Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmadsen | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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.)

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not true. Tons of my friends participate in protests.

Of these people you know, how would most of them react initially if they received an unexpected letter or phone call from the IRS?

I fail to see the point of your question. Elaborate?

My point is that there probably isn't a state of active fear of the government for most people, as in they're literally cowering in a corner. Of course, this is nearly literally true for some people today (like Edward Snowden) and has been literally true for lots of people in certain governments in recent history.

But anyway, despite there not being an active fear for most people, there certainly would be an immediate fear upon receiving word from the IRS, because the tax system is so hopelessly complex that every single filer is almost certainly guilty of violating some law.

Yeah I agree with everything you're saying here. I still think the parent's claim is absolutely absurd (that the USPS tracks mail in order to perpetuate a culture of mass fear and create income inequality).

>Fewer than 1% of the people I know live in a state of active fear of our government.

obviously the government is just at the beginning of the road and has a lot of work to do. Anyway, the majority of people in the society is just a cattle and are steered easily without any explicit fear. It is the active minority which is need to be put under control.

Not true. Our government and the people inside of it have a long history of intimidating people. Read about the first and second Red Scares, as well as the career of J. Edgar Hoover. We are a long way away from "the beginning of the road".

Before we start making pronouncements about how bad things are today, it's important to understand history so we can put things in context.

The vast majority of people is not important, important is whether they feel comfortable to challenge those in power or not.

State of active fear in everybody is not what it is about. The "benefit" is state when you think twice before you donate to Wikileaks or when you hesitate to voice support for Occupy Wall Street, because they might have been used against you at some point.

It is also the state when those you donated or joined occupy have to be more careful about what they do and say, because they know things said in supposedly private conversations might be twisted against them.

I know a few people who participated in Occupy Wall Street, and I myself have publicly spoken out in favor of Wikileaks. Having to "think twice" about doing either of these things is natural and hardly a "culture of mass fear", whether the post office is tracking mail or not.

Also, proactive mass surveillance, combined with a legal system that ensures that virtually everyone is guilty of some crime, combined with prosecutorial discretion, gives the government the ability to avoid due process while on the surface appearing to be following due process. And note that the United States has all three of those requirements.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com