through UPS, there is no expectation of privacy. Yeah, again, no. This is directly contradicted by supreme court cases like: "No law of Congress can place in the hands of officials connected with the Postal Service any authority to invade the secrecy of letters and such sealed packages in the mail; and all regulations adopted as to mail matter of this kind must be in subordination to the great principle embodied in the fourth amendment of the Constitution." But then again, some people view laws (like 39 U.S.C. 3623, supreme court precedents or other such concrete objective reality as impediments that must be overcome to see reality as they choose to see it. > you should read the words package/letter/mail/correspondence interchangeably. > some types of mail are protected Aside from the obvious contradiction, that's not how language works. You should really look up these words in a dictionary. It will help you communicate better. In case you want to learn and not just teach people things you are making up: https://slate.com/technology/2013/06/nsa-surveillance-why-the-post-office-doesnt-spy-on-your-mail-the-way-nsa-spies-on-y https://slate.com/technology/2013/06/nsa-surveillance-why-th... P.S. it is a scarecrow because you are answering someone talking about Letters with what happens to packages. This is textbook scarecrow arguments, where you change what is said to attack a new, different argument than the one provided.
    - txcwpalpha 7y ago
      It isn't cognitive dissonance just because you aren't capable of discerning the difference between the types of mail. It is possible (indeed, it is the case) that the law sees no difference between packages and letters while also making a disctinction elsewhere. In this case, the law makes a distinction between sealed mail and unsealed mail, but it does not consider the fact that they are "letters" or "packages" in this distinction. Again, you're getting hung up on the words "letter" vs "package", and you're constructing a straw man around that. Please take your own advice and avoid such arguments.
fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
How does that jive with: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Probably the same way civil asset forfeiture does, somehow precedent became the supreme law of the land as opposed to the constitution.
- txcwpalpha 7y ago
  I really have no idea why the 4th amendment only applies to a subset of mail, just that it does. It'd be great if someone with more knowledge could explain the reasoning behind it.
  - mattkrause 7y ago
    I would imagine there is more of a compelling state interest in protecting against actual "things" (contraband, bombs, etc), whereas a letter can pretty much only contain "speech".
    - txcwpalpha 7y ago
      My original comment was apparently unclear in this, but in regards to the 4th amendment protections, there isn't a distinction between "things" being sent via mail and "speech" being sent by mail. Some letters of "speech" are not covered by the 4th amendment, just as some bulk shipments of "things" are covered by the 4th amendment.
      - mattkrause 7y ago
        That distinction isn't drawn in the 4th Amendment itself. It comes from from 39 CFR § 233.3, which defines the rules and procedures for searching mail ("mail covers"). There, a distinction is drawn between (3)Sealed mail is mail that under postal laws and regulations is included within a class of mail maintained by the Postal Service for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection... and (4)Unsealed mail is mail that under postal laws or regulations is not included within a class of mail maintained by the Postal Service for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection.... https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/39/233.3 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/39/233.3 I would guess the justification is that 1) the potential for mischief is much lower with a letter vs. an item and 2) the unsealed categories are usually cheaper (periodicals, etc) and the Post Office should be able to verify that the mailed item really qualifies for the lower rate.

4ntonius8lock 7y ago

fuzz4lyfe > When you send a letter it does not belong to the post office while in transit txcwpalpha > Inspectors can and do inspect the contents... of mail txcwpalpha > ...for packages There's a scarecrow argument if I've ever seen one. Someone says A is 1. You say A isn't 1 because AB is 2. Sneaky. There certainly is an expectation of privacy in my mail CORRESPONDENCE (which is what this whole thing is about... communication, not package sending). Why shouldn't there be for my e mail correspondence?

txcwpalpha 7y ago
I did not say that A isn't 1. In fact, in my comment I specifically acknowledge that A is 1 (some types of mail are protected by the 4th amendment). Please do not try to construct a straw man. The point is that there is already a determination that not all items sent through mail services have an expectation of privacy. If we're drawing a parallel between physical mail and e-mail, this lends to the belief that such a determination could also be made for items sent through electronic media, especially items sent through electronic media that is owned by private companies (ISPs), similar to how private shipping companies do not provide 4th amendment protection. >There certainly is an expectation of privacy in my mail CORRESPONDENCE Not all mail correspondence, which is the point. If you send a letter through USPS standard mail, there is no expectation of privacy. If you send a document through UPS, there is no expectation of privacy. Also, you're getting hung up on the usage of the words "package" vs "correspondence" vs "mail" vs "letter". This is an unnecessary distinction. A letter is just a "package" that contains paper with information on it. The law doesn't see a difference. In my original comment, you should read the words package/letter/mail/correspondence interchangeably.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  > some types of mail are protected by the 4th amendment > The law doesn't see a difference Wow the cognitive dissonance in that is painful to read. Your argument sounds like "Shrodingers cat". It is and isn't at the same time. Ultimately though, it has to collapse into one objective reality ;) > If you send a document through UPS, there is no expectation of privacy. Yeah, again, no. This is directly contradicted by supreme court cases like: "No law of Congress can place in the hands of officials connected with the Postal Service any authority to invade the secrecy of letters and such sealed packages in the mail; and all regulations adopted as to mail matter of this kind must be in subordination to the great principle embodied in the fourth amendment of the Constitution." But then again, some people view laws (like 39 U.S.C. 3623, supreme court precedents or other such concrete objective reality as impediments that must be overcome to see reality as they choose to see it. > you should read the words package/letter/mail/correspondence interchangeably. > some types of mail are protected Aside from the obvious contradiction, that's not how language works. You should really look up these words in a dictionary. It will help you communicate better. In case you want to learn and not just teach people things you are making up: https://slate.com/technology/2013/06/nsa-surveillance-why-the-post-office-doesnt-spy-on-your-mail-the-way-nsa-spies-on-y https://slate.com/technology/2013/06/nsa-surveillance-why-th... P.S. it is a scarecrow because you are answering someone talking about Letters with what happens to packages. This is textbook scarecrow arguments, where you change what is said to attack a new, different argument than the one provided.
  - txcwpalpha 7y ago
    It isn't cognitive dissonance just because you aren't capable of discerning the difference between the types of mail. It is possible (indeed, it is the case) that the law sees no difference between packages and letters while also making a disctinction elsewhere. In this case, the law makes a distinction between sealed mail and unsealed mail, but it does not consider the fact that they are "letters" or "packages" in this distinction. Again, you're getting hung up on the words "letter" vs "package", and you're constructing a straw man around that. Please take your own advice and avoid such arguments.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago

How does that jive with: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Probably the same way civil asset forfeiture does, somehow precedent became the supreme law of the land as opposed to the constitution.

txcwpalpha 7y ago
I really have no idea why the 4th amendment only applies to a subset of mail, just that it does. It'd be great if someone with more knowledge could explain the reasoning behind it.
- mattkrause 7y ago
  I would imagine there is more of a compelling state interest in protecting against actual "things" (contraband, bombs, etc), whereas a letter can pretty much only contain "speech".
  - txcwpalpha 7y ago
    My original comment was apparently unclear in this, but in regards to the 4th amendment protections, there isn't a distinction between "things" being sent via mail and "speech" being sent by mail. Some letters of "speech" are not covered by the 4th amendment, just as some bulk shipments of "things" are covered by the 4th amendment.
    - mattkrause 7y ago
      That distinction isn't drawn in the 4th Amendment itself. It comes from from 39 CFR § 233.3, which defines the rules and procedures for searching mail ("mail covers"). There, a distinction is drawn between (3)Sealed mail is mail that under postal laws and regulations is included within a class of mail maintained by the Postal Service for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection... and (4)Unsealed mail is mail that under postal laws or regulations is not included within a class of mail maintained by the Postal Service for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection.... https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/39/233.3 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/39/233.3 I would guess the justification is that 1) the potential for mischief is much lower with a letter vs. an item and 2) the unsealed categories are usually cheaper (periodicals, etc) and the Post Office should be able to verify that the mailed item really qualifies for the lower rate.