Hacker News Reader

Comment by pilsetnieks | Hacker News Reader

Are you really suggesting that the USPS is opening all letters sent through them, scanning their contents and passing it all on to law enforcement? It's a serious allegation without any proof.

If I recall correctly, they are actually scanning the outside of the letter which gets you senders, recipients, sending time (the metadata, so to speak.) Which isn't very nice but also not as brazen as opening and resealing letters KGB-style.

View on HN

What I don't understand is how the US got not to interpret emails as an equivalent to a letter, and how the secrecy of correspondence that applies to mail didn't extend to emails. As you say, opening and resealing letters is "KGB style", but that's exactly what they do with emails. Even USPS is not allowed to open your mail.

The argument was that emails are more like postcards, since they aren't "sealed" and you "share" their contents with the provider. That said, I believe the sixth circuit agreed with you in United States v. Warshak, in 2010. Of course, LE is trying its best to read that ruling in the most narrow way possible.

Will never* happen. The Postal Union would have a heart attack at the mere suggestion. They exist to keep delivery postal workers employed, they (rightfully) don't give a damn about what postal consumers want, and they have the ability to seriously disrupt the core usps business: delivering junk mail. They would never agree to email replacing last mile delivery of mail.

* not in the next decade.

doe88 is talking about mail covers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_cover), a program where the USPS provides copies of the information on the outside of envelopes to the federal agency requesting it.

This program is controversial because no lawful order is required for the USPS to collect this information. It's an egregious violation of US citizens' privacy.

Yes, I know, that's what I was talking about as well. What he was actually saying was "It should cost almost nothing to implement as they already doing it for law enforcement anyway" which would mean that they are actually reading the letter contents - which is just not true, as far as we know.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com