[HN Gopher] The USPS is running a 'covert' program to monitor Am... ___________________________________________________________________ The USPS is running a 'covert' program to monitor Americans' social media posts Author : nahikoa Score : 200 points Date : 2021-04-21 16:53 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (news.yahoo.com) (TXT) w3m dump (news.yahoo.com) | tengbretson wrote: | I bet FedEx could operate a domestic intelligence agency for like | a quarter of their budget. | jjk166 wrote: | You joke but private mail carriers don't have the same | restrictions on monitoring your mail that the USPS does. They | are free to open and inspect any package, as well as x-ray and | other such methods, and don't need to disclose it. Except under | some special circumstances, letters and parcels going through | the USPS, on the other hand, need a warrant to be opened. One | could easily imagine a program where private carriers report | the contents of parcels sent to or from targeted individuals or | even add things like listening devices or malware to items | being shipped. While probably not useful for dealing with | organized crime, if your goal is just general intelligence | gathering or blackmail, private carriers could easily be a | treasure trove. | _jal wrote: | > One could easily imagine a program where [...] | | One doesn't have to imagine. | | https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/03/cisco_shippin. | .. | thoughtstheseus wrote: | More likely to improve targeted advertising. | shuntress wrote: | It's not complicated. | | Your data (we could debate whether "data about you" is | actually "your data" but that is a tangent discussion) is | valuable. FedEx can collect then sell it. | throwawayboise wrote: | International mail can be opened and inspected for customs | purposes. Otherwise it makes sense that domestic mail would | need a warrant to be opened. | DubiousPusher wrote: | I'm not sure why this is such a persistent sicking point with | people. The post office regularly operates with a 1-5 billion | dollar loss. Both UPS and Fedex operate with a net 1-5 billion | dollar profit. That represents a theoretical min-max profit | difference of about 10 to 2 billion dollar difference in any | given year. In a 20 trillion dollar economy it's not even a | rounding error. | logicslave wrote: | Everyone has their tin foil hat with stuff on like this, but | unless they are paying a 100 - 1000 engineers 250k-500k a year, I | doubt theyve built anything useful with uptime. Maybe they could | just scan a massive dataset of everyones posts, with some string | searching, but still. I just dont see any entity like this being | able to accomplish this task effectively. | _Nat_ wrote: | What would " _100 - 1000 engineers_ " even be doing? | | The story starts off saying that the work's being done by | analysts: | | > The work involves having analysts trawl through social media | sites to look for what the document describes as "inflammatory" | postings and then sharing that information across government | agencies. | | , so it sounds more like they've got some folks browsing | social-media. | | Granted, a lot of the post-scanning would seem better done by | bots, and stuff like sentiment-analysis could help classify | posts for human inspection, so they'd probably want to hire a | few engineers, but why hundreds? And why 250-500 kUSD/yr for | such mundane work? | millzlane wrote: | The entity's only job is to create a RFP and pick one. It's the | company they hire that you have to worry about. The one thing | we can count on is the government will spend the money to get | what they want. | barbazoo wrote: | Why do you believe that unless they're paying their developers | "250k-500k a year", they wouldn't have built something useful? | netfortius wrote: | The things that troubles me the most is abysmal record when it | comes to delivery (pun intended) of fundamental services, e.g. | interruptions in delivery of mail for weeks, then only partial | delivery, critical documents lost, medication lost, credit cards | "lost", etc., etc. | snowwrestler wrote: | Pretty much any federal agency you have heard of has an | investigative dept that employs federal special agents. These are | law enforcement roles with the same training, authority, and | responsibilities as investigative agents in the FBI, etc. | | They were created to meet the specific law enforcement needs of | each agency. Dept of Education agents investigate misuse of Dept | of Education funds, for example. The Postal Inspectors | investigate illegal use of, or threats to, the mail system. | | After 9/11 a lot of these depts got new infusions of resources, | and instructions to do a lot more information sharing. There was | a feeling that the attacks of 9/11 could have been prevented if | existing disparate info had been better collected and collated. | | So it's not that surprising that these agencies will seem to | stray out of their lanes. If Postal is monitoring broadly for | threats against their systems, but sees other concerning info, | they are supposed to share it. | | This is all intended to be explanatory; I'm not saying that it's | how things should be. | | I will say that personally I have fewer concerns about programs | to monitor public content on the Internet, than programs that | seek to access, monitor, and store content that people intended | to be privately communicated to other people. | ryandrake wrote: | > I will say that personally I have fewer concerns about | programs to monitor public content on the Internet, than | programs that seek to access, monitor, and store content that | people intended to be privately communicated to other people. | | This distinction is disappearing quickly in the current | Internet, where conversations are increasingly company-mediated | and facilitated. There's no such thing as a "private" | conversation on Facebook or similar hosted platforms. You might | _address_ a message to your friend, but you are _sending it_ to | Facebook, and they ultimately get to decide how private it is. | It 's likely a single "is_private" bit in a database! | | I'm more and more defaulting to a very strict rule: Never send | anything to the Internet that I intend to be private. Whether | it be a forum post, a message board, an E-mail, or a chat | message. Keep my private pictures off of "secure, private" | cloud storage. Don't do anything on a web site that I wouldn't | want talked about in my local newspaper. Consider it all public | knowledge because it's one leak or subpoena away from actually | being public knowledge. | Thorentis wrote: | Yes, but I think OP is saying that the law should protect | intent. Just like with the physical mail system. It is | illegal to open a letter addressed to somebody else (though, | warrants can override this). But I am fine with the | principle. | | On the other hand, if you stick a huge banner out the front | of your house, that information is fair game. Just like | posting on your Twitter profile or blog. The intent was never | for it to be private. | threatofrain wrote: | And these are their stories. Dun dun. | tim-- wrote: | You joke, but they actually made a TV series. | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inspectors | wombatmobile wrote: | > I will say that personally I have fewer concerns about | programs to monitor public content on the Internet, than | programs that seek to access, monitor, and store content that | people intended to be privately communicated to other people. | | You may have fewer concerns about public monitoring vs private | spying, presumably because in the latter case privacy is being | violated in a way that isn't the case for the former. | | But both cases are nefarious, and you don't have to choose | between them. | | Both are examples of using public funds to abuse access to | information from end users for political purposes. | HenryBemis wrote: | Public vs Private: | | Public: I can think of an example. If the USPS finds out that | in a certain area of a certain city, there is a big chance to | have riots "tomorrow after 10am" (protests because of X-Y-Z | resason), they can alert their local teams to e.g. deliver | the post at 7am instead of 11am. Yes, some operations would | be impacted (e.g. noon delivery won't happen), but this will | protect the staff, protect the items (letters, parcels), the | vehicles, etc. | | If they just hoard data to feed a bigger best (e.g. NSA) | then, the data is still out there (my public blog, your | public blog, HN comments, etc.) and they are up for the | taking. In which case it doesn't matter if it is a federal | agent carrying a NSA or a USPS badge. | dataflow wrote: | > Pretty much any federal agency you have heard of has an | investigative dept that employs federal special agents. These | are law enforcement roles with the same training, authority, | and responsibilities as investigative agents in the FBI, etc. | | Maybe worth noting that USPIS is older than the FBI. It's the | oldest federal law enforcement agency. | belval wrote: | That's a fantastic trivia fact, I guess threats to the postal | service are a very old problem so it makes sense. | dataflow wrote: | Not merely threats to the postal service itself, but | threats _via_ the postal service. I imagine the best to get | away with (say) fraud has always been to avoid physical | presence, i.e. using mail. | Scoundreller wrote: | If they're disinterested in private comms, it's because they're | very interested in public comms. If they're wondering what the | public thinks and would make improvements, great, but if | they're targeting the public because what they say is too true | to handle, ugh. | GCA10 wrote: | Lots of sentiment today that the USPS is way out of its zone of | expertise in doing this -- and that is possible. | | But it's worth noting that the USPS has had its own legion of | postal inspectors going back to the 19th century, when they were | a (comparatively) huge part of the U.S. government, and the FBI, | etc. did not exist. | | Some 1,200 postal inspectors are still around, and they play | important roles on federal prosecutions related to mail fraud, | drug shipments, etc. There's a good Wikipedia entry on it all: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Inspectio... | realityIsntHere wrote: | A total monopoly on daily mail and we get snooped. | | I can't tell if this is corruption or genuine work. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | "When our Corps goes in as guards over the mail, that mail must | be delivered," wrote Secretary of the Navy Edwin Denby. "Or | there must be a Marine dead at the post of duty. There can be | no compromise." | | https://www.military.com/off-duty/2020/08/25/intense-rules-u... | | The mail is serious business. | TheRealPomax wrote: | Sure, but the 19th century ended over 120 years ago. So that's | _kind of_ not relevant to how they 're structured and operate | today? | JJMcJ wrote: | I think 1,200 investigators for the entirety of the USPS's | operations isn't out of line. | GavinMcG wrote: | Not relevant? Do you somehow imagine that how things were | done in the past _doesn 't_ affect "how they're structured | and operate today"? | DanBC wrote: | People forget that spying on citizens by the post office goes | back _hundreds_ of years. This doesn 't make it in any way | acceptable, but people shouldn't act surprised that post | offices spy on citizens when it's an activity that's baked | into the service from the very early days. | | https://pasttenseblog.wordpress.com/2019/09/03/today-in- | lond... | | > The Post office was of central importance to this | surveillance. The 'Secret Office' - an arm of what was | basically a secret service, dedicated to opening post to | discover plots against the government - was formed around | 1653 under Cromwell's post-Civil War republican Protectorate; | but it proved so handy, the Office was continued after the | restoration of the monarchy. | | [...] | | > Morland also recorded what he saw as the basic function of | his devices and of surveillance in general: "a skilful prince | ought to make a watch tower of his general post office... and | there place such careful sentinels as that, by their care and | diligence, he may have a constant view of all that passes." | | Samuel Morland was interesting and has some early computing | devices. | | https://history-computer.com/samuel-morland/ | | https://history-computer.com/samuel-morland-biography- | histor... | | https://www.headstuff.org/culture/history/terrible-people- | fr... | | One of the links talks about letters sealed in the Spanish | manner. | | https://regencyredingote.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/sealing- | wa... | | > It was then that the superior qualities of the new | "Spanish" wax came to be highly valued. The basic formula of | this new sealing compound was a blend of shellac, mastic, | turpentine, chalk or gypsum, and a coloring agent, to which | essential oils and/or fragrant balsams might be added to | facilitate melting and impart a pleasant fragrance. This | "sealing wax" could be melted to a thick viscous fluid which | would readily and firmly adhere to the parchment or paper on | which it was placed. While warm, it would take a clear | impression of any seal that was pressed in to it. It would | remain solid, even in the heat of summer, and was flexible | enough to remain intact while affixed to the document on | which it had been placed. However, it was extremely difficult | to remove a seal made of this material and replace it after | the contents of the sealed document had been read. This | compound was more brittle than beeswax so it could be easily | broken, thus providing clear evidence of tampering. Even if | the seal could be removed unbroken, any attempt to re-affix a | seal was nearly impossible, since, with such a low melting | point, the image which had been impressed into it would loose | its crispness, if not melt completely, if additional hot wax | was used to re-attach it, yet another sign of tampering. | JKCalhoun wrote: | Can't help thinking of W.A.S.T.E. though. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crying_of_Lot_49 | TameAntelope wrote: | One thing I haven't really seen discussed (or maybe I'm just | blind) is the fact that the USPS _isn 't_ a government | organization quite like the others. It's supposed to be a more- | private entity that competes in a market. | | Feels weird to give them law enforcement powers while still | putting them up against private industry as competition, couldn't | they just arrest all the UPS workers or something (gross | oversimplification but still)? | jfengel wrote: | News flash: people read things that you make public on the Web. | DocTomoe wrote: | There is a qualitative difference between "people reading | things you make public on the web" and "a government-funded | agency uses extensive technological means to read, categorize | and threat-assess your statements on the net, and have the | power to throw you into jail for an indeterminate length of | time - or worse." | [deleted] | _-david-_ wrote: | It seems like this should be the job of the FBI, DHS or some | other agency like that. The Post Office should deliver mail and | packages not investigate material on the internet. | mattmanser wrote: | To be fair, look at it from totally the opposite direction to | see their point of view. | | Your workers are under threat from poorly made postal bombs | that could easily blow up during processing, killing your | workers. Due to the vast volume of post you process, the threat | is real and non-trivial. | | Do you do nothing? | | I think you obviously have to do something, whether you go as | far as they did is what's up for debate. | cblackthornekc wrote: | You don't even have to say bombs, the article lists a great | example. They are tracking protests. I think I would like to | be aware if where I normally deliver mail I'm walking into a | protest that might get violent. | throwawayboise wrote: | If I turn the corner on my mail route and see an angry mob | down the block, I turn around? It's not like people don't | have eyes anymore. | _-david-_ wrote: | If there is a bomb threat why can't the FBI or DHS | investigate? That is the entire purpose of those agencies. | | Should every government agency have a department to | investigate threats towards their employees? Why limit it to | just the USPS? Why not give investigative powers to the | Agency for Global Media or the Administration for Community | Living? Should those employees have to risk the very "real | and non-trivial" threats they face? | | If this was just some sort of way of detecting bombs or | anthrax or something I think most of us could get behind it. | This is turning the post office into an investigative crime | solving agency and not even strictly for the thing they do | (mail delivery). | jdavis703 wrote: | Agency for Global Media has their own law enforcement that | investigates threats against the agency and it's personnel. | This ranges from securing HQ against protests to | investigating what happens to broadcast infrastructure in | war zones like Afghanistan to securing classified | information. | ErikVandeWater wrote: | > Your workers are under threat from poorly made postal bombs | that could easily blow up during processing | | How does that threat compare to threats the post office | accepts for it's workers such as being killed in traffic | accidents? | stefan_ wrote: | Yes, when will the USPS do something about the 0 postal | workers killed from letter bombs this year, last year, the | year before last, the year before last before last year, ...? | | More of them are endangered by their shitbox LLV trucks | catching on fire. | jjgreen wrote: | "In 1975, no one died, ..." | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUoT5AxFpRs | filoleg wrote: | Bombs in packages isn't the only thing that threatens | postal workers that USPS is trying to protect. | | For example, look at this[0]. Two people physically | attacked a postal worker after accusing her of "stealing | their stimulus checks"[1]. | | Sure, you can say that this case had nothing to do with | USPS surveillance. But it just goes to show that there are | plenty of serious dangers to postal workers other than just | nigh-non-existent "bomb in the mail" scenarios that you | seem to be fixating on. | | 0. https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/police-make-arrest- | after... | | 1. https://news.yahoo.com/usps-worker-beaten-michigan- | alleged-1... | _-david-_ wrote: | That has nothing to do with this issue. The article is | about USPS investigating online threats. Do you really | think people who are going to beat USPS workers are going | to post about it online and that the USPS would be better | equipped than agencies whose sole purpose is to deal with | these kind of things? | | If you think every postal worker should have some sort of | security / police going with them on their routes that is | one thing, but that is not at all what this article is | about. | reaperducer wrote: | _when will the USPS do something about the 0 postal workers | killed from letter bombs this year_ | | And how do you think that number became zero? Magic bomb- | negating fairies? | kelnos wrote: | Yes, you contact the FBI and get them to investigate, just | like everyone else does when federal crimes are involved. | | (Also, echoing the sibling: where are all these poorly made | postal bombs you're talking about? I can't remember anything | in recent and not-so-recent memory.) | yosito wrote: | > Do you do nothing? | | No, you coordinate with the CIA or FBI to investigate threats | against the government. | popinman322 wrote: | Postal inspectors can hand off to other teams for | investigation of affairs that might affect more than the | post system-- hence this memo. | | If postal workers are at risk then it's within their | purview (as it has been for over 200 years) to investigate | and warn local offices in addition to other government | offices. | GCA10 wrote: | A couple postal workers died about 20 years ago when someone | used the U.S. mails as an anthrax-delivery mechanism. Details | are here: | https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5239a2.htm Note | that's there's also a deeper CDC analysis looking at whether | mail sorting is a job with higher than usual mortality rates. | (Answer: probably not). | | Granted, that's a long time ago, and it doesn't happen | habitually. But if you're going to have a workforce safety | team (good idea), they will likely want to either actually do | something to stop the threats, or at least signal to | management that they aren't totally clueless | java-man wrote: | Just don't ask where that anthrax strain came from. | shadowgovt wrote: | The postal service, as a Constitutionally-mandated requirement | of the federal government (though the post itself is a private | company, responsibility for ensuring there _is_ a post and that | it _works_ is Congress 's), is some very old and very serious | law and enforcement. | | The Postal Inspection Service traces its lineage to 1772; the | FBI to 1908. USPIS being separate from the FBI is one of those | quirks of American enforcement, like how the Secret Service is | responsible for physical security of the President and other | political figures... And financial services. | wtallis wrote: | > Constitutionally-mandated requirement of the federal | government | | The constitution says: "The Congress shall have Power [...] | To establish Post Offices and post Roads;" | | This is not a constitutional mandate. It is constitutional | authorization. The federal government is not obligated to | fully exercise every power it is granted. | renewiltord wrote: | There are loads of intelligence services in America. Coup | d'Etat has a non-exhaustive list. I'm pretty sure even the NOAA | does homeland security stuff. | reaperducer wrote: | _The USPS is running a 'covert' program to monitor Americans' | social media posts_ | | Of course it is. Why wouldn't it? Crazy people put all kinds of | crazy things in the mail. Have we so quickly forgotten the | Unabomber? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski | | The next time anthrax or ricin shows up in a politician's | mailbox, the same people gritting their teeth about this will | bark about why more wasn't done to detect and prevent it. | CyberDildonics wrote: | Why would you spend billions monitoring 300 million people when | you could swab politicians' mail for anthrax? | tqi wrote: | > The work involves having analysts trawl through social media | sites to look for what the document describes as "inflammatory" | postings | | What exactly constitutes "monitoring"? This sounds like some | agents spent a few hours using Twitter's built in search to look | for certain keywords... | sneak wrote: | > _"Analysts with the United States Postal Inspection Service | (USPIS) Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP) monitored | significant activity regarding planned protests occurring | internationally and domestically on March 20, 2021," says the | March 16 government bulletin, marked as "law enforcement | sensitive" and distributed through the Department of Homeland | Security's fusion centers. "Locations and times have been | identified for these protests, which are being distributed online | across multiple social media platforms, to include right-wing | leaning Parler and Telegram accounts."_ | | > _A number of groups were expected to gather in cities around | the globe on March 20 as part of a World Wide Rally for Freedom | and Democracy, to protest everything from lockdown measures to | 5G. "Parler users have commented about their intent to use the | rallies to engage in violence. Image 3 on the right is a | screenshot from Parler indicating two users discussing the event | as an opportunity to engage in a 'fight' and to 'do serious | damage,'" says the bulletin._ | | > _"No intelligence is available to suggest the legitimacy of | these threats," it adds._ | | Oh, that doesn't seem like an asymmetric allocation of resources | at all. It's totally not trivially exploitable like the ticket | presales in Tulsa or anything. | | This "we have to respond to all potential threats, no matter how | trivial" doctrine is a ridiculous waste of time and resources | even in the best case. In the worst case, it overcommits to an | impossible task. | | I think it's reasonable to rate their competence level at "the | cybers" around the same level as their ability to keep a "covert" | operation off of Yahoo News. | tims33 wrote: | This is a truly bizarre story. I agree with others that other | government agencies should run this particularly given USPS | already well known financial challenges. | agogdog wrote: | This is in no way related to their financial struggles. | | The USPS was breaking even regularly (phenomenal considering | what they do) until they were forced to save up funding for 75 | years of pensions within a 10 year span. Not only that, but | they have to exclusively rely on the US Treasuries to fund the | retiree medial fund, so it's more expensive out of the gate. | | So they're doing more for their employees, paying more for it, | and are required to do so in a shorter amount of time than just | about any private company out there. | | I'd be surprised if this covert program cost more than 1% of | what the pension fund does. | nickysielicki wrote: | Hah, remember this story? | https://apnews.com/article/1e42c1a6fd324f5784c414fcd2adbd17 | | > The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives | lost track of most of the guns, including two found at the scene | where a U.S. Border Patrol Agent was fatally shot in the Arizona | desert. The operation sparked a political backlash against the | Obama administration. | | > Attkisson left CBS in 2014 and is now the host of "Full Measure | with Sharyl Attkisson," a weekly Sunday news program broadcast by | the conservative Sinclair Broadcast Group. | | > In her lawsuit, Attkisson says that two computer forensics | teams identified an unauthorized communications channel opened | into her laptop was connected to an IP address belonging to the | U.S. Postal Service, "indicating unauthorized surveillance." | | > Government lawyers argue that Attkisson's lawsuit does not | include any evidence that Holder and Donahoe had direct | involvement in spying on her. | | > "At best, plaintiffs' complaint suggests a mere possibility | that Holder and Donahoe could have participated in developing or | enforcing policies concerning electronic surveillance generally; | there are no allegations that they conducted or ordered the | particular incursions about which plaintiffs complain," Justice | Department lawyers argue in a legal brief filed in the 4th | Circuit. | | The Obama administration used USPS to spy on journalists | investigating Fast and Furious. It sounded ridiculous at the time | -- "The USPS is spying on journalists, and not the NSA, and not | the FBI, and not the CIA? Suuure." | | Not so ridiculous anymore. | | I'm tired of being angry about this, I've been asking for change | for most of my adult life. Our constitution isn't worth anything | anymore. The federal government needs to shrink. Asking nicely to | not be spied on does not work. | | On a more silly note, this whole scenario reminds me of this | Seinfeld clip. https://youtu.be/On3cQ0sPvSY?t=46 | starkd wrote: | Not too much to ask at all. Every American should be outraged. | throwaway8581 wrote: | Half of Americans, and the vast majority of powerful | institutions, are just fine with this because the targets are | right-wingers. | adamrezich wrote: | completely forgot about that story--great catch. | shadowgovt wrote: | I'm not very certain that a nation of 350 million people can be | kept stable without some amount of internal espionage. | | Most human constructs of that size have espionage going on | between them (for example, that's more than the population of | Germany and Russia combined, and those nations are definitely | spying on each other). The fact that they have a thick border | drawn on the map between them and the US has thin borders drawn | on its map probably implies the US should spy on itself less... | But how much less? | | Internal espionage has been key at several points in the | history of the US for preventing internal power structures from | overriding law and order (the Chicago mafia, for example). It | has, obviously, also been leveraged against the rights of law- | abiding citizens. | Lammy wrote: | Were the 2001 "Amerithrax" letters the justification for this | program? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks | gentleman11 wrote: | I read that in the 60s to the 80s, a lot of civil unrest was | taking place and there were so many "protest" bombings (whatever | that means) that it became a almost normal in some cities | (according to articles I found). This might have been a | precaution against something like that, considering the current | political climate in the USA? | | https://time.com/4501670/bombings-of-america-burrough/ | | Edited to add a reference and correct a detail | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Weird, and scary. | | But maybe I can kind of see it. Here's a protest. Let's say it's | Proud Boys, and Antifa shows up. And here's a mail carrier out | trying to deliver the mail, who drives (or worse, walks) right | into the middle of it. The Post Office might have a legitimate | reason for wanting to know, so they can keep their on-duty | employees from harm. | | Is that what's going on? Is that _all_ that 's going on? I don't | know. | shuntress wrote: | You should try to re-word your comment so that it reads less | like an _" I'm just asking questions"_ conspiracy theory. | paxys wrote: | It's possible for employees of every government agency and | every private company to get caught up in the middle of a | protest. Should they all start their own surveillance programs? | Black101 wrote: | > Is that what's going on? Is that all that's going on? I don't | know. | | Doesn't sound like it. Maybe they are trying to shift money to | surveillance with all the packages going around because of | Covid (I.E: USPS trying to get rid of that "surplus")? Either | way, it sounds crazy. | sitkack wrote: | This is a power grab by the USPS to inject themselves into the | industrial surveillance complex. | | It most likely tries to tie a social media profile to a physical | address and provides a pen register of all the mail sent and | received by that citizen along with a collection of the | "inflammatory opinions". | | It is unconstitutional and folks at the USPS and organizations | they shared the data with should go to jail. | ababoaoabaa wrote: | Go to jail? Who is going to make them? You have a centralized | compartmentalized military and society where one literally | controls many. The top has been corrupted by over a hundred | years of printing money out of thin air and the use of usury to | control everything. Wake up and smell the new world order. It | reeks. | ska wrote: | > to inject themselves into the industrial surveillance | complex. | | Haven't they been de-facto participating for decades? | pessimizer wrote: | They were the earliest, really, searching mail first to find | information about birth control being shared and pornography | (Comstock Act, 1873), then sedition. I assume that all of the | first precedents for mass surveillance and data collection | come from the USPS. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws | liminal wrote: | Do others also find it strange that the postal service has their | own police force? | pixl97 wrote: | No, they in fact have one of the oldest police forces in the | US. | | Mail fraud and mail theft is a crime as old as mail. | fmakunbound wrote: | Heh and here I was worried about my weed shipments from | California. Would iCop be the same organization that enforces | that kind of thing? | [deleted] | saurik wrote: | I feel like the key sentence in this article (edit: which is | ironically no longer verbatim in this article, which I see hours | later has been heavily expanded) which purports to answer the | "but... why the USPS?"--is: > The agency told Yahoo News the | Inspection Service collaborates with law-enforcement agencies to | identify and assess threats to the Postal Service and its | "overall mail processing and transportation network. | chrisco255 wrote: | Now I'm worried they might find out that I've been using this | newfangled technology called "email" for the past 25 years and | I haven't licked a stamp in over a decade. Some say its only | used for money laundering and drug dealing, but I think it's | rather convenient and more innovative than what the government | can offer. | NoSorryCannot wrote: | If only some other kind of mail had become popular to replace | the lost letter volume... | colonelxc wrote: | It truly has been a long time for you, as you don't even need | to lick stamps, they are sticky on their own. | Taniwha wrote: | oh, that may explain why I get them stuck on my tongue ... | DubiousPusher wrote: | > which purports to answer the "but... why the USPS?" | | Yes, that's the burning question I took away from this article. | robocat wrote: | Perhaps it is a hack to route around federal laws - the USPS | could have exceptions (or grandfathered laws) that give it | more leeway than other departments? | Kharvok wrote: | Oh so this is why they were so concerned about the post office | funding in 2020. | slt2021 wrote: | I work in cyber security ML engineering (open for interviews, | hmu) and frequently see federal contractor firms hiring for cyber | data/engineer positions for USPS. Always puzzled me. | | example: | https://jobs.rtx.com/job/-/-/4679/4267185376?codes=INDEED | sergiomattei wrote: | I don't see why this is hard to understand. | | Nationwide logistics aren't simple. They have to evolve with | the times to modernize/automate their operations and adapt to | new, unknown cyber threats. | | The mail is quite important. | CyberDildonics wrote: | What is cyber data? | seppin wrote: | The Post Office is a tech company, etc. | bigth wrote: | I'm surprised by the comments here. People seem clueless to real | threats the USPS faces and are puzzled why they have inspectors. | | Last year or maybe it was 2019 a delivery worker was murdered. | Agg robberies of delivery workers has been going up. Breaking | into mail boxes and mail theft has been going up. Using mail | service to conduct fraud and other criminal transactions is going | up. I'm on mobile so it's hard to get the links but just google | it, not hard to find. | gnicholas wrote: | I'm not surprised they have inspectors. I'm surprised they | think that social media surveillance is within their purview. | | I hope their inspectors continue to investigate mail theft, | mail fraud, and other things related to the physical delivery | of mail. But I don't want them shifting into digital snooping | that is totally unrelated to mail. | pixl97 wrote: | You do know mail fraud is commonly initiated by online | groups, many times on social media, right? | gnicholas wrote: | > _The work involves having analysts trawl through social | media sites to look for what the document describes as | "inflammatory" postings and then sharing that information | across government agencies. | | "Analysts with the United States Postal Inspection Service | (USPIS) Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP) monitored | significant activity regarding planned protests occurring | internationally and domestically on March 20, 2021," says | the March 16 government bulletin_ | | Sounds like they're focused on issues other than mail | fraud. | f430 wrote: | USPS is the new DEA ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-22 23:00 UTC)