Post Carrier Accused of Warning Customer About 'Mail Cover' Surveillance!!!

Post Carrier Accused of Warning Customer About 'Mail Cover' Surveillance!!!

blog.wired.com

Here's a good reason to remember your postal carrier at Christmas time. Apparently, he or she can tell you if the government is secretly monitoring your mail.

Federal prosecutors in Detroit say letter carrier Darlene Cry illegally tipped off a postal customer that he was the subject of a "mail cover" -- a form of warrantless surveillance in which the envelope information on every card and letter received is secretly recorded by the Post Office, then passed to federal law enforcement or intelligence officials.

(visit the link for the full news article)

WtG letter carrier Darlene Cry. These "mail cover" aka warrantless surveillance is a prime example how our government secretly watches the American public, like common criminals. So now the government listens to our phone calls, read our emails, and now read our mail. What next?

blog.wired.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by Master_Wii


WtG letter carrier Darlene Cry. These "mail cover" aka warrantless surveillance is a prime example how our government secretly watches the American public, like common criminals. So now the government listens to our phone calls, read our emails, and now read our mail. What next?

I'm guessing stealthy flying drones and/or unmanned surveillance blimps with advanced listening systems and high-powered optics to see and hear what's going on inside your home.

Assuming such things aren't already in the air...

Bully for her to spill the beans. Hope she didnt lose her job over this. Wish my mail person would even talk or even get out of the vehicle once in awhile.

I would just like to add that the US Post Office is another 'fake' government agency. It's privately held nature seems to be one of those things we are never to review publicly. Meanwhile, any private citizen engaging in the activities our government is doing would be charged and prosecuted with 'racketeering' since it involves the US mail.

Wanna guess how many people will be charged for the crime? Wanna guess whether the mail carrier will be commended for thwarting a crime? I wonder of 'what crime' will she be accused? "Unauthorized application of honorable intent and moral behavior"?

Sheesh

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Maxmars]

I was always under the impression that it was illegal for anyone no matter who to tamper with the US mail? its pretty much the same here in the Uk with all mail until delivered coming under the jurisdiction of HM Queen even was told once (not sure if true or not) that E.R.2 was the owner of all mail until it drops through your door.

It is a sad thing to spy on a private citizen, but sometimes it has to be necessary to prevent criminal activity but for a different reason, and im sure anyone who has ever had a family member or themselves been a victim of a terrorist attack would welcome the chance to stop it from happening again at almost any cost, im damn sure i wouldnt complain if a member of my family was made safe because someone had plans to hurt us, and it was prevented by checking mail for evidence, However these things need to be done properly with the right warrants and permissions, not just because someone has a whim.

IMO we all have rights and yes even the criminals, but the victims should have broader rights, people always seem to forget the victims when pleading clemancy for the perp, we always forget the victim.

Originally posted by azzllin
It is a sad thing to spy on a private citizen, but sometimes it has to be necessary to prevent criminal activity but for a different reason, and im sure anyone who has ever had a family member or themselves been a victim of a terrorist attack would welcome the chance to stop it from happening again at almost any cost...

Unfortunately, that is a big problem. It seems the more fear citizens are subjected to, the more power and control the Government gets. And I'm sure they're well aware of this.

reply to post by azzllin


It's impossible to disagree with you on the point regarding protecting citizens, but consider this; If someone is 'collecting and compiling' a list of the addresses of those who send mail to you, exactly how timely would that intelligence be? This kind of activity would necessarily be applied to long-term investigations no? So why no warrant? Not enough time can no longer be the excuse.

Warrants are required because we know that given the potential for police powers to be abused - they will be. I bet we could get this practice stopped very quickly if we could reveal that several judges and magistrates were among those who's mail was being 'monitored.'

Also, what if some jerk decided he wanted to mail a bunch of crazy violent terrorist propaganda letters out via mass mail. Suddenly, everyone he mailed it to becomes a 'person of interest' who's civil liberties become curtailed as a matter of 'principle'?

This practice is pointless and only serves to spend tax-dollars, as I'm sure the data is being managed by some contractor 'sweet-heart' deal we'll only find out about in 2020. If there are to be no warrants, it really must stop.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Maxmars]

Originally posted by azzllin
It is a sad thing to spy on a private citizen, but sometimes it has to be necessary to prevent criminal activity but for a different reason,

Wrong. It should NEVER be necessary.

and im sure anyone who has ever had a family member or themselves been a victim of a terrorist attack would welcome the chance to stop it from happening again at almost any cost,

What if the terror attack wasn't "real" to begin with?

im damn sure i wouldnt complain if a member of my family was made safe because someone had plans to hurt us, and it was prevented by checking mail for evidence,

See, this is the problem. They've convinced you such things are not only effective (they're not) but necessary. Reading your mail will not prevent any kind of attack, terror, criminal or otherwise.

However these things need to be done properly with the right warrants and permissions, not just because someone has a whim.

And there's the rub. This type of measure really only serves two purposes:

1) Intimidation of the public.

2) Collection of data used to "profile" each and every citizen according to political affiliation, religious belief, credit rating, income level, recreational activity, etc. Said profiles determine who one's political enemies are and who is more or less likely to resist authoritarian tactics. The people who collect such info see anyone and everyone who might disagree with them as a terrorist or treasonous sympathizer. Read an Ann Coulter column some time to get an idea of the mindset these people have (I know, it's tough--I would suggest not eating breakfast first).

IMO we all have rights and yes even the criminals, but the victims should have broader rights, people always seem to forget the victims when pleading clemancy for the perp, we always forget the victim.

A commendable sentiment, but unworkable, and naive. If you elevate the victim above others victimhood becomes a cult of sorts; a class whose credibility becomes unquestionable in all circumstances and who can be used as a handy bargaining chip in the creation and enforcement of ever-more restrictive legislation. Anyone else automatically becomes a potential criminal suspect. We are all supposed to have equal rights under the Law, regardless of whether we are average citizen, victim, or potential criminal.

Land of the free, my butt. This is infuriating. I don't know how people can expect a person to remain patriotic to one's country with this kind of garbage going on and even escalating since 9/11.

The mail carrier ought to be given some kind of recognition for her bravery and dedication to preserving civil liberties.

Why was this guy being spied on anyway?

Was he a Democrat or something?

Maybe he had an Obama bumpersticker or something, you know with these rightwingers running things these days - not voting for Republicans is considered an act of treason

[edit on 4/30/08 by xmotex]

My God. If just one mail carrier out of the, what, 800,000 overall employees says it, it must be true! I think I'll continue confidently using the overpriced USPS until at least a few more carriers support this claim.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
My God. If just one mail carrier out of the, what, 800,000 overall employees says it, it must be true! I think I'll continue confidently using the overpriced USPS until at least a few more carriers support this claim.

That's the ticket! Hold out for more, because this just isn't happening, is it?

Originally posted by Maxmars
That's the ticket! Hold out for more, because this just isn't happening, is it?

No, clearly it did happen... TO THIS ONE DUDE'S MAIL. Does the blog say if it was done under a warrant? Nope, it doesn't. Are you so desperate for some sort of evidence that Uncle Sam is peering over your shoulder every minute of every day that you automatically presume it's already happening to everyone? Apparently so. If it was done with a warrant, then it's 100% legal. If they're monitoring my mail with a warrant, then I hope they enjoy knowing how much junk mail, bills, and letters from my parents for my kids I get.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by Maxmars
That's the ticket! Hold out for more, because this just isn't happening, is it?

No, clearly it did happen... TO THIS ONE DUDE'S MAIL. Does the blog say if it was done under a warrant? Nope, it doesn't. Are you so desperate for some sort of evidence that Uncle Sam is peering over your shoulder every minute of every day that you automatically presume it's already happening to everyone? Apparently so. If it was done with a warrant, then it's 100% legal. If they're monitoring my mail with a warrant, then I hope they enjoy knowing how much junk mail, bills, and letters from my parents for my kids I get.

You're right, and I apologize for the lighthearted nature of the response. While the Blog doesn't say whether a warrant was obtained the complaint itself doesn't either. Nor would that likely be divulged since the case is about the mail carrier not the surveillant.

I have no indication that this is happening 'all over the place' although there is record of it being rampantly use and challenged in court repeatedly. The logic is that if it's on the outside of the letter there can be no expectation of privacy, of course this completely disregard the contextual connotation of attaching that information to the recipient's name, but that also, is not the case we were discussing. We are also not discussing the so-called mandate of the postal code to maintain one's mail for the recipient alone and 'none shall hinder or intercept that mail.' But again that's not your point.

So we've established that this is an isolated case and we are all over-reacting because they would only targeting bad guys (I guess) and you shouldn't worry if you have nothing to hide.

Of course, you'll have to accept I maintain that it's my business if I perceive that to be mega-naive and a little too submissive for my taste.

Originally posted by Maxmars
I would just like to add that the US Post Office is another 'fake' government agency. It's privately held nature seems to be one of those things we are never to review publicly. Meanwhile, any private citizen engaging in the activities our government is doing would be charged and prosecuted with 'racketeering' since it involves the US mail.

Wanna guess how many people will be charged for the crime? Wanna guess whether the mail carrier will be commended for thwarting a crime? I wonder of 'what crime' will she be accused? "Unauthorized application of honorable intent and moral behavior"?

Sheesh

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Maxmars]

We here at the USPS, like to use the word pseudo not fake. And sorry, there is nothing "private" about the USPS, we are accountable to Congress and a board of governors. And yes, if a person is doing suspicious things via the US mail, the Office of the OIG will get involved.

reply to post by bobafett1972


This must be my 'off' day. I really don't mean to to wax disparaging about the USPS. It's really not a personal thing. I understand that your accountability to congress is very real. But that doesn't actually make the USPS a federal service, which probably would have been a much more fair way of stating that.

By the way, I thought that the OIG didn't get directly involved in these Mail Cover type cases, they just gave 'access'. But that's probably all changed now.

reply to post by Maxmars


The USPS is Federal. Nothing and I repeat NOTHING about us is private. If we were, we would actually be able to compete in our market and we can not. Hell we have to sell our souls for a 1 cent stamp increase that people bitch about yet they'll pay 4 dollars plus for gas and suck it up.

I can assure you that the Inspection Service was directly involved.
But what do I know.

reply to post by bobafett1972


I can only offer this as my apology. But please note that the USPS if it's to be considered 'Federal' it's only according to a very narrow definition, as it's 'special' powers oddly smack of privately held corporation.

The USPS is often mistaken for a government-owned corporation (e.g., Amtrak), but as noted above is legally defined as an "independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States," (39 U.S.C. § 201) as it is wholly owned by the government and controlled by the Presidential appointees and the Postmaster General. As a quasi-governmental agency, it has many special privileges, including sovereign immunity, eminent domain powers, powers to negotiate postal treaties with foreign nations, and an exclusive legal right to deliver first-class and third-class mail. Indeed, in 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the USPS was not a government-owned corporation and therefore could not be sued under the Sherman Antitrust Act.[2]

USPS - Wiki

Ref: Governance and organization

The source is not notoriously accurate but I think in this case is fairly unbiased.

It seems that when its convenient, the USPS is not Federal at all.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Maxmars]

reply to post by Maxmars


It is a gray area. We are infact Federal. Thats why, in my initial post I joked about being pseudo instead of fake. It is a relationship of conveinece(sp). Though when push comes to shove we are Federal.

And there is no need for an apology, we are having a discussion. Just trying to give another side of things is all.

~B