Intelligent Mail

Below, I mentioned that there were technologies to protect the mail system from attacks that are just way too easy if the system is open as it has been for. . . ever. Well, from Wired -- not exactly where you'd expect information about the USPS -- comes a couple of articles that indicate I'm not the only one on the idea.

First, on October 27th, came an article entitled, Post Office Wants to ID the Mail. It describes a change the USPS is implementing -- which has value to mailers and does not impose on consumers -- to make each item of bulk mail identifiable. Then, yesterday, came another item entitled, Post Office Gets Pressured to Pry. This one spends a little more time getting in to the recommendations of the President's Commission on the United States Postal Service as made in its July report. The most significant of which (at least for this harangue) is that the post office "should explore the use of sender identification for every piece of mail." [More about this below.] In addition, two congressional committees have urged the USPS to explore unique sender identification.

It should be noted that the USPS has indicated the bulk-mail rule changes are the first of many changes to come in making mail intelligent (on the outside anyway; the post office has no control over the degree of intelligence on the inside of the envelope). They are a little bit vague on the question of whether the requirements and changes will migrate to the consumer side. Maybe; maybe not. The proposal is not with out opposition.

However, on the question of opposition by citizens, the Commission had this to say:

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. . . . 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.

EPIC associate director, Chris Hoofnagle, doesn't buy it though. Anonymity is essential for free speech, etc., he says, as though it (anonymity) is a God-given right. I don't necessarily agree that anonymity is a necessary condition for free speech. Nor does Kierkegaard. (Kierkegaard saw anonymity and opinion as a troubling development because it allowed those who opined or complained to do so without taking a stand on the issues they raise. More here.) I see his point though; and theirs. I tend to side with the philosopher and the business people. Having said that though, there is a definite risk in the creation of readily available and easily subpoenaed sender identity data that could impose on privacy rights of individuals.

It's all out there and ready to be used. think about it. Would you support it or be scared of it.

Posted by Grayson at November 13, 2003 03:32 PM