4 ms·

This is the biggest danger we face - the slow deterioration of our privacy to the point where when things like this emerge, a large part of the population's rea

by jmadsen 12y ago

This is the biggest danger we face - the slow deterioration of our privacy to the point where when things like this emerge, a large part of the population's reaction is "why didn't you expect this?" In fact, I would NOT expect the post office to spend millions in technology to track letters. They shouldn't have any INTEREST in doing that - it isn't important to their main function of delivering mail. I expected them to use tech to better be able read zip codes & route more efficiently, and to count mail to better place people and resources where most needed.It should stop at that. Simply because something is public does not mean the govt should be spending resources tracking and storing it

theworst 12y ago
I'm curious about exploring your perspective, if you don't mind indulging me. Suppose, in the course of their everyday routing systems, the USPS were tracking the information in question. Pretend it were free to transfer that data to the law enforcement authorities. Would you have an issue with it, if it were free as part of doing business?
- Retric 12y ago
  Proactive mass surveillance does not work. So even if the USPS is not spending money other parts of the government is going to waste money dealing with this crap. Sure, we can get into a debate about the ethics of surveillance, but as long as there is zero benefit it seems pointless. As to why it fails, there is simply to many false positives.
  - theworst 12y ago
    While I tend to agree with your overall point, I was asking the question for a different reason. I find it useful to examine my opinions from different perspectives, even ones I disagree with, in order to better understand the crux of the issue. Again, while I personally agree with what you say, I think it's a bit assertive to say "proactive mass surveillance does not work". I know several people who would argue just as strongly that their work is critical to national security. This is a bit nitpicky on my part, but your statement "as long as there is zero benefit it seems pointless" is a tautology. I think the argument is regarding whether there is zero benefit. Again, I don't mean to criticize your beliefs; I'm just interested in openly exploring different perspectives to try and understand the situation better.
  - chongli 12y ago
    Proactive mass surveillance does not work. Sure it does, just not for what it is claimed to by its proponents. The real point of proactive mass surveillance is to perpetuate a culture of mass fear, a chilling effect on free speech and to maintain the socioeconomic status quo; that is, to limit upward mobility and destroy any notion of wealth redistribution before it gets off the ground.
    - csallen 12y ago
      This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Fewer than 1% of the people I know live in a state of active fear of our government. There are certainly nefarious goals behind many incidents of mass surveillance, but "perpetuat[ing] a culture of mass fear" is not one of them. The vast majority of people don't even know this is going on, let alone care.
      - chongli 12y ago
        Those people are also not participating/planning any protests or other forms of civil disobedience. They are irrelevant, as far as the elite are concerned.
        csallen 12y ago
        Not true. Tons of my friends participate in protests.
      - baddox 12y ago
        Of these people you know, how would most of them react initially if they received an unexpected letter or phone call from the IRS?
        csallen 12y ago
        I fail to see the point of your question. Elaborate?
        12y ago
  - quasque 12y ago
    How do you know it doesn't work? From all we've been told (very little, mostly through leaks) there isn't enough information to make that judgement. The key issue isn't the potential benefit of mass surveillance in dealing with crimes or potential crimes, but rather its risk to individual privacy and the danger of enabling authoritarian governance.
gemma 12y ago
This is marginally tangential (because the Intelligent Mail tracking programs are completely separate from the tracking the article references), but tracking mail is hugely important to the USPS. Giant postal customers who individually mail millions of pieces every month want end-to-end routing metrics, and the USPS itself uses tracking for their own internal reporting. It's how they know quickly when a service facility is overloaded, and it's how AT&T knows your bill last month made it to your front door (or at least to your local Post Office). Assuming you're in the US, check some of the mail you've received recently; do you see a jagged-looking barcode on the front? It can uniquely identify that specific piece, as well as the mailer and any special services applied--mostly requesting higher levels of tracking. The metadata for that piece lives in a big postal database in the sky, where mailers can request access at varying levels of detail. The USPS is way past just delivering mail at this point. (Source: I was a developer in the postal mail industry for six years.)
pjc50 12y ago
That would be the same part of the public that demands that "everything possible" be done to address terrorism or carry out the War On Some Drugs. If it's possible, then they'd expect it to be done.
vacri 12y ago
In fact, I would NOT expect the post office to spend millions in technology to track letters. They shouldn't have any INTEREST in doing that - it isn't important to their main function of delivering mail. It's certainly of fundamental importance to any kind of registered mail. And outside of registered mail, tracking mail helps internal processes - ensuring that mail isn't lost or forgotten. Tracking mail can help identify mail theives and other issues affecting timely delivery. The problem comes when they share that information with outside agencies, or use it for reasons other than improving the timely and accurate delivery of mail

by jmadsen 12y ago

theworst 12y ago

I'm curious about exploring your perspective, if you don't mind indulging me. Suppose, in the course of their everyday routing systems, the USPS were tracking the information in question. Pretend it were free to transfer that data to the law enforcement authorities. Would you have an issue with it, if it were free as part of doing business?

Retric 12y ago
Proactive mass surveillance does not work. So even if the USPS is not spending money other parts of the government is going to waste money dealing with this crap. Sure, we can get into a debate about the ethics of surveillance, but as long as there is zero benefit it seems pointless. As to why it fails, there is simply to many false positives.
- theworst 12y ago
  While I tend to agree with your overall point, I was asking the question for a different reason. I find it useful to examine my opinions from different perspectives, even ones I disagree with, in order to better understand the crux of the issue. Again, while I personally agree with what you say, I think it's a bit assertive to say "proactive mass surveillance does not work". I know several people who would argue just as strongly that their work is critical to national security. This is a bit nitpicky on my part, but your statement "as long as there is zero benefit it seems pointless" is a tautology. I think the argument is regarding whether there is zero benefit. Again, I don't mean to criticize your beliefs; I'm just interested in openly exploring different perspectives to try and understand the situation better.
- chongli 12y ago
  Proactive mass surveillance does not work. Sure it does, just not for what it is claimed to by its proponents. The real point of proactive mass surveillance is to perpetuate a culture of mass fear, a chilling effect on free speech and to maintain the socioeconomic status quo; that is, to limit upward mobility and destroy any notion of wealth redistribution before it gets off the ground.
  - csallen 12y ago
    This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Fewer than 1% of the people I know live in a state of active fear of our government. There are certainly nefarious goals behind many incidents of mass surveillance, but "perpetuat[ing] a culture of mass fear" is not one of them. The vast majority of people don't even know this is going on, let alone care.
    - chongli 12y ago
      Those people are also not participating/planning any protests or other forms of civil disobedience. They are irrelevant, as far as the elite are concerned.
      - csallen 12y ago
        Not true. Tons of my friends participate in protests.
    - baddox 12y ago
      Of these people you know, how would most of them react initially if they received an unexpected letter or phone call from the IRS?
      - csallen 12y ago
        I fail to see the point of your question. Elaborate?
        12y ago
- quasque 12y ago
  How do you know it doesn't work? From all we've been told (very little, mostly through leaks) there isn't enough information to make that judgement. The key issue isn't the potential benefit of mass surveillance in dealing with crimes or potential crimes, but rather its risk to individual privacy and the danger of enabling authoritarian governance.

gemma 12y ago

This is marginally tangential (because the Intelligent Mail tracking programs are completely separate from the tracking the article references), but tracking mail is hugely important to the USPS. Giant postal customers who individually mail millions of pieces every month want end-to-end routing metrics, and the USPS itself uses tracking for their own internal reporting. It's how they know quickly when a service facility is overloaded, and it's how AT&T knows your bill last month made it to your front door (or at least to your local Post Office). Assuming you're in the US, check some of the mail you've received recently; do you see a jagged-looking barcode on the front? It can uniquely identify that specific piece, as well as the mailer and any special services applied--mostly requesting higher levels of tracking. The metadata for that piece lives in a big postal database in the sky, where mailers can request access at varying levels of detail. The USPS is way past just delivering mail at this point. (Source: I was a developer in the postal mail industry for six years.)

pjc50 12y ago

That would be the same part of the public that demands that "everything possible" be done to address terrorism or carry out the War On Some Drugs. If it's possible, then they'd expect it to be done.

vacri 12y ago

In fact, I would NOT expect the post office to spend millions in technology to track letters. They shouldn't have any INTEREST in doing that - it isn't important to their main function of delivering mail. It's certainly of fundamental importance to any kind of registered mail. And outside of registered mail, tracking mail helps internal processes - ensuring that mail isn't lost or forgotten. Tracking mail can help identify mail theives and other issues affecting timely delivery. The problem comes when they share that information with outside agencies, or use it for reasons other than improving the timely and accurate delivery of mail