3 ms·

Unreal. for some perspective, from: https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/contactUs/faq.aspx https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/contactUs/faq.aspx "4. Can Postal

by redwood 13y ago

Unreal. for some perspective, from: https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/contactUs/faq.aspx https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/contactUs/faq.aspx "4. Can Postal Inspectors open mail if they feel it may contain something illegal? First-Class letters and parcels are protected against search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and, as such, cannot be opened without a search warrant. If there is probable cause to believe the contents of a First-Class letter or parcel violate federal law, Postal Inspectors can obtain a search warrant to open the mailpiece. Other classes of mail do not contain private correspondence, and therefore may be opened without a warrant." So the phone companies are a third party. The postal service is not.

talmand 13y ago
Is a warrant required to read the addresses on the outside of the envelope on First Class mail?
thenerdfiles 13y ago
The difference here is: "Can the Postal System provision X-ray systems to scan all mail and hold a database of its scans up to 18 months to prevent unlawful activity?"
- berberous 13y ago
  FYI, they photograph the outside of every envelope (to/from addresses).
  - thenerdfiles 13y ago
    Yes, but X-ray? Sure someone might take a second look at an envelope photograph and come to the correct conclusion that something illegal is inside — but it's already been delivered. It's just getting back to this point of "unreasonable" and what we're quantifying over (effects, our homes, etc.) U.S. government is clearly taking either of two paths: wash out all meaning of "unreasonable", effectively making the extent to which they search infinite in scope, and wash out all meaning of "effects" such that the scope of what they can search through becomes infinite.
    - berberous 13y ago
      I'm not sure what your point is? The issue in this case is the NSA's collection of so called phone record "metadata", or information about who called whom. They do not appear to store actual recorded phone calls (at least that we know of...). That would seem analogous to the post office storing metadata on letters (to/from/date), but not the contents. It is also analogous in that some argue that you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such metadata.
      - thenerdfiles 13y ago
        ???[0][1] I really don't mean to be rude, but how are we not on the same page about this? "at least that we know of"? They're not storing [terabytes of metadata]. They're storing [terabytes of content and metadata]. They're being accused of domestic widespread spying (seizing), not domestic widespread profiling (only search). Perhaps I'm completely just not following, but is there something I'm missing? [0]: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-fla... [1]: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/29/greenwald-nsa-can-store-one-billion-cell-phone-calls-every-single-day/ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/29/greenwald-nsa-can...
        berberous 13y ago
        Thanks for the links. I honestly have trouble remembering all the revelations at this point, given how many there have been! However, those links still seem to imply that the NSA does not store the content of domestic phone calls. My point simply was that I believe the law is still crystal clear that the warantless collection and storage of the content of American's phone calls is unconstitutional, just as it would be illegal to x-ray the contents of letters. I can't imagine any court disagreeing. The fact that "metadata" on either may be legal under the third party doctrine or based on "reasonable expectations of privacy" is much less clear due to prior precedent, although I certainly agree with you that it should not be. (Of course we also now know that the NSA has not been forthright about what they actually do, or what protections are in place to ensure that they can distinguish between domestic and international content. Indeed, it appears that with Internet content there is woefully deficient controls to ensure that domestic content is not stored. There is also another way they constantly chip away at privacy: arguing that there is not a 4th amendment issue until the content is searched, not merely indiscriminately stored.)

by redwood 13y ago

talmand 13y ago

Is a warrant required to read the addresses on the outside of the envelope on First Class mail?

thenerdfiles 13y ago

The difference here is: "Can the Postal System provision X-ray systems to scan all mail and hold a database of its scans up to 18 months to prevent unlawful activity?"

berberous 13y ago
FYI, they photograph the outside of every envelope (to/from addresses).
- thenerdfiles 13y ago
  Yes, but X-ray? Sure someone might take a second look at an envelope photograph and come to the correct conclusion that something illegal is inside — but it's already been delivered. It's just getting back to this point of "unreasonable" and what we're quantifying over (effects, our homes, etc.) U.S. government is clearly taking either of two paths: wash out all meaning of "unreasonable", effectively making the extent to which they search infinite in scope, and wash out all meaning of "effects" such that the scope of what they can search through becomes infinite.
  - berberous 13y ago
    I'm not sure what your point is? The issue in this case is the NSA's collection of so called phone record "metadata", or information about who called whom. They do not appear to store actual recorded phone calls (at least that we know of...). That would seem analogous to the post office storing metadata on letters (to/from/date), but not the contents. It is also analogous in that some argue that you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such metadata.
    - thenerdfiles 13y ago
      ???[0][1] I really don't mean to be rude, but how are we not on the same page about this? "at least that we know of"? They're not storing [terabytes of metadata]. They're storing [terabytes of content and metadata]. They're being accused of domestic widespread spying (seizing), not domestic widespread profiling (only search). Perhaps I'm completely just not following, but is there something I'm missing? [0]: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-fla... [1]: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/29/greenwald-nsa-can-store-one-billion-cell-phone-calls-every-single-day/ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/29/greenwald-nsa-can...
      - berberous 13y ago
        Thanks for the links. I honestly have trouble remembering all the revelations at this point, given how many there have been! However, those links still seem to imply that the NSA does not store the content of domestic phone calls. My point simply was that I believe the law is still crystal clear that the warantless collection and storage of the content of American's phone calls is unconstitutional, just as it would be illegal to x-ray the contents of letters. I can't imagine any court disagreeing. The fact that "metadata" on either may be legal under the third party doctrine or based on "reasonable expectations of privacy" is much less clear due to prior precedent, although I certainly agree with you that it should not be. (Of course we also now know that the NSA has not been forthright about what they actually do, or what protections are in place to ensure that they can distinguish between domestic and international content. Indeed, it appears that with Internet content there is woefully deficient controls to ensure that domestic content is not stored. There is also another way they constantly chip away at privacy: arguing that there is not a 4th amendment issue until the content is searched, not merely indiscriminately stored.)