5 ms·

Translation: Keeping with our effort to turn this country into more of a Panopticon, and aligned with our belief that no two parties should be able to communica

Translation: Keeping with our effort to turn this country into more of a Panopticon, and aligned with our belief that no two parties should be able to communicate privately, we hate that you can send mail mostly anonymously, and this gives us a bit more power to surveil you by making stamps unique.

scrollaway 4y ago
If you're going to make this claim, at least give a reasonable explanation as to how this deanonymisation works. Otherwise your comment is no better than "they're putting microchips in the vaccines" junk.
- MarchKilroy89 4y ago
  A simple scenario that comes to mind is that given a letter, it's now easier to tie it back to the stamp's point of sale. "Who purchased this stamp?" is a very hard question to answer in their current (essentially fungible) form. Adding barcodes makes this much easier. This assumes that stamps are scanned when sold, to tie their barcodes to the purchaser. That may happen. It may not. But clearly the more scans a stamp gets increases the tracking resolution for a given piece of mail both after AND before mailing. This "before mailing" part is new and opens the door for a much higher level of surveillance.
  - MarchKilroy89 4y ago
    To give a real world example: Imagine if America had a system like this in place when the Zodiac killer was active in California. A prolific writer of letters to the press, all of Zodiac's barcode-stamped envelopes would open up new potential leads in answering questions like "when was this stamp manufactured" and "where was this stamp originally sold".
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      While I actually do appreciate the importance of postal anonymity, the Zodiac Killer is maybe not the best example to select.
      - GingerMidas 4y ago
        Yeah, I prefer talking about the many illegal drugs you can fit into a stamped envelope.
    - tjbiddle 4y ago
      I imagine if this system was in place, then they likely wouldn't have written letters to start with.
  - scrollaway 4y ago
    Indeed it assumes the stamps are scanned upon sale. Otherwise, at best, what you obtain is "where was this stamp sold", which is completely non-identifying. But if you think about it for more than ~10 seconds, you remember that stamps are sold in packs of 4-8 at least. They're also often sold in sheets of 50+. All this makes individual scans painful. So you want to play the devil's advocate and make more assumptions; say, for example, "every stamp could trace back to its original pack, so only one of them needs to be scanned". But if that's the point of this panopticon move, then why put the barcode on the stamp, rather than … the pack itself? Because you know what always gets scanned? The product's barcode. If I wanted to track people who buy stamps, I would create unique EAN13-compatible barcodes for every single pack sold, always start them with the same number space + some digits for actual different products, and voila, somewhat backwards-compatible, unique tracking on all those stamps without having to deploy a barcode on every single stamp, implement a swap-out scheme, etc. Of course, maybe someone at GCHQ is reading my comment and thinking "fuck, why did we spend so much money on this scheme again?", but somehow I doubt it.
    - blitzar 4y ago
      Then you need to connect the barcode reader of every post office, supermarket and dodgy corner store to the GCHQ mainframe and voila - no more crime.
      - scrollaway 4y ago
        Instead of issuing every post office, supermarket and dodgy corner store a new barcode reader which can scan the stamps themselves in order to prove the point of the original person complaining of a panopticon? I think you missed the part where I’m making the argument against this being even sort of practical as a surveillance tool.
    - Double_a_92 4y ago
      That doesn't make sense. What use would scanning the pack be, if the stamps themselves are not associated to the pack? If anything all the stamps would have two ID in the barcode. One linked to the sales location (always the same) and one as a counter for the individual stamps. That would avoid having to scan every single one.
  - signa11 4y ago
``` "Who purchased this stamp?" is a very hard question to answer in their current (essentially fungible) form. Adding barcodes makes this much easier. ``` so reselling stamps is not an option ?
- nicky0 4y ago
  Seems like there’s an easy work around, you just buy some special issue stamps celebrating British birds or children’s TV characters or whatnot, that don’t have barcodes.
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago
  That works while you are still able to buy them for cash, assuming there is no facial recognition on the security camera watching the exchange. > This card was used to buy this stamp and we have this face on camera doing it.
Gigachad 4y ago
I’m so sick of all this baseless negativity tbh. It almost ruins the site when any discussion about anything devolves in to “this is how the man is gonna take ur freedoms”.
blitzar 4y ago
> we hate that you can send mail mostly anonymously At best 50% of the parties to the letter are known, at worst 100%. And that is with the mail sealed. > communicate privately There is a piece of paper between them and the contents, and they have been handed the literal envelope to deliver. That isnt much security, and not much privacy.
Double_a_92 4y ago
How will the mail become less anonymous by adding a random unique number to it? It's not like you need an ID to buy stamps.
- hengistbury 4y ago
  If you buy stamps from the Royal Mail directly online, perhaps they would keep a register of who bought which stamps. If you buy stamps from a shop, perhaps a register is kept of which stamps were given to which shops. I don't know how likely any of this is, but it can definitely make stamp purchases more traceable than without the barcodes.
- whoooooo123 4y ago
  > It's not like you need an ID to buy stamps In the coming cashless society, you won't be able to buy anything whatsoever without it being tied to your ID.

scrollaway 4y ago

If you're going to make this claim, at least give a reasonable explanation as to how this deanonymisation works. Otherwise your comment is no better than "they're putting microchips in the vaccines" junk.

MarchKilroy89 4y ago
A simple scenario that comes to mind is that given a letter, it's now easier to tie it back to the stamp's point of sale. "Who purchased this stamp?" is a very hard question to answer in their current (essentially fungible) form. Adding barcodes makes this much easier. This assumes that stamps are scanned when sold, to tie their barcodes to the purchaser. That may happen. It may not. But clearly the more scans a stamp gets increases the tracking resolution for a given piece of mail both after AND before mailing. This "before mailing" part is new and opens the door for a much higher level of surveillance.
- MarchKilroy89 4y ago
  To give a real world example: Imagine if America had a system like this in place when the Zodiac killer was active in California. A prolific writer of letters to the press, all of Zodiac's barcode-stamped envelopes would open up new potential leads in answering questions like "when was this stamp manufactured" and "where was this stamp originally sold".
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    While I actually do appreciate the importance of postal anonymity, the Zodiac Killer is maybe not the best example to select.
    - GingerMidas 4y ago
      Yeah, I prefer talking about the many illegal drugs you can fit into a stamped envelope.
  - tjbiddle 4y ago
    I imagine if this system was in place, then they likely wouldn't have written letters to start with.
- scrollaway 4y ago
  Indeed it assumes the stamps are scanned upon sale. Otherwise, at best, what you obtain is "where was this stamp sold", which is completely non-identifying. But if you think about it for more than ~10 seconds, you remember that stamps are sold in packs of 4-8 at least. They're also often sold in sheets of 50+. All this makes individual scans painful. So you want to play the devil's advocate and make more assumptions; say, for example, "every stamp could trace back to its original pack, so only one of them needs to be scanned". But if that's the point of this panopticon move, then why put the barcode on the stamp, rather than … the pack itself? Because you know what always gets scanned? The product's barcode. If I wanted to track people who buy stamps, I would create unique EAN13-compatible barcodes for every single pack sold, always start them with the same number space + some digits for actual different products, and voila, somewhat backwards-compatible, unique tracking on all those stamps without having to deploy a barcode on every single stamp, implement a swap-out scheme, etc. Of course, maybe someone at GCHQ is reading my comment and thinking "fuck, why did we spend so much money on this scheme again?", but somehow I doubt it.
  - blitzar 4y ago
    Then you need to connect the barcode reader of every post office, supermarket and dodgy corner store to the GCHQ mainframe and voila - no more crime.
    - scrollaway 4y ago
      Instead of issuing every post office, supermarket and dodgy corner store a new barcode reader which can scan the stamps themselves in order to prove the point of the original person complaining of a panopticon? I think you missed the part where I’m making the argument against this being even sort of practical as a surveillance tool.
  - Double_a_92 4y ago
    That doesn't make sense. What use would scanning the pack be, if the stamps themselves are not associated to the pack? If anything all the stamps would have two ID in the barcode. One linked to the sales location (always the same) and one as a counter for the individual stamps. That would avoid having to scan every single one.
- signa11 4y ago
``` "Who purchased this stamp?" is a very hard question to answer in their current (essentially fungible) form. Adding barcodes makes this much easier. ``` so reselling stamps is not an option ?
- nicky0 4y ago
  Seems like there’s an easy work around, you just buy some special issue stamps celebrating British birds or children’s TV characters or whatnot, that don’t have barcodes.
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago
That works while you are still able to buy them for cash, assuming there is no facial recognition on the security camera watching the exchange. > This card was used to buy this stamp and we have this face on camera doing it.

Gigachad 4y ago

I’m so sick of all this baseless negativity tbh. It almost ruins the site when any discussion about anything devolves in to “this is how the man is gonna take ur freedoms”.

blitzar 4y ago

> we hate that you can send mail mostly anonymously At best 50% of the parties to the letter are known, at worst 100%. And that is with the mail sealed. > communicate privately There is a piece of paper between them and the contents, and they have been handed the literal envelope to deliver. That isnt much security, and not much privacy.

Double_a_92 4y ago

How will the mail become less anonymous by adding a random unique number to it? It's not like you need an ID to buy stamps.

hengistbury 4y ago
If you buy stamps from the Royal Mail directly online, perhaps they would keep a register of who bought which stamps. If you buy stamps from a shop, perhaps a register is kept of which stamps were given to which shops. I don't know how likely any of this is, but it can definitely make stamp purchases more traceable than without the barcodes.
whoooooo123 4y ago
> It's not like you need an ID to buy stamps In the coming cashless society, you won't be able to buy anything whatsoever without it being tied to your ID.