 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you ran a business that was suffering continual losses of money and patronage, would you think it a wise policy change to introduce a product that almost guaranteed an acceleration of that negative trend? No? Well....
...Welcome to the wonderful, wacky world of the United States Post Office!
(Its motto: "Email? What? Me worry?")
Yes, indeedy. Those folks who brought you an 800% increase in the cost of stamps over the past half-century with a simultaneous decrease in service are continuing to explore yet another Great Idea in the Advancement of Statism: Smart Stamps.
Since we all know that efficiency is the hallmark of governmental programs, we can doff our hats when the P. O. [I shan't succumb to the irony of referring to this organization as the Postal "Service"...] investigates yet another avenue for improving what it has sought for so long but has yet to find. Indeed, we can expect a future success reflective of the P. O. 's past record if they do, as recommended, join forces with another body that has already demonstrated its prowess in the realm of "getting the job done."
Yes, some in Washington think it a peachy idea if the P. O. joins forces with the Department of Homeland Security (sieg heil!) "...to develop sender identification technology for all U.S. mail." (Emphasis added.) [3] Not content with removing anonymity from private mail drop boxes, the P. O. may develop "'personalized stamps' that embed digital identification information" [3] for each and every piece of mail you stick in those big, blue boxes.
Such postage might, indeed, "improve mail tracking and delivery operations" [3]...but that is precisely the problem. Unless I am engaged in mail fraud, the State has zero right to know to whom I am writing. A private mail carrier -- if such were permitted to exist -- could set its own criteria, of course. But a State-established and -run monopoly transgresses even more than before on our rights when it seeks to erode what little privacy remains to American citizens.
But, then, that is what the State does: it grows at our expense. Following the thoughts of Ayn Rand, as the State swells and privacy retreats, our society becomes less and less civilized.
Another dreary Statist refrain in the proffered "justifications" for this nonsense is "security." That boogeyman, "terrorism," is the ace slapped down on the table and meant to silence all critics. The event that "proves" the need for considering us all guilty-until-proven-innocence and instituting this unconstitutional example of prior restraint was the mail-delivered anthrax that tried to reach various politicians and media figures in 2001. (A crime that our outstandingly efficient Department of Homeland Security and its associated law enforcement agencies have yet to solve, by the way...) Anything that dares threaten the sanctity of a National Politician is, naturally, just shy of Armageddon.
Last summer, a P. O. official assured us that it was "premature" [3] to talk about anything as radical as smart stamps. Better to sneak it in under the radar by pretending that, hey, what's the big deal? Just as we lost even more banking privacy after 9-11 despite an earlier rejection of plans to widen the snitching of those who "guard" our money ("Know Your Customer" programs designed to "defeat" drug dealers), so, too, we can expect smart stamps to become a reality in order to "defeat" terrorism.
Of course, postage with embedded identification information will no more deter or reduce terrorism than money laundering regulations and laws have deterred or reduced drug dealing. Or victim disarmament laws have deterred or reduced firearms reaching criminals. Or drivers licenses have deterred or reduced drunk or reckless driving.
No. Most laws and regulations in modern society are fundamentally not directed at deterring criminals or reducing crime. Oh, the lying politicians and their supporters pretend that only the guilty are being targeted. Some naive or blind people may even actually believe that the mask represents the reality. But, in actuality, the cross hairs are centered on us: the vast majority of citizens who -- in their private lives, at least -- have no intention of harming strangers or committing crimes.
Smart stamps: Controlling criminals: nyet. Controlling citizens: da.
The practice of hiding one's identity from a potentially tyrannical State enjoys a long history in this country. Whether in essays written to support or resist rebellion from England, the adoption of the Constitution, the practice of slavery, or the constant stream of wars afflicting our country, critics and whistle-blowers sometimes require the protection of anonymity to confront the otherwise overwhelming power of the forces they oppose.
Even though a mere two months ago, the P. O. said worrying about smart stamps was "premature," they have already said that commercial mail will have to use "'enhanced sender identification'" -- not primarily for "efficiency" -- but to "'facilitate investigations into the origin of suspicious mail." [1] And ultimately that means you.
The frog is in the water. Steam is starting to rise into the air...
"'We're not ready to go there yet...'" [1] a P. O. flack tells us, but the foundation is being laid for obliterating yet one more area of privacy. Tracing who is doing what and when is the Grail of many statists. Knowing precisely who the "creator of [a] mailpiece" [1] is (don'tcha just love those euphemisms?) follows in the proud tradition of requiring ID's for checking into a motel or being allowed to fly or for entering a building or buying a gun or getting married or... Most people are so conditioned to this process already that few will bat an eye at swallowing one more th-e-e-e-n little wafer...
(The presidential commission on the P. O. agrees that requiring a photo ID to purchase stamps that are then linked directly to you will "likely have a negligible impact on most users...who readily identify themselves...and would consider such a requirement a relatively modest concession." [2])
As critics point out, criminals can easily circumvent such mandates. Few will be ensnared in the net supposedly designed to trap them. And what happens if you loan a stamp to someone else? Are you then an accomplice in any crime your friend or loved one commits via the mail system? [1]
For statists, the answer to that question would, plainly, be "yes."
Of course, some believe the P. O. is a "leader in privacy protection" [2], so we surely have nothing to fear. Right?
Ditto any silly and groundless concerns some of us harbor over who will have access to these proposed data bases. Politicians would never abuse the system. After all, a Senate aide tells us that, "'A petty staff member [might use the system to track critics], but I doubt a member of Congress would do that.'" A "senior House staffer" likewise knows that elected officials are the epitome of ethical behavior: "A politician getting even with someone? Nah, it just saves us the trouble of having to reply to the letter." [1] No. Powerful men and women never try to "get even" with their opponents.
Never.
Given that the State still has most citizens buffaloed when the issue is "terrorism" or "security," "intelligent mail" will likely soon become another brick in the wall enclosing us, regardless of how poorly or efficiently it works or how many innocent people are punished in the process. (For examples, see the results of any government program.)
As for me, I say, return this lousy idea to sender...and cancel my subscription to this State.
Now. Where's my email program...?
1. Audrey Hudson. "'Smart Stamps' Next in War on Terrorism." The Washington Times. 10-26-03. http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031026-124606-8419r.htm
2. Ryan Singel. "Post Office Wants to ID the Mail." Wired. 10-27-03. http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,60966,00.html
3. Dan Verton. "Postal Service Researches 'Smarter' Mail." Computerworld. 8-07-03. http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,111935,00.asp
