4 ms·

I noticed another thing here that I think matters, especially because it's a common frame shift. > Essentially all governments have some mechanism to make it l

I noticed another thing here that I think matters, especially because it's a common frame shift. > Essentially all governments have some mechanism to make it legal and possible for them to read any post in transit. You changed it from "every" to "any". The EU proposal is much more similar to "every", in that it would end up recording so much information about all messages, in case that information happened to be needed later. And I'm pretty sure that information would, at least in some cases, include the content, or things that were more content-like than envelope-like. It is true that the US, at least, has done mass "metadata collection" on the mail for a long time. They don't open or read it, but they do photograph every single piece of mail that goes through the system and keep the pictures. So they're in a position to do traffic analysis, and do it after the fact if they want to. ... but even that program has vastly increased in actual impact since it was instituted. Originally it was a lot of work to find out what had been sent to whom. You'd have had to manually trawl through a bunch of records that weren't all in one place, might not have been all that well indexed, and probably had fairly limited retention periods. That changed, step by step, but over a very short time in the grand scheme of things, so that now all you have to do is type in an address to see a picture of everything sent to or from it in a very long time. I'm not sure that they could ever have created the program if anybody'd understood that they would eventually be able do that. > US postal inspectors need a warrant, which they can easily get. They can easily get a warrant for a specific person's mail if they have something that can at least pass for probable cause to think that that mail will contain evidence of a crime. They are at least theoretically supposed to do everything they can to identify the particular mail, and sometimes they're even actually forced to get pretty specific. And they have to get the warrant in advance. Once the mail has been delivered, there's no way to retroactively read it other than to go raid the target and try to find it. That's quite different from proactively collecting a copy of the actual content of everything that gets sent through the mail, just in case you later find out you want to look. That applies even if the "looking" step does require a warrant. Some of the data retention stuff the EU keeps wanting to do is much more like that. That's why the phrase "mass surveillance" keeps coming up in these things. This also ties into a bunch of US domestic controversies about using "foreign surveillance" to get around the rules even as applied to domestic communications.

throw46365 2y ago
> You changed it from "every" to "any". I changed nothing, sorry. It's just a British English colloquial word choice -- I don't think there's much semantic difference and I didn't intend it. But you can read it as "any and all" if you like. The point is that essentially all governments have granted themselves that power, one way or another. They have the right to access any postal communications in transit. That "any" includes all of it. Even, I would hazard a guess, under a practical day to day USPTO given the rather broad readings of the Postal Clause in the past. There's no constitutional right to privacy, is there.
- Hizonner 2y ago
  > The point is that essentially all governments have granted themselves that power, one way or another. They have the right to access any postal communications in transit. Even if they claim that "right", they don't in fact read or copy everything, and doing so is radically different from selectively reading or copying certain things. I also doubt that "essentially all" governments claim such a power at all. I know that neither the US nor Canada does. From either the US or Canada, the UK has always looked way, way too willing to give blanket authority to various government functionaries, at least on paper (and, I guess, trust in their restraint and adherence to tradition). Nowadays it's like you're turning into a total police state (and that adherence to tradition seems to have been badly eroded). Australia might go for it; they're pretty authoritarian there. Most of the EU probably wouldn't allow it (and in fact the ECJ nixed an EU directive to do less on the Internet). I don't think anybody in northern Europe would go for it. France has floated some pretty spy-ey proposals, but I don't recall them suggesting copying everybody's mail, and would expect riots (maybe they'd do it, but they'd riot first). Maybe the EU as whole would allow it for mail after being softened up for a while with this electronic communication stuff, but not now. I will admit that most of Asia and Africa seem like lost causes, with either weak protections or weak institutions. I wouldn't be surprised if many governments there would claim that power. I don't know about "essentially all". I don't know about South America; they seem pretty diverse. > Even, I would hazard a guess, under a practical day to day USPTO given the rather broad readings of the Postal Clause in the past. The US Patent and Trademark Office? I think you mean the US Postal Service. And you may be confusing the "Postal Clause" with the "Commerce Clause". At least I don't know of any particulary broad reading of the mandate to operate the mails. And "operate" is pretty different from "read". Anyway, governmental entities in the US emphatically do not have and cannot claim any power to read mail en masse. Nor can it be granted to them by legislation. "Amendment IV: 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." That "reasonable" bit has consistently been interpreted to mean that if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the ordinary course of events, then that expectation can't be violated by the government without a particularized warrant. The interpretation of the Fourth Amendment expanded in the 20th century, and I don't really know the early history... but I don't think the federal government could have gotten away with reading the mail even in the 19th, and it probably would have literally destroyed the US if they'd tried in the 18th. If it had always been the case that all, or a large fraction of, letters were read in transit, then they might have been able to get away with it, but it never was. Such a traditional expectation becomes a reasonable expectation, and therefore has legal force under US constitutional law. And amendments win over the main body of the Constitution (because they amend it). There's tons of case law that would apply a particularized warrant requirement to mail. It's not even slightly ambiguous. Even the current SCOTUS wouldn't question it. I'd expect 9-0, but could be disappointed and see 7-2. It wouldn't even fly for email or other electronic messages. If they wanted to read all mail, or randomly chosen mail, or a large fraction of mail, they'd need a constitutional amendment. That requires a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress, plus concurrence of three fourths of the state legislatures. Substantive constitutional amendments are essentially impossible in the modern political climate. If the Forces of Evil were on top of things, and twisted some arms behind the scenes with respect to the technology was originally deployed, maybe they could establish the "right" expectations with respect to the next means of communication somebody invents. That's a big, big maybe. But there's no question of them getting to read paper mail en masse. Not as long as the moral authority of the Constitution stands in the US.

throw46365 2y ago

> You changed it from "every" to "any". I changed nothing, sorry. It's just a British English colloquial word choice -- I don't think there's much semantic difference and I didn't intend it. But you can read it as "any and all" if you like. The point is that essentially all governments have granted themselves that power, one way or another. They have the right to access any postal communications in transit. That "any" includes all of it. Even, I would hazard a guess, under a practical day to day USPTO given the rather broad readings of the Postal Clause in the past. There's no constitutional right to privacy, is there.

Hizonner 2y ago
> The point is that essentially all governments have granted themselves that power, one way or another. They have the right to access any postal communications in transit. Even if they claim that "right", they don't in fact read or copy everything, and doing so is radically different from selectively reading or copying certain things. I also doubt that "essentially all" governments claim such a power at all. I know that neither the US nor Canada does. From either the US or Canada, the UK has always looked way, way too willing to give blanket authority to various government functionaries, at least on paper (and, I guess, trust in their restraint and adherence to tradition). Nowadays it's like you're turning into a total police state (and that adherence to tradition seems to have been badly eroded). Australia might go for it; they're pretty authoritarian there. Most of the EU probably wouldn't allow it (and in fact the ECJ nixed an EU directive to do less on the Internet). I don't think anybody in northern Europe would go for it. France has floated some pretty spy-ey proposals, but I don't recall them suggesting copying everybody's mail, and would expect riots (maybe they'd do it, but they'd riot first). Maybe the EU as whole would allow it for mail after being softened up for a while with this electronic communication stuff, but not now. I will admit that most of Asia and Africa seem like lost causes, with either weak protections or weak institutions. I wouldn't be surprised if many governments there would claim that power. I don't know about "essentially all". I don't know about South America; they seem pretty diverse. > Even, I would hazard a guess, under a practical day to day USPTO given the rather broad readings of the Postal Clause in the past. The US Patent and Trademark Office? I think you mean the US Postal Service. And you may be confusing the "Postal Clause" with the "Commerce Clause". At least I don't know of any particulary broad reading of the mandate to operate the mails. And "operate" is pretty different from "read". Anyway, governmental entities in the US emphatically do not have and cannot claim any power to read mail en masse. Nor can it be granted to them by legislation. "Amendment IV: 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." That "reasonable" bit has consistently been interpreted to mean that if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the ordinary course of events, then that expectation can't be violated by the government without a particularized warrant. The interpretation of the Fourth Amendment expanded in the 20th century, and I don't really know the early history... but I don't think the federal government could have gotten away with reading the mail even in the 19th, and it probably would have literally destroyed the US if they'd tried in the 18th. If it had always been the case that all, or a large fraction of, letters were read in transit, then they might have been able to get away with it, but it never was. Such a traditional expectation becomes a reasonable expectation, and therefore has legal force under US constitutional law. And amendments win over the main body of the Constitution (because they amend it). There's tons of case law that would apply a particularized warrant requirement to mail. It's not even slightly ambiguous. Even the current SCOTUS wouldn't question it. I'd expect 9-0, but could be disappointed and see 7-2. It wouldn't even fly for email or other electronic messages. If they wanted to read all mail, or randomly chosen mail, or a large fraction of mail, they'd need a constitutional amendment. That requires a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress, plus concurrence of three fourths of the state legislatures. Substantive constitutional amendments are essentially impossible in the modern political climate. If the Forces of Evil were on top of things, and twisted some arms behind the scenes with respect to the technology was originally deployed, maybe they could establish the "right" expectations with respect to the next means of communication somebody invents. That's a big, big maybe. But there's no question of them getting to read paper mail en masse. Not as long as the moral authority of the Constitution stands in the US.