Law enforcement requests for postal info granted

By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — U.S. postal authorities have approved more than 10,000 law enforcement requests to record names, addresses and other information from the outside of letters and packages of suspected criminals every year since 1998, according to U.S. Postal Inspection Service data.

In each of those years, officials approved more than 97% of requests to record the information during criminal inquiries. In 2004, 2005 and 2006, the most recent year provided, officials granted at least 99.5% of requests, according to partial responses to inquiries filed by USA TODAY under the Freedom of Information Act.

Postal officials have closely guarded the warrantless surveillance mail program, used for decades to track fugitives and to interrupt the delivery of illegal drugs or other controlled substances such as explosives. In other government surveillance, such as most wiretap programs, a judge approves requests. In this one, the USPIS' chief inspector has authority to grant or deny a request.

The Postal Service handles 214 billion pieces of mail each year. Correspondence and packages transported by private carriers, such as FedEx and UPS, are not subject to the surveillance.

When the government's warrantless surveillance of electronic communication has come under fire, civil liberties advocates say, the USPIS' limited disclosure raises serious questions. "The idea of the government tracking that amount of mail is quite alarming," says Jameel Jaffer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's national security project. "When you realize that (the figure) does not include national security matters, the numbers are even more alarming."

Postal officials would not disclose the volume of mail monitored in national security investigations. Because those include terror-related inquiries, the figures do not show whether the Sept. 11 attacks influenced requests or approvals.

In a Feb. 8 response to requests for information, inspection service counsel Anthony Alverno wrote that even revealing the frequency of the surveillance would undermine its effectiveness "to the detriment of the government's national security interests."

Postal officials also would not discuss how much mail is being opened for content examinations, which do require a warrant authorized by a judge.

USPIS spokesman Douglas Bem described the surveillance program as "one of many tools" available to investigators. "Regulations are in place that serve to protect the general population from illegal and unlawful intrusions," Bem says. A 1978 federal appeals court decision upheld the use of such surveillance.

Each request to monitor a sender's mail can cover multiple letters and packages by the same suspects. Bem said the government does not track the total pieces of mail captured in the monitoring program.

Click to expand...

twojoints said:

they didnt say they were opeining these packages. this sounds like to me theyre just using the names on the box to track fugitives and the like. same thing theyre doing with cell phones... i mean EVERYONE who has a cell phone is on some big government GPS map thats being updated by the second... so why is this a big deal?

Click to expand...

SomeGuy said:

I see it as a big deal because its more info that LEO can get on you just for the asking.

Say you buy garden supplies and they ship by post and for whatever reason they start tracking your mail and then, every shipment that comes from a garden supply can be used as evidence against you and they didn't even need a warrant to start collecting this evidence.

I personally see it as an erosion of my constitutional right to privacy, not really a big deal now, but could be a big deal later down the road. I'm tired of seeing people gladly hand away their rights and mine along with them and when I object, them telling me "what have you got to hide anyway?"
My answer? None of your f*cking business and I plan to keep it that way!

I'm tired of being treated as a 2nd class citizen, simply because I prefer illegal cannabis to legal alcohol. Damn! I'm almost 50 years old and I've been forced to hide this for over 35 years!

Sorry for the rant.

Click to expand...

SomeGuy said:

I personally see it as an erosion of my constitutional right to privacy

Click to expand...

Anti-Future said:

News flash bro, its 2008, there is no such this as constitutional rights.

Click to expand...

SomeGuy said:

To say we have no constitutional rights is a bit of a stretch. I've been places where that was the case for the average citizen. Places where simple possession could land you 10 years mandatory with no plea bargain and no parole.

I think its more of a case where we have do have certain rights, if we can afford to hire someone to defend them for us.

Click to expand...

See the Patriot Act.

Click to expand...