Slashdot Mirror


New Privacy Concerns About US Program That Can Track Snail Mail

Lashdots writes: A lawyers' group has called for greater oversight of a government program that gives state and federal law enforcement officials access to metadata from private communications for criminal investigations and national security purposes. But it's not digital: this warrantless surveillance is conducted on regular mail. "The mail cover has been in use, in some form, since the 1800s," Chief Postal Inspector Guy J. Cottrell told Congress in November. The program targets a range of criminal activity including fraud, pornography, and terrorism, but, he said, "today, the most common use of this tool is related to investigations to rid the mail of illegal drugs and illegal drug proceeds." Recent revelations that the U.S. Postal Service photographs the front and back of all mail sent through the U.S., ostensibly for sorting purposes, has, Fast Company reports, brought new scrutiny—and new legal responses—to this obscure program.

66 comments

  1. Not all of these are equal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    a range of criminal activity including fraud, pornography, and terrorism

    In general, pornography is legal throughout the US, no? Sure, you add certain adjectives and it becomes illegal pretty quick, but as written this list does not make sense.

    1. Re:Not all of these are equal... by Nutria · · Score: 3, Informative

      In times past, sending porn through the mail *was* illegal, and the antiquated version of this program tracked porn mailers and receivers.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:Not all of these are equal... by RY · · Score: 1

      The USPS has a history of convictions of individuals spreading illegal thoughts and unpopular speech during the early portions of the 19th century.

        The Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918 helped convict people for horrendous crimes such as, association with the Communist Party, opposing conscription and unpopular speech.

      Early Communist, anarchist, socialist and others were convicted jailed and deported with much help from the USPS.

      Becoming an enemy of the state means a person is disliked by the ruling political party.

    3. Re:Not all of these are equal... by fred911 · · Score: 1

      What about the children?

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    4. Re:Not all of these are equal... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      They get arrested, just like everybody else.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. Really? This is a surprise? by sabbede · · Score: 1
    Oh no! The Federal agency that picks up, sorts, and delivers the mail keeps a record of having done so? God forbid!

    Color me profoundly unsurprised, with hints of "so what?".

  3. Drug trafficking? by NotARealUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Searching for Drug trafficking just sounds like an excuse now days. Really? Can't they sniff the mail with modern drug detecting machines? Tracking meta data is almost guaranteed to be used for something different.

    I am tired of the boogie men of terrorism, drug trafficking, and safety that the U.S. three letter agencies keep using to justify attacking freedom and privacy.

    1. Re:Drug trafficking? by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Before Terrorism, the justification was Communism. After Terrorism, it'll be something else. As far as I can see, politics are cyclical, not progressive.
      The Drug War is an excuse - for many things, not least of which is making money. But make no mistake - it's driven by real moral disapproval. Same with Terrorism. Huge fortunes have been made since 2001, and whole industries have sprung up around the Terrorism scare. Don't look for it to go away anytime soon.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    2. Re:Drug trafficking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Searching for Drug trafficking just sounds like an excuse now days. Really? Can't they sniff the mail with modern drug detecting machines? Tracking meta data is almost guaranteed to be used for something different.

      I am tired of the boogie men of terrorism, drug trafficking, and safety that the U.S. three letter agencies keep using to justify attacking freedom and privacy.

      I've gotten drugs in the mail. Anyone with an ounce of sense does it in such a way that it isn't traceable back to them. I'm not going to explain exactly how they do it, but the main point is to look absolutely average and blend in with all the rest of the mail.

    3. Re:Drug trafficking? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      That's 50% of people who actually vote, so it's what 25% or so of the eligible voting population, which excludes minors, but includes dead people.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:Drug trafficking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The post office I've worked at for only 4 months has 28 routes total, and they've smelled pot on 2 packages in that time that got sent on to the Inspectors. Okay, you can't really extrapolate anything meaningful from that small amount of data, but the point is people do send drug packages through the mail. And while I could care less personally about drugs in the mail or not, it does give credence to their claim as to why they're gathering data. If the drug-sniffing machines exist, they must not get used on a large number of domestic parcels. Those are too busy still getting checked out for anthrax (which honestly, we all care a lot more about).

  4. The solution for all this government intrusion by jcrb · · Score: 2

    Is for the Supreme Court to find that information that can only be collected by the government under the mosaic theory of information and that could not be gathered by an individual actor is covered by a right of privacy, they manage to find all sorts of rights that we hadn't noticed before, it's time for them to find this one.

    --
    -jon
  5. ostensibly for sorting purposes by Nutria · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, it is for sorting purposes. (They've got massive machines running Linux doing OCR which replaced manual sorting, and that requires... taking pictures of the mail.)

    Whether all the pictures are also retained is a completely different story. 10 years ago, I'd have said, "No; too expensive." But storage costs have plummeted, so nowadays, maybe so.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:ostensibly for sorting purposes by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      Massive machines running LINUX? That is COMMUNISM!

      By the way, I think this story is under the wrong section. YRO means "Your Rights Online" and "snail mail" is not online. Can any of the admins move it to a more appropriate place, like, 'idle'.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    2. Re:ostensibly for sorting purposes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      bah. ten years ago? they were already archiving the data in perpetuity long before that.

    3. Re:ostensibly for sorting purposes by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, it is for sorting purposes. (They've got massive machines running Linux doing OCR which replaced manual sorting, and that requires... taking pictures of the mail.)

      Right, but then the USPS was claiming that they simply threw away all of the resulting data when they were done with it. That's a ridiculous claim in every way.

      Whether all the pictures are also retained is a completely different story. 10 years ago, I'd have said, "No; too expensive." But storage costs have plummeted, so nowadays, maybe so.

      So what? They don't have to OCR anything that has a properly printed label; they just can it for bar codes. Those pieces of mail, which are the bulk of what passes through the postal system, never has to be photographed at all because they already know where it's coming from, where it's going, what it weighs and whether the package weight was reported accurately. The scans of the remaining minority of mail could quite reasonably be saved ten years ago, especially if you were not picky about resolution. Today, it's trivial.

      But the real "so what" is that they are OCRing the mail, so even if they were throwing away all of those scans, they would still reasonably be storing the metadata. Why would you ever throw that away, unless forced? It's small, and it's valuable. But moreover, one of the Snowden revelations was that they are in fact storing all of that OCR data, it all gets handed straight to the feds. Before Snowden, it was generally believed (heh heh) that this data was simply flushed, and only the fringe believed that it was handed to the feds as a matter of course. Now we know that to be the case.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:ostensibly for sorting purposes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First Class snail mail is delivered through the cloud.

    5. Re:ostensibly for sorting purposes by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Whether all the pictures are also retained is a completely different story.

      They don't need to store the pictures. If the OCR is successful, they can just store the text, with is less than 1% of the image size.

    6. Re:ostensibly for sorting purposes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the premise it is fine to scan snail mail like this, we should probably create a law capping it at 6 months.

      But as to whether it's legal, Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.[2]

      Do we lose the right to privacy when we mail things?
      Can the scanning do something to see inside of the envelope, to read the content?

    7. Re:ostensibly for sorting purposes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They dont need to "hand it over" to the feds... they are the feds.

    8. Re:ostensibly for sorting purposes by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      YRIRL

    9. Re:ostensibly for sorting purposes by Nutria · · Score: 1

      But the real "so what" is that they are OCRing the mail,

      Lot's of people still actually hand-write addresses. It needs to get OCRed in order to be sorted.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    10. Re:ostensibly for sorting purposes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were using mail tracking after the suspicious anthrax incident of sept 2001. Whether they had the actual image is meaningless since they had the metadata.

    11. Re:ostensibly for sorting purposes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If anyone reasonably believed that scanning technology could read the content, there would be a burgeoning market of scan-proof envelopes, which would be de rigueur for lawyers and accountants. In fact there are security envelopes with patterns printed on the inside to make it harder to read the contents through the paper, but no tin-foil-lined envelopes.

      There is a *lot* of confidential information in snail mail, and a *lot* of professional people with a vested interest in keeping that information confidential. Facebook and other social PRISM services get collected and adults wearing coats and ties generally don't care, because nothing important is there. Gmail starts to worry the enterprise gmail customers. Snail mail, however, has always generally been assumed to have metadata collection, because what's on the outside of the envelope is public information, but the inside of the envelope is sacrosanct, and I mean that in nearly a religious sense. I doubt the professions (especially law, accountancy and finance) would allow content collection of snail mail. It's a line that can't be crossed.

    12. Re:ostensibly for sorting purposes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mail covers specify some single specific address or drop or person. That's your basic individualized warrant. Boring.
      The USPS also takes pictures of all mail sent through their system, from to scribbles date maildrop etc, and stores it all.
      They sell it in their name sanitized address dataset products. But you can see some unsanitized evidence of name matching in their own online address verifier, particularly regarding business names.
      They also give the entire raw dataset to the NSA and other Government agencies.

    13. Re:ostensibly for sorting purposes by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      But the real "so what" is that they are OCRing the mail, so even if they were throwing away all of those scans, they would still reasonably be storing the metadata

      I would expect them to OCR the mail. in fact, the postal system has the best OCR in the business which can read printed/typed/stickered labels (even at an angle), and handwriting. The accuracy of the system is beyond what you can find - 99.99% accuracy means 1 in 10,000 letters has an error, and if you're dealing with millions of pieces of mail that's not pre-sorted, correcting that requires lots of manual assistance. (they have special stations that let the operator view the mail but not actually handle it and type a corrected address).

      Storing images of the OCR'd labels is simply smart because it means you have a set of working scans, a set of failed scans (with corrected addresses) and can run tweaks to the OCR software through actual real live labels that passed and failed and discover whether or not your fix improved matters or made things worse.

    14. Re:ostensibly for sorting purposes by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Whether all the pictures are also retained is a completely different story. 10 years ago, I'd have said, "No; too expensive." But storage costs have plummeted, so nowadays, maybe so.

      They've been doing it for well over 10 years:

      cite:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08...

      Relevant quote:

      Last month, The New York Times reported on the practice, which is called the Mail Isolation and Tracking system. The program was created by the Postal Service after the anthrax attacks in late 2001 killed five people, including two postal workers.

    15. Re:ostensibly for sorting purposes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was told by the postmaster for my district the machines operate at 96% accuracy. Still good, but for example today my route had 1200 letters total, and 4 were for different routes and 2 were for a different station(s).

    16. Re:ostensibly for sorting purposes by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They dont need to "hand it over" to the feds... they are the feds.

      The USPS gets a tax break and preferential treatment, like a monopoly on your mailbox and increased penalties for harassment of their agents vs. a slightly more private carrier like UPS or FedEx, but they are not themselves "the feds". They're just a business with protected status which is dressed up to look patriotic, and they're hardly the only one. I know that when I was a kid, I thought Federal Express was affiliated with the postal service. Given what I see around me on a regular basis, it's probable that many adults still believe that. And like any large corporation, FedEx has to some extent grafted itself onto the federal government, e.g. (FTFL) "In 2001, FedEx sealed a $9 billion deal with the USPS to transport all of the post office's overnight and express deliveries".

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:ostensibly for sorting purposes by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But the real "so what" is that they are OCRing the mail

      Lot's of people still actually hand-write addresses. It needs to get OCRed in order to be sorted.

      You have to finish the sentence before you can understand it. I'd bet you just interrupt in the middle of sentences all the time, and thus fail to understand what people are telling you by preventing them from actually finishing a complete thought.

      If you go back and read the complete sentence, which expresses a complete thought, then it makes perfect sense.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. Re:Really? This is a surprise? by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Its a surprise for the Millenials who seem to edit this site these days - they'll all be furiously looking up what "snail mail" and "post office" mean.

  7. Wait a second... by __aabppq7737 · · Score: 2

    so some people out there, who know perfectly well that non-govt owned property, like phone calls in the air, are being sniffed, actually trusts a govt. provided asset (i.e, USPS)? If it was up to me, I wouldn't communicate using mail. I'd use metadata enclosing the mail to communicate sensitive information (time sent, addressee, etc.)

  8. US Program That Can Track Snail Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So..... the Postal Service?

  9. Re:Really? This is a surprise? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

    Snail Mail: Tinned Escargot sent via parcel delivery.

  10. Automated sorting of mail and metadata? by userw014 · · Score: 2

    The USPS has been using automated systems of sorting mail for decades. It's why mail across town goes to a consolidated center (perhaps halfway across the state) first for sorting into carrier routes and has been for decades.

    That Homeland Security want to capture this information - which has long been determined to accessible (the original pen-trace) isn't surprising at all.

    And they only have to photograph/image the ones that the machines can't read. It's only surprising to people who drink the conservative kool-aide that government can't do anything right.

    1. Re:Automated sorting of mail and metadata? by causality · · Score: 1

      The USPS has been using automated systems of sorting mail for decades. It's why mail across town goes to a consolidated center (perhaps halfway across the state) first for sorting into carrier routes and has been for decades.

      That Homeland Security want to capture this information - which has long been determined to accessible (the original pen-trace) isn't surprising at all.

      And they only have to photograph/image the ones that the machines can't read. It's only surprising to people who drink the conservative kool-aide that government can't do anything right.

      There are four things government is in a position to do better than anyone else: military defense, law enforcement, public works, and the erosion of liberty.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:Automated sorting of mail and metadata? by swb · · Score: 2

      There are four things government is in a position to do better than anyone else: military defense, law enforcement, public works, and the erosion of liberty.

      I don't know, the experience with company towns makes me think big business can do erosion of liberty on par with the government and with greater efficiency.

    3. Re:Automated sorting of mail and metadata? by mydn · · Score: 1

      Get rid of government and see how long your liberty lasts.

    4. Re:Automated sorting of mail and metadata? by causality · · Score: 1

      Get rid of government and see how long your liberty lasts.

      Do you deny that liberty tends to erode over time? Or did a hallucination cause you to falsely believe I wanted to get rid of all government?

      br
      If neither of those is true, then I cannot understand what motivated you to write that post. It looks like a knee-jerk response to someone else's conversation.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  11. Re:Really? This is a surprise? by operagost · · Score: 2

    If it was a non-government corporation, would you be more concerned? And it is a corporation, just one owned by the federal government.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  12. Re:Really? This is a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I actually had to look up "snail mail" :)

    But to be fair, I'm a foreigner.

  13. Deprecated by zenbi · · Score: 0

    But Post Office (RFC1939) was superseded by IMAP (RFC3501).

  14. I know a good way to test the system.... by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    put a GPS tracker - say an old model burner Android phone in box, make an address label out of one of these and set it to change destinations to different parts of the country every four hours......

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  15. Big Data stupidity by alispguru · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A lot of our problems today are the result of people in power fundamentally misunderstanding what Big Data is good for.

    We used to assume it was impractical for the Government to keep records of everything we do in the public sphere. Those things have gone from possible to practical to inevitable, mostly due to Moore's Law.

    Just because you have everything recorded, doesn't mean it's useful, though. Technologists who should know better talk about searching these records to find the "needle in the haystack", selling the vision of complete records + powerful search tools = Total Awareness.

    What they conveniently skip over is:

    * All records have inaccuracies
    * If the inaccuracy rate is higher than the occurrence rate of what you're searching for, the search is not useful

    Consider medical screening tests. If you have a test with a false positive rate of 1 in 1000, it is useless to use such a test to search for a condition that happens to 1 in 1000000 - 999 times out of a thousand, the test will say you're sick when you're fine.

    Now, consider:

    * The error rate of address OCR

    versus

    * The rate of secrets being exchanged via US Mail

    Anyone in the Government who can't produce an estimate of those two numbers shouldn't be allowed anywhere near those records - it would be like giving a child a loaded gun, or a politician a Twitter account.

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
    1. Re:Big Data stupidity by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Those things have gone from possible to practical to inevitable, mostly due to Moore's Law.

      Actually, it is mostly due to Kryder's Law. The driving force is not semiconductor density, but HDD density, driving down storage costs.

    2. Re:Big Data stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While this is true from a statistical POV,
      these systems should not be being built in the first place when you know damn well their growing and real purpose will be to take rights from and exert power over and control people.
      And even if the do serve some genuine purpose that does not do those things, the systems absolutely MUST have verifiable transparent auditable and so on and absolutely fierce felonius laws wrapped around them to prevent those in power from abusing them. They must be operated openly by civilians and under civilian mandate and oversight. Not governmental, not military, and not corporate. EDU and NGO are good places.

    3. Re:Big Data stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Anyone in the Government who can't produce an estimate of those two numbers"

      Unfortunately even those who do put out those estimates often slant them towards whatever the government (local, state, federal) wants. A good example would be DNA evidence, the FBIs own forensics board has been pushing for years for the statistics of DNA "matches" to be revised with no luck. Basically the statistics that are currently in use throughout the US are the ones based on the old methodology, you get DNA evidence from a crime scene, then you find a suspect, and after you have probable cause to believe that a suspect is your guy you get a sample from him/her and compare it to the one at the crime scene. In that instance your the statistics are fairly correct, its a one in X trillion chance that the match is incorrect. However that is not how DNA is used much of the time these days, they get DNA from a crime scene then run it against every database they can get their hands on. In those situations the numbers are closer to one in a few million (about the rate of dying in an airliner crash). Several defense attorneys have tried to point out the discrepancy but last I heard had been consistently denied the chance to do so.

    4. Re:Big Data stupidity by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Just because you have everything recorded, doesn't mean it's useful, though.

      While I agree with many of your points, often these records become important after the fact.

      Suppose I have a record of every letter sent from anywhere to anywhere. Then somebody blows up a building or whatever and are now known as a terrorist. The database allows you to obtain a list of every letter that had his address somewhere on it. Or any letter sent to a suspicious address which originated in his vicinity even if it didn't have a return address (such as if it were dropped in a mailbox). That kind of information can be useful to expand a network of suspects.

      It is like having a record of every phone call for the last 30 years. It is hard to look at call patterns and tell who is a threat. However, if somebody blows up a building you can figure out who their college roommate was, or who they dated in middle school. All kinds of relationships that would not be obvious if you just talked to somebody's neighbors or looked at their recent credit card / phone history become apparent. Maybe their former girlfriend works for the TSA and was on duty when a terrorist slipped past security, but there weren't any phone calls between them in the last 10 years. That is a lead that might become apparent with long-term record retention that would be missed without it. Of course, such techniques inevitably involve looking into the cases of people who are almost certainly innocent. If the girlfriend wasn't involved, pursuing her might mean neglecting other leads that are real threats.

      Data is just data. However, there is a lot you can do with a targeted search once you know what you're looking for.

  16. Is it just me or... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else initially think that this official's title was actually, "Chief Postal Inspector Guy"?

  17. wait a freeking second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait a freeking second!

    They can actually track this shit? The best I ever got out of them was once a day. They actually have a computer with this data and did not give it to me?! They know where it is and can track it? I usually get runaround excuses about 'cant and wont'.

    This is like basic web presence 101 stuff. I always get the excuse they cant do it. But under it all they are.

    This would make their service a billion times better. Basically free tracking of all mail. What truck is something on etc etc etc.

    That is seriously sad. They spent all the money and time actually tracking it then at the last part said 'fuck it dont show anyone except the NSA'.

  18. recent revelations, my speckled behind by swschrad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    when the automated sorting system v.2 was installed, maybe 15 or 20 years ago, the USPS at that time said that they captured pictures of all mail. doubtless it was seen as a marvel of engineering that they did all that at one fell swoop, and a big boast. the initial automation system of the 70s/80s didn't.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  19. Re:Really? This is a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh no! The Federal agency that picks up, sorts, and delivers the mail keeps a record of having done so? God forbid!

    Color me profoundly unsurprised, with hints of "so what?".

    Unless you are sending registered mail or parcels handled by their own courier, the post office should not be recording the addresses of the sender and recipient nor even the date the envelope is stamped by the post office. There is a difference between tracking a package and wholesale surveillance of every postal item.

  20. No return address required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you wanted to hide stuff in the mail you could just omit the return address. And if you really wanted to disguise it mail it out of town. Without a return address all the photo would show is the center where the postmark was affixed and the delivery address. Not a lot of meat there.

  21. Re:Really? This is a surprise? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Germans use the identical expression for their system, Schneckenpost.

  22. Enabling technologies and law by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    The metadata collection of mail, or specifically knowing senders, receivers and dates of communication etc. has long been known as a law enforcement tool. The contents of private correspondence has been protected not only by the fourth amendment but also affirmed in 1878 ex parte Jackson:

    a distinction is to be made between different kinds of mail matter -- between what is intended to be kept free from inspection, such as letters, and sealed packages subject to letter postage, and what is open to inspection, such as newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, and other printed matter purposely left in a condition to be examined. Letters and sealed packages of this kind in the mail are as fully guarded from examination and inspection, except as to their outward form and weight, as if they were retained by the parties forwarding them in their own domiciles. The constitutional guaranty of the right of the people to be secure in their papers against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to their papers, thus closed against inspection, wherever they may be. Whilst in the mail, they can only be opened and examined under like warrant, issued upon similar oath or affirmation, particularly describing the thing to be seized, as is required when papers are subjected to search in one's own household. 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.

    Of course based on reasonable suspicion law enforcement could always obtain warrants or with the help of postal inspectors focus in on one group or hierarchy of mail delivery to focus in on collecting this metadata. The protection for criminals conducting illegal activities was that there was so much mail that it would be hard to filter through it unless suspicious activity was observed. The FBI under Hoover however took it a bit further and intercepted mail and examined it without warrants under the guise of "counter intelligence." The Church Committee found:

    Too many people have been spied upon by too many Government agencies and too much information has been illegally collected. The Government has often undertaken the secret surveillance of citizens on the basis of their political beliefs, even when those beliefs posed no threat of violence or illegal acts on behalf of a hostile foreign power. The Government, operating primarily through secret and biased informants, but also using other intrusive techniques such as wiretaps, microphone "bugs", surreptitious mail opening, and break-ins, has swept in vast amounts of information about the personal lives, views, and associations of American citizens. Investigations of groups deemed potentially dangerous—and even of groups suspected of associating with potentially dangerous organizations—have continued for decades, despite the fact that those groups did not engage in unlawful activity.

    So, the NSA and it's surreptitious activities are nothing new to the Feds.

    With the advent of OCR technology now you could sort the mail faster, 1000s of times faster than before but the side benefit was that huge amounts of metadata could be easily collected and it didn't require warrants or suspicions. Since sending letters requires another party, the Third Party Doctrine and in 1967 the Supreme Court in Katz v. US established a test to determine if when a person could assume that their communications were private:

    1) "The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  23. Re:Really? This is a surprise? by poetmatt · · Score: 1

    Hmm. Maybe it's the "you don't have a way to opt out of receiving mail" part of things?

  24. Protest by ysth · · Score: 1

    Protest the imaging of first class mail by placing your stamp upside down.

  25. I got pictures of my mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was an order from DX.COM sent from Singapore that did not arrive after 5 weeks. I did send a mail to USPS with the tracking number and they send me several pictures of the envelope (different qualities and angles, from different sorting stations in the US).

    From those pictures it was clear that DX.COM messed up the ZIP code so USPS send it back to Singapore. It is good to have this proof to DX.COM to explain it was their fault, it was bad that USPS did not deliver it the first time because the rest of the address was all correct.

    So, yes. They make pictures and they keep them for at least for a month.

  26. Re:Really? This is a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked on the machines that do this. It cancels the mail, and captures the images of both sides of the mailpiece including the cancellation date stamp. The address information is OCR translated into digital data to route the mail to it's destination. Mail sorting is automated and computerized; sortation machines handle about 40,000 letters an hour. A small facility handles almost 1,000,000 letters on a slow day.

    Some of the mail (a small percentage) cannot be 'read' by the algorithm due to very bad handwriting. The images of these unreadable mailpieces are displayed for a human to enter the address data. The address data is stored into a database record that is tied to the orange barcode on the back of the mailpiece. The lifespan of this record is from a few days to 30 days, depending on the policy of the cancellation facility. After this the data is gone from postal service systems. I've suspected that nefarious 3 letter agencies obtained the data for their own purposes.

  27. Re:Really? This is a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought it was an email provider, like gmail or startmail :P

  28. making your own record? by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    which device to create your own path to record the route the mail took... and potentially compare to the record this produces?

    lot of mail gone missing lately... just about ontopic...?

  29. Re:Really? This is a surprise? by sabbede · · Score: 1

    Just the same one there's always been - don't tell anyone where you live.

  30. Re:Really? This is a surprise? by sabbede · · Score: 1

    Nope. I'd still expect it to be the case. As it has been for centuries.

  31. Re:Really? This is a surprise? by sabbede · · Score: 1
    Thank you! Not only was your reply funny, it kicked off a spate of other funny posts.

    Great Job!