--- Subject: RE: [Politech] Implications of report by Postal Service commission[priv][fs] Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:43:38 -0500 Thread-Index: AcOlSEDBUKxBPR3VR/W8cIbS9tdV2QAA0dyg From: "Johnson, Marvin" <MJohnson@private> To: "Declan McCullagh" <declan@private> Declan: The decentralization does NOT mitigate the privacy concerns. The report states at page 147 that the Postal Service is to explore the feasibility of requiring "every piece of mail to include sender identification." On page 148, the report states: "The Commission recommends that the Postal Service, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, study the development of sender-identification reuirements for all mail. Issues of privacy should, of course, be noted and balanced with the value of enhanced safety. As a part of the study, the Postal Service should additionally explore the potential of technology to transition stamp purchasing equipment (e.g. vending machines, cash machines, self-service kiosks, post office counter sales, the Postal Service Website, and postage meters) from the provision of general stamps to 'personalized stamps' that automatically embed sender identification." How technically feasible this is I can't say, but clearly the direction the USPS will be going if all the recommendations are adopted is to require ID before you can even BUY a stamp. The Commission pays lip service to privacy concerns, but plainly misunderstands the concept of privacy and the right to anonymous communication protected under the First Amendment. Starting on page 147: "Requiring all mail to identify its sender would likely have a negligible impact on most users of the Postal Service who readily identify themselves when they send mail and would consider such a requirement a relatively modest concession to ensure their safety and that of the men and women who deliver the nation's mail. The greatest inconvenience, most certainly, would be to those who use the mail system for unlawful purposes, since such a move would hand law-enforcement a powerful new tool to identify and prevent such abuse." Thus, the Commission figures only criminals have something to hide, ignoring all of the legitimate reasons one might want the privacy and anonymity recognized by the Supreme Court as protected by the First Amendment. Relying on decentralization as a protection for privacy and anonymity is just sticking one's head in the sand! Marv Johnson ACLU _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 06:50:16 PST