• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Rum Runner

Another invasion of privacy

24 posts in this topic

Just when the NSA bullshit dies down a new invasion of privacy comes up. Don't think that the NSA guys don't know about this.

 

 

AP Interview: USPS takes photos of all mail
04e1-US-Postal-Mail-Photos-AP-Interview.

Postmaster General Patrick R. Donahoe poses with next to a portrait of Benjamin Franklin,...

ANDREW MIGA, AP
Fri Aug 2, 10:35 AM UTC

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Postal Service takes pictures of every piece of mail processed in the United States — 160 billion last year — and keeps them on hand for up to a month.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe said the photos of the exterior of mail pieces are used primarily for the sorting process, but they are available for law enforcement, if requested.

The photos have been used "a couple of times" by to trace letters in criminal cases, Donahoe told the AP on Thursday, most recently involving ricin-laced letters sent to President Barack Obama and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

"We don't snoop on customers," said Donahoe, adding that there's no big database of the images because they are kept on nearly 200 machines at processing facilities across the country. Each machine retains only the images of the mail it processes.

"It's done by machine, so there's no central area where any of this information would be," he said. "It's extremely expensive to keep pictures of billions of pieces of mail. So there's no need for us to do that."

The images are generally stored for between a week and 30 days and then disposed of, he said. Keeping the images for those periods may be necessary to ensure delivery accuracy, for forwarding mail or making sure that the proper postage was paid, he said.

"Law enforcement has requested a couple of times if there's any way we could figure out where something came from," he said. "And we've done a little bit of that in the ricin attacks."

The automated mail tracking program was created after the deadly anthrax attacks in 2001 so the Postal Service could more easily track hazardous substances and keep people safe, Donahoe said.

"We've got a process in place that pretty much outlines, in any specific facility, the path that mail goes through," he said. "So if anything ever happens, God forbid, we would be able very quickly to track back to see what building it was in, what machines it was on, that type of thing. That's the intent of the whole program."

Processing machines take photographs so software can read the images to create a barcode that is stamped on the mail to show where and when it was processed, and where it will be delivered, Donahoe said.

The Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program was cited by the FBI on June 7 in an affidavit that was part of the investigation into who was behind threatening, ricin-tainted letters sent to Obama and Bloomberg. The program "photographs and captures an image of every piece of mail that is processed," the affidavit by an FBI agent said.

Mail from the same mailbox tends to get clumped together in the same batch, so that can help investigators track where a particular item was mailed from to possibly identify the sender.

"We've used (the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program) to sort the mail for years," Donahoe said, "and when law enforcement asked us, 'Hey, is there any way you can figure out where this came from?' we were able to use that imaging."

Associated Press

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My expectation of privacy for stuff I write on the outside of an envelope is zero.

 

Not coincidentally, that's the current reading on my Outrage-O-Meter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My expectation of privacy for stuff I write on the outside of an envelope is zero.

 

Not coincidentally, that's the current reading on my Outrage-O-Meter.

Same.

 

Absent the USPS reverting to sorting mail by hand, I'm not sure how else we would avoid having a machine take pictures of mail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me 3. Unlike the NSA, the USPS developed the technology for scanning and sorting mail and were on the cutting edge of OCR wrt handwriting. If they opened and scanned mail content, that'd be as invasive as NSA keeping e-mail content and cause for concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when the AP was actually a news source.

 

What's a news source? Is that like a tweet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just another step towards the government gathering more and more information about our personal activities. Who says the data will be kept for only 1 month? Some day Obama or his successor may decide that this information should be kept for a longer period of time. Next you have the post office sharing it with others like the NSA, IRS or FBI.

 

I'm just saying this is a slippery slope we are on. It starts with something little like photographing your mail and can escalate very quickly.

 

Maybe I'm getting older but Rand Paul makes more sense to me every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just another step towards the government gathering more and more information about our personal activities. Who says the data will be kept for only 1 month? Some day Obama or his successor may decide that this information should be kept for a longer period of time. Next you have the post office sharing it with others like the NSA, IRS or FBI.

 

I'm just saying this is a slippery slope we are on. It starts with something little like photographing your mail and can escalate very quickly.

 

Maybe I'm getting older but Rand Paul makes more sense to me every day.

 

That horse has left the barn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah we're already waaaaay past the point where photographing the outsides of snail mail matters. Big Brother is way beyond that in knowing exactly what we do and when, where, and how we do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sad thing? Even Rand Paul wants the government to use Predator UAV's on Americans suspected of crimes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to make sure you don't forget how well Big Brother is protecting you, many US embassies are closing and US citizens are being warned about travel abroad... All attributed to a "credible threat" from Al Qaeda, but of course they can't give you any details...

 

Translation: We're going to keep spending your tax dollars to watch you, don't forget to be afraid of terrorists, that helps justify what we are spending, and don't forget to be fearful of all foreigners everywhere. Don't even think about reducing the NSA or military budgets or you won't be safe from all these threats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a wife, children, and grandchildren. I haven't had any expectation of privacy for close to 40 years.

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to make sure you don't forget how well Big Brother is protecting you, many US embassies are closing and US citizens are being warned about travel abroad... All attributed to a "credible threat" from Al Qaeda, but of course they can't give you any details...

 

Translation: We're going to keep spending your tax dollars to watch you, don't forget to be afraid of terrorists, that helps justify what we are spending, and don't forget to be fearful of all foreigners everywhere. Don't even think about reducing the NSA or military budgets or you won't be safe from all these threats.

 

More like "if you are going to use attacks on US embassy's as an excuse to make up lies to attack the State Dept and the President with, then we will cover our asses."

 

Look up the Reagan/Bush teams statements about the Iran embassy crisis for comparison. Those two guys had a sense of honor, a tad of integrity, and most of all...a fucking clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sad thing? Even Rand Paul wants the government to use Predator UAV's on Americans suspected of crimes "when an active crime is going on."

 

 

 

Corrected to align with reality.

 

Always have to embellish the facts a bit, don't you Mark? Can't just argue against what he actually said?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, what he said was "if some guy comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 I have no problem if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. "

 

Fuck due process, just shoot the fucker in the head. If it turns out to be some punk with a fake gun who was obviously high on Purple Drank then that's just one less punk running around robbing people. If it happens to be the store clerk or a customer hostage, then they shouldn't have been in a liquor store in the first place.

 

better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to make sure you don't forget how well Big Brother is protecting you, many US embassies are closing and US citizens are being warned about travel abroad... All attributed to a "credible threat" from Al Qaeda, but of course they can't give you any details...

 

Translation: We're going to keep spending your tax dollars to watch you, don't forget to be afraid of terrorists, that helps justify what we are spending, and don't forget to be fearful of all foreigners everywhere. Don't even think about reducing the NSA or military budgets or you won't be safe from all these threats.

 

The fear factor has been a major theme from both parties for years. Everything from fear of another 9/11 to fear of seniors having to choose between medicine and food. What is relatively unique here is that there doesn't appear to be a left or right side in opposition. This is not a partisan issue because everyone with an e-mail address is involved regardless of party, race, age, income, etc.

 

The Fed claims it can protect us from terrorists and Bloomberg says he can protect us from high blood pressure and obesity. All we they have to do is give government take more control of our lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, what he said was "if some guy comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 I have no problem if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. "

 

Fuck due process, just shoot the fucker in the head. If it turns out to be some punk with a fake gun who was obviously high on Purple Drank then that's just one less punk running around robbing people. If it happens to be the store clerk or a customer hostage, then they shouldn't have been in a liquor store in the first place.

 

better?

 

 

Brandishing a gun is a crime. Witnessing it would be witnessing a crime, not merely suspecting one. The intent of the quote was clearly not suspected crimes, which is why I used his actual words, "when an active crime is going on."

 

If you want to believe Mark's fantasy version in which he was talking about suspected crimes, go right ahead. I prefer his actual words to Mark's interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, what he said was "if some guy comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 I have no problem if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. "

 

Fuck due process, just shoot the fucker in the head. If it turns out to be some punk with a fake gun who was obviously high on Purple Drank then that's just one less punk running around robbing people. If it happens to be the store clerk or a customer hostage, then they shouldn't have been in a liquor store in the first place.

 

better?

 

Better yet - try and tie that concept to the OP. The Government will mandate that everyone be implanted with a GPS tracking chip for the safety of liquor store owners. Your position will only be accessed when you rob a liquor store so the drone can take you out.

 

Trust your government. This is in our best interest as a nation. Line up for your GPS chip!

 

If we can save just one liquor store owner....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The sad thing? Even Rand Paul wants the government to use Predator UAV's on Americans suspected of crimes "when an active crime is going on."

 

 

 

Corrected to align with reality.

 

Always have to embellish the facts a bit, don't you Mark? Can't just argue against what he actually said?

 

 

There is no difference. You have also forgotten he staged a filibuster until Holder promised to NEVER use one just two weeks prior to making that statement, so you missed the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that what happened, Mark? Usually, the Christian Science Monitor is more accurate.

 

But Senator Paul’s unusual maneuver – actually talking for hours on end, and not just threatening to filibuster – has had an immediate effect on a key issue that many lawmakers (and many voters) find troubling: the use of unmanned drone aircraft to kill suspected terrorists, including, potentially, US citizens on US soil.

Forced to respond, Attorney General Eric Holder in a three-line letter to Paul Thursday addressed what had been posed by Senate Republicans as a constitutional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?"

“The answer to that question is no,” Mr. Holder, wrote – at long last, in the view of his critics. In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, Holder would only say that killing a hypothetical suspected American terrorist on US soil who poses no immediate threat would be “inappropriate.”

Holder’s letter satisfied Paul.

 

I don't see any promise there, just a question and answer about authority.

 

A person who poses no immediate threat is different from a person brandishing a gun because of the whole brandishing a gun thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that what happened, Mark? Usually, the Christian Science Monitor is more accurate.

 

But Senator Paul’s unusual maneuver – actually talking for hours on end, and not just threatening to filibuster – has had an immediate effect on a key issue that many lawmakers (and many voters) find troubling: the use of unmanned drone aircraft to kill suspected terrorists, including, potentially, US citizens on US soil.

 

Forced to respond, Attorney General Eric Holder in a three-line letter to Paul Thursday addressed what had been posed by Senate Republicans as a constitutional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?"

 

“The answer to that question is no,” Mr. Holder, wrote – at long last, in the view of his critics. In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, Holder would only say that killing a hypothetical suspected American terrorist on US soil who poses no immediate threat would be “inappropriate.”

 

Holder’s letter satisfied Paul.

 

I don't see any promise there, just a question and answer about authority.

 

A person who poses no immediate threat is different from a person brandishing a gun because of the whole brandishing a gun thing.

 

That wasn't the question he asked Holder in the committee hearing. Seems total accuracy is needed....sometimes....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then by all means quote the question you want to talk about.

 

No, I don't mean spin up your version and provide no source like usual. Quote and cite. You may learn to like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites