
Postal Service almost never denies mail-surveillance requests - Libertatea
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/11/20/postal-service-almost-never-denies-mail-surveillance-requests/
======
msandford
Why would they? They're a de-facto government entity. They have nothing to
lose by honoring the requests and a lot to lose if they don't and "something
bad happens" as a result.

That's not to say that I approve of this behavior. Just that it shouldn't be
surprising. There is no oversight. If mom and dad are gone, why not have some
cookies?

~~~
Alupis
USPS is not really a government entity anymore. They are a private company
who's head (Postmaster General) is appointed by the Executive Branch.
Otherwise they are separate.

~~~
fiatmoney
They have their own police service with over ~3500 employees, and ~1000 armed
agents. It doesn't get more governmental than that.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Inspection...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Inspection_Service)

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
I agree that for all intents and purposes they are a government entity, but
some private railroads (BNSF and UP) also have offical, bona fide police
forces as well.So I'd say that by itself, having a legitimate police force
isn't the sole criterion for being a public entity.

~~~
Alupis
To further the point, most Universities have real police departments that can
ticket and arrest you. Not all Universities are government run/funded.

~~~
hnriot
anyone can make an arrest, but campus police et al can't shoot you legally as
the government police can, they can't call in other branches of government
like swat or air support or even the military, they can't take you to jail,
after an arrest they need to call the real police. There's a big difference
between campus police which are benign and the regular government police.
sometimes (as at UC Davis) the campus police get ahead of themselves and start
acting like the real police, but thankfully they can be reigned in, unlike the
real cops who can do whatever they want and get away with it.

~~~
Alupis
You hinted at the UCD pepper spray incident (which was under orders of the
school chancellor, but nobody remembers that and she still has her job).

The campus police can and will shoot you. They are a real-deal police
department. Most of the university shootings are ended by campus police
(usually shooting the gunman).

However you sort of hinted at the fact that most campus police are a lot more
lenient than city/state police. This is true in my experience -- guessing, but
probably because they know who they are largely working with. Students. Drunk
students, students doing dumb things, etc. Not hardened criminals most of the
time. I'd probably step to far, but I'd wager campus police is a much safer
line of work for an officer as well (no flip of the coin if the guy you pulled
over for speeding will pull a gun on you, etc).

~~~
esrauch
UC Davis is a state school. State schools tend to have real police, I don't
know of any private university that does (why or how would they?)

~~~
Philadelphia
Many do. Penn definitely does, for one
([http://www.publicsafety.upenn.edu/UPPD/](http://www.publicsafety.upenn.edu/UPPD/)).

------
softdev12
This doesn't surprise me at all. Especially if you have ever been to one of
those large Postal Centers. There are cameras everywhere, with signs saying
you are being recorded.

The interesting thing is an article in today's WSJ, where the incoming
Postmaster Megan Brennan claims to want to "act like private sector". If
that's the case, they should be much more hostile to surveillance requests a
la Twitter, Facebook.

The article is here [http://online.wsj.com/articles/new-postmasters-goal-act-
like...](http://online.wsj.com/articles/new-postmasters-goal-act-like-the-
private-sector-1416788696)

------
jasonjei
Wouldn't a smart criminal rely on digital or paperless means to carry
information or value (BitCoin)? Use electronic statements (and fake mailing
address when requested), etc? I'm just trying to understand the point of mail
surveillance when alternative means to collaborate in criminal enterprise
exist.

~~~
mikeash
Not defending (or attacking) this practice, but a lot of crime-fighting
techniques are made to work against stupid criminals, of which there are many.

~~~
happyscrappy
80% of crime goes unsolved so it may be that the stupid ones are
overrepresented.

------
chaostheory
Going on a depressing tangent, this is also why I worry about municipalities
running internet. Then again I highly doubt that either Comcast, Verizon, or
Time Warner actually reject any requests from Unc Sam

~~~
organsnyder
I wouldn't be too worried about that. There are already municipal employees
that are some of the most staunch defenders of privacy (at least in my city):
librarians.

~~~
chaostheory
Yes, but they probably won't be in charge of maintaining internet related
services for people's homes.

------
BillFranklin
Are there any lawyers on here that can comment on the legality of this? It
sounds like this is against article four of the US constitution.

~~~
rayiner
4th amendment says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated..."

Generally, searches are considered "unreasonable" if someone has an
expectation of privacy in that context. In general, this creates a divide
between private and not-private. The inside of your home: private, and
protected. Anything visible from other peoples' property? Not private, not
protected.

Mail tracking involves looking at the _outside_ of your mail. It involves
looking at information that is not only not private, but must necessarily be
exposed in order for mail delivery to function. Hence its outside the 4th
amendment. The government doesn't have to "search" your mail to be track it--
they just have to get USPS to hand over information it has to necessarily
collect incident to its business.

For the opposing view, Google "mosaic theory." As with many debates, this one
comes down to a conflict between people who think the Constitution means what
it says, and those that believe in "living constitutions" where we should
insert things into the Constitution that aren't there, "because change."

~~~
tptacek
My understanding was that "reasonability" is more complicated than this, and
that expectation of privacy is a factor, but an equally important one is the
balancing of the government's interest (and the legitimacy of that interest).
A search might still be unreasonable even if its subject has no reasonable
expectation of privacy, right?

~~~
mikecb
Kind of, like in US v. Jones and Florida v. Jardines, where the Katz
definition of a search (where the reasonable expectation test comes from), was
not in the majority, but rather a simple trespass test was used. But most
importantly, at this point in the analysis, we're simply determining was this
thing that the government agents did a search? If it was, and there was no
warrant, then it is presumptively unreasonable. If it wasn't a search (or
seizure), then the 4th amendment does not apply.

------
usefulcat
Potential for abuse = power / accountability

------
free2rhyme214
If the DMV did the same thing it shouldn't surprise anyone.

~~~
rhino369
Why would you expect anything you tell the DMV to be private?

