Govt wants FedEx and UPS to police the contents of your packages

[sailingaway]

The Obama administration is demanding the nation’s two biggest shipping companies police the contents of Americans’ sealed packages, and a FedEx spokesman is warning that the move “has the potential to threaten the privacy of all customers that send or receive packages.”

FedEx and UPS are in the Justice Department’s cross-hairs for not flagging shipments of illegally prescribed drugs the companies say they had no way of knowing were in their possession.

Criminal charges could be coming against the carriers, even though the government has not alleged any deliberate wrongdoing by the companies.

FedEx spokesman Patrick Fitzgerald said his company has a 40-year history of actively assisting the government crackdown on any criminal conduct, but he told WND this probe was very different from the start.

“What is unusual and really disturbing is it became clear to us along the way that FedEx was being targeted for some level criminal activity as it relates to these medicines that are being shipped from pharmacies, and we find it to be completely absurd because it’s really not our role,” Fitzgerald said. “We have no way of knowing what is legal and not within the packages that we’re picking up and delivering in this situation.”

“At the heart of the investigation are sealed packages that are being sent by, as far as we can tell, licensed pharmacies. These are medicines with legal prescriptions written by licensed physicians. So it’s difficult for us to understand where we would have some role in this. We are a transportation company that picks up and delivers close to 10 million packages every day. They are sealed packages, so we have no way of knowing specifically what’s inside and we have no interest in violating the privacy rights of our customers,” Fitzgerald said.

In addition to the unrealistic expectation that the federal government seems to have for the companies to know what’s in every package, Fitzgerald said protecting the rights of customers is paramount and the issues go hand-in-hand.

“They clearly are attempting to put some responsibility for the legality of the contents of these packages. That’s why for us it goes far beyond even just the online pharmacy situation. This really has a chilling effect. It has the potential to threaten the privacy of all customers that send or receive packages via FedEx because the government is assigning a role on us as law enforcement or taking on their role in a way that is not appropriate,” Fitzgerald said.

FedEx sought to diffuse the standoff by offering to stop doing business with any pharmacies that the government suspected to be involved in illegal activities. The Justice Department declined, citing the potential for the pharmacies to sue over a lack of due process.

“If the government were to come to us and give us the name of a customer that’s engaged in some level of illegal activity, we can immediately stop shipping for that customer. We will not tolerate any illegal activity within our networks,” Fitzgerald said. “What we want here is a solution that will apply for the entire industry and serve the public’s interest. That’s why we find it completely absurd and, to a large degree, stunning that the government is not working with us on that solution as they have with other problems in the past. As long as they’re not doing that, there’s really no solution even if they were to pursue an investigation or criminal charges against a specific company. There needs to be an industry-wide solution that will put a stop to this problem.”

That leaves FedEx and UPS with the task of stopping illegal shipments from sources the government will not divulge.

“The comparison that we’ve made is a no-fly list. It’s as if the government were to go to major commercial airlines and accuse them of some level of criminal activity if they were to allow somebody on the no-fly list onto one of their planes without providing them a no-fly list,” Fitzgerald said. “What we want here is the no-fly list for online pharmacies. If they are aware of some level of illegal activity by some number of pharmacies, simply provide us that list and we will stop providing service. It’s a very simple solution.”

Fitzgerald said no other private carriers are being targeted by the Justice Department, and he has no evidence to suggest this probe is designed to boost the financially strapped U.S. Postal Service at the expense of private competitors.

UPS is currently negotiating a settlement with the government, but FedEx is fighting this all the way.

“Settlement is not an option for us when there’s no illegal activity on our part,” Fitzgerald said.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/now-big-brother-targets-your-fedex-ups-packages/#oEtxIpPPRAWh3Y3p.99

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/now-big-brother-targets-your-fedex-ups-packages/

[oyarde]

Sounds like they are trying to steer some business to Post Office ....

[bolil]

Sounds like they are trying to steer some business to Post Office ....

Didn't the Unabomber use the postal service?

[paulbot24]

Good for Federal Express. Who knows? They might just get pissed off enough to take "Federal" out of their name. Even if the the USPS was public sector, why wouldn't our government do this? Control, control, and more control. No wonder more retail pharmacies are doing three-month scripts lately, as opposed to mail-order......

[Anti Federalist]

FedEx spokesman Patrick Fitzgerald said his company has a 40-year history of actively assisting the government crackdown on any criminal conduct

That did you a whole lot of good, didn't it now?


"We will not tolerate any illegal activity within our networks,” Fitzgerald said...

Very good, comrade.


That leaves FedEx and UPS with the task of stopping illegal shipments from sources the government will not divulge

LOL - Government, the perfect Troll.

So, let's run this down:

You got a company spokesman who makes sure he posts his company's bona fides, "we co-operate fully with government, always".

Good, the government is now well aware that you will comply with anything.

So they set you up, to comply with that which cannot be complied with.

ROFL!!! It's the perfect gag!

"But...but...but...we didn't do anything wrong, we're a law abiding company!"

Umm, Mr. Fitzgerald...you didn't have to do anything wrong, or you did something wrong no rational person could have sussed out from the tons of regulations and laws over all our heads.

That's why it's called a "police state", Mr. Fitzgerald.

In spite of my mockery, I wish you luck...I really do.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IA5nokOFh84/SRS8qo3OCaI/AAAAAAAACdk/oHVf69yJ090/s400/simpsons_nelson_haha2.jpg

[devil21]

That's interesting. It's not like the feds are really going to go after the two biggest private shippers in the country, those with worldwide reach. It's a combination of pushing business toward USPS (which requires federal search warrants to open packages) and trying to get private shippers to scrutinize packages for contraband more often. Double win for gov't.

[TheTexan]

I'm on enough lists as it is without the Feds spying on my packages... oh wait, they probably already do

[jkr]

CONFLICT
of
INTEREST

ST8 UP FASCISM

[tod evans]

"Drugs".....................................Again!

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Sounds like they are trying to steer some business to Post Office ....


Yes, but this is also so the post office can inspect and control the contents, themselves. They used to respect peoples' privacy to some extent, but less now than ever. Even in the last year, USPS workers are being told to scrutinize peoples' delivery habits further. As I hear, some find it insulting, and most are fine with it.

[acptulsa]

So, corporations are supposed to play cop now, even though they have less than no right, and doing so is not in their best interests (bad for business). Thus further blurring the line between corporation and government (otherwise known as 'promoting fascism').

And at the same time, it further disguises the heavy costs of the War on Drugs by forcing shippers to help subsidize the fiasco.

Fail.

[Dr.3D]

So is the federal government saying the post office doesn't ever move a package with contraband in it? Maybe they should take a closer look at themselves before pointing a finger at others.

[MelissaWV]

Lack of expertise.

Either FedEx is supposed to send every package with a pill, herb/grass, wires, etc., to the Government for analysis (in which case, go ahead, flood them with fake packages for awhile... but yeah this would be the end of FedEx), or FedEx can just have its workers say "Yep looks legit" to pretty much anything but the most obvious problem packages. Note: the latter category was probably already turned in by FedEx, in reality more because transporting hazmat that's only contained by a little cardboard box is not very good for the drivers.

How are regular FedEx workers expected to know that what's in those pill bottles is the real deal? Moreover, once you break the seal you are going to contaminate the contents. There is seriously no way to test them.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Maybe they should take a closer look at themselves before pointing a finger at others.


Like I said, carriers have been instructed to do so in numerous ways.

[Michael Landon]

Yes, but this is also so the post office can inspect and control the contents, themselves. They used to respect peoples' privacy to some extent, but less now than ever. Even in the last year, USPS workers are being told to scrutinize peoples' delivery habits further. As I hear, some find it insulting, and most are fine with it.

That's not true. As a long time letter carrier, we've never been told that.

- ML

[cheapseats]

Good for Federal Express.


Good for private profits, bad for little people.

As MelissaWV reminds in the PRIVATIZE TSA thread, it's not like they don't already have SOME inspection/regulation...they have their OWN safety/liability/reputation to consider. They were ALREADY in the practice of balancing "security"/SCRUTINY with successful business models.

[cheapseats]

Sounds like they are trying to steer some business to Post Office ....


I don't think so. I think the postal service is TAPPED OUT as a Congressional piggy bank.

I think they want MORE CONTROL OF PRIVATE SHIPPING, "pure" and simple. Kinduva critical distinction that "tampering with the U.S. mail is a federal offense".


Published on Saturday, May 26, 2012 by On the Commons
How the Post Office Is Being Destroyed By a Phony Budget Crisis
Congress, not the post office itself, is the problem

by David Morris

As every 6 year old learns, there is real and there is make believe. The massive Post Office deficit that is driving its management to commit institutional suicide by ending 6-day mail delivery, closing half of the nations’ 30,000 or so post offices and half it’s 500 mail processing centers, and laying off over 200,000 workers, is make believe.

Here’s why. In 1969 the federal government changed the way it did accounting. It began to use what was and is called a unified budget that includes trust funds like social security previously considered off budget because they were self-sustaining through dedicated revenue.

At that time the Post Office was, as it had been since 1792, a department of the federal government like the Department of Energy or the Department of Agriculture. While generating most of its revenue from postage it also received significant Congressional appropriations.

In 1970 Congress transformed the Post Office into the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). The new quasi-public agency was intended to put the Postal Office on a more business like footing. The Postal Service was given was allowed to borrow to make needed capital investments and was given more flexibility in how it spent its money. In return Congress required the Postal Service to become self-sufficient. The subsidy, at that time running about 15 percent of total revenues (close to $10 billion a year in 2012) was phased out over the next 15 years. After the mid 1980s the only taxpayer funds involved in the Post Office, amounting today to $100 million a year, subsidizes mail for the blind and official mail to overseas voters.

In keeping with the new philosophy that the Postal Service should be independent, President Richard Nixon’s Office of Management and Budget administratively moved its finances off budget in 1974. In 1989 Congress did it by statute.

None of this made any difference, as exhaustively detailed by the USPS Inspector General in a 2009 report. The OMB and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) continued to treat the postal service as part of the unified budget, the budget they use for “scoring” legislation to estimate its impact on the deficit.

And that’s where the make believe comes from.

In 2001 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) put the Postal Service on its list of “high-risk” programs because of rising financial pressures resulting from exploding demand from both the residential and commercial sectors. A year later the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) found the Postal Service had been significantly overpaying into its retirement fund. It seemed a simple matter to reduce future payments and tap into the existing surplus to pay for current expenses.

And that’s when make believe began to have a tragic impact in the real world.

How the Unnecessary Tragedy Unfolded

In late 2002, the CBO announced that this logical change in the retirement contribution formula could increase budget deficits in Congress’s unified budget by as much as about $3.5 billion a year, or $41 billion over the long haul. If the overpayments were used to delay future rate increases, the CBO added, future government receipts would decline, adding to the unified budget deficit.

To overcome the budget scoring objections Congress began what in retrospect we can see was little more than an exercise in rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. The final law allowed the Postal Service to use its overpayments to pay off its debt and delay increasing rates for 3 years. After that any overpayments were to be collected in an escrow fund that would be unavailable to the Post Office until Congress determined how the funds would be used. And then came the quid pro quo. The Postal Service became responsible for paying postal workers for the time they spent in prior military service. Up until then, as one might expect, these obligations were paid by the U.S. Treasury. Assuming that obligation essentially eliminated any Post Office surplus during the 10 year scoring window.

The House and Senate held 11 hearings on postal reform between 2003 and 2006. Senator Susan Collins, Chair of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee commented, “two issues… united every single witness who has testified before our committee … a desire to see the escrow account repealed and the return of the military pension obligation to the Treasury Department.”

Bills to this effect were well received in Congress. But again and again the OMB and CBO stepped in to thwart policy makers. In 2004, as the bills were moving rapidly through Congress the Bush Administration stopped their progress by announcing its opposition,which they justified by the impact on the unified budget. The next year, on the day that a bill to help the Post Office with big bipartisan backing was brought to the floor of the House , the Bush Administration again threatened a veto because of its “adverse impact on the Federal budget”. Congress backed down.

In 2006 Congress finally passed a new law. The Postal Service was allowed to tap into escrow money and pension obligations for military service were shifted back to the US Treasury. But again a quid pro quo was required that negated any financial benefits that would result. To achieve unified budget neutrality the USPS was required to make 10 annual payments of between $5.4 billion and $5.8 billion each to the newly created Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund. The fund could not be tapped to pay actual retiree health benefits during those 10 years.

The level of the annual payments was not based on any actuarial determination. The numbers were produced by CBO as the amounts necessary to offset the loss of the escrow payments.

Remember, this all began because the post office discovered it had surplus funds. Unified budget accounting made sure it could never tap into this surplus unless at the same time it assumed new liabilities of an equal magnitude.

The Simple Solution

The solution to the post office financial deficit is simple. Give it back the money Congress, as a result of pressure from the CBO, has stolen from it over the past years. Then make future payments into the health fund for retirees actuarially based.

Once this artificially generated financial noose is removed from the postal service’s neck we can get on with helping it navigate the shoals of an uncertain future. To do this the postal service must build on its two most important assets: its ubiquitous physical infrastructure and the high esteem in which most Americans hold it. In combination, these assets offer the post office an enviable platform upon which to many new revenue-producing services.

But to do this Congress will have to remove another burden imposed by the 2006 law: a prohibition on the postal service offering non-postal services. Like issuing licenses (e.g. drivers, hunting, fishing, etc) or contracting with local and state agencies to provide services. Congress should also lift the prohibition on the post office shipping wine and beer.

In offering new services the USPS could learn from post offices in other countries. The French post office offers banking and insurance services. Remember that from 1911 to 1967 the US Post Office successfully and profitably ran a nationwide postal savings bank. The Swedish post office will physically deliver e-mail correspondence to people who are not online.

But before any of this will happen we need to fess up. The postal crisis is contrived. Let’s stop scaring ourselves silly with make believe deficit monsters and unshackle this national asset.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/26-1

[cheapseats]

BLOOMBERG/Understanding the Post Office's Benefits Mess: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/understanding-the-post-office-s-benefits-mess.html

[sailingaway]

Lack of expertise.

Either FedEx is supposed to send every package with a pill, herb/grass, wires, etc., to the Government for analysis (in which case, go ahead, flood them with fake packages for awhile... but yeah this would be the end of FedEx), or FedEx can just have its workers say "Yep looks legit" to pretty much anything but the most obvious problem packages. Note: the latter category was probably already turned in by FedEx, in reality more because transporting hazmat that's only contained by a little cardboard box is not very good for the drivers.

How are regular FedEx workers expected to know that what's in those pill bottles is the real deal? Moreover, once you break the seal you are going to contaminate the contents. There is seriously no way to test them.

That's why Fed Ex is saying if you tell us the criminals we won't ship their packages. The govt says 'we can't do that because they might sue' meaning we have no proof we want you to be a spy arm for us to find out if anyone is. Fed Ex is saying 'how can we possibly know' so the govt will have to spell out specifically the kind of intrusiveness with no warrant they want, and Fed Ex can get that info out to put political pressure on stopping the govt from doing it. Good for them.

NOT so good for UPS which is apparently 'settling'.

[moostraks]

That's not true. As a long time letter carrier, we've never been told that.

- ML
Someone at the post office is pilfering my packages with a more frequent basis. I get a high quantity of media mail that is torn open and given the it was us sticker from the post office. This is happening with greater frequency now then in years past. It is a violation of my privacy and obnoxious to receive these packages which have had their contents displaced and they are not even making a feeble attempt to repackage them so the cartons are left to exposure. That really stinks when it is a 100 year old book set outside.

[The Goat]

nm

[presence]

I started a thread in health freedom; didn't see this one out in GP... sorry.


Thread: DOJ: UPS FEDEX Packages to be OPENED and Inspected (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?408832-DOJ-UPS-FEDEX-Packages-to-be-OPENED-and-Inspected)

Feel free to merge / delete other thread



http://www.bizrice.com/upload/20120129/Tamper_Evident_Security_Seal_Tape.jpg


My kids meds come to me via courier, whoever can promise overnight delivery, show-ID-signed-to-my-door is how they move; on ice; from my armed-security-on-the-clock pharmicist's hands to my hands... SEALED. Typically Fed EX provides this service. The boxes are sealed twice at all seams and edges with serial numbered tamper proof tape, I order these meds via mail order call-this-800-number.com pharmacy. Each package is worth anywhere from $5,000 to $50,000; my wife stands at the gun safe while I deal with the courier. You ever walk down to the sidewalk with $10k in your pocket? Yeah that feeling plus your kid's life in the box. They're stored in a locked refrigerator, which is BOLTED to my home. I take the security and sanctity of my child's meds VERY seriously. The package I receive contains mainline, perfect every time, IV drugs I stick into my 3 year old, which work miracles. There is tamper proof tape on every single refrigerated package without fail. The one package where the tamper seal was broken and retaped, I traced it down to, and spoke with,

the individual

at the pharmacy who had added a new product trial to the shipment before repackaging. I take tamper evidence and supply chain management very seriously; again mainline, super expensive, mission critical, IV drugs in my kid.

Have I mentioned packaged in a
STERILE
environment yet?


SEALED

Now we have...

http://content.presentermedia.com/files/animsp/00008000/8497/steaming_mad_ears_anim_md_wm.gif


Obama’s “No Fly” List for FedEx and UPS

(http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/obamas-no-fly-list-for-fedex-and-ups/)
by Wendy McElroy (http://fff.org/author/wendy-mcelroy/) March 22, 2013

The Obama administration is notorious for crony capitalism, through which big businesses reap huge riches by virtue of their cozy association with government. Big oil, big car companies, big agrobusinesses, big banks, and big drug corporations are among the legally privileged cronies who are profiting at the expense of nonprivileged competitors and of customers who pay higher prices.


Now the Department of Justice (DOJ)
is trying to institute (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324595904578121461533102062.html) the shipping version of a “no fly” list
on behalf of the big pharmaceutical companies and in the name of the war on drugs.
The DOJ wants America’s two largest courier/delivery services to

open and report

on the shipments from online pharmacies,
allegedly to staunch the flow of illegal pharmaceuticals.


Here’s the catch:

the DOJ wants packages opened
even when there is no reason
to suspect illegal contents.


FedEx spokesman Patrick Fitzgerald explained (http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/03/20/obama-administrations-chilling-demand-to-open-packages-targets-fedex-ups-56650),



DO LISTEN TO AUDIO FILE OF INTERVIEW, CLICK HERE (http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/now-big-brother-targets-your-fedex-ups-packages/#twOTBiwdBV6B7dJs.99)




“sealed packages … are being sent by, as far as we can tell, licensed pharmacies. These are medicines with legal prescriptions written by licensed physicians.” Fitzgerald added (http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/now-big-brother-targets-your-fedex-ups-packages/#0DOr4my8ukLiZhZo.99), “We are a transportation company that picks up and delivers close to 10 million packages every day. They are sealed packages, so we have no way of knowing specifically what’s inside and we have no interest in violating the privacy rights of our customers.”


The courier companies have a long tradition of refusing service to shippers who are identified as criminal suspects by law enforcement. But the DOJ refuses to provide a list of what are called “rogue pharmacies” — that is, online pharmacies functioning without a license. Instead, the DOJ is broadly targeting shipments of online pharmacies that may be entirely legal. This is similar to giving airlines a “no fly” list that does not bar individuals but instead names an entire industry.


This step was foreshadowed by a $500 million settlement between Google and the DOJ in 2011. The company paid out to resolve a case in which it was accused of profiting from the paid ads of rogue pharmacies. At that time, RxRights — “a coalition concerned about the high cost of U.S. pharmaceuticals” — expressed concern about “a blanket backlash against all online pharmacies.” RxRights stated (http://www.rxrights.org/your-thoughts/2011/05/19/what-does-the-google-settlement-mean-for-online-pharmacies), “Preventing all safe and legitimate Canadian and International pharmacies from advertising online because of the illegal activities of some rogue pharmacies is simply unfair.” RxRights added, “Also, we’re very concerned about the next logical step.”


A “logical” step toward closing down online pharmacies seems to be already underway.

Criminal charges have been threatened
against both FedEx and UPS
if they refuse to cooperate with DOJ demands,


on the grounds that they are (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-11-15/feds-probe-fedex-ups-over-online-drug-shipments) “aiding and abetting online pharmacies that illegally ship prescription drugs.” Fitzgerald stated (http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/03/20/obama-administrations-chilling-demand-to-open-packages-targets-fedex-ups-56650), “What is unusual and really disturbing is it became clear to us along the way that FedEx was being targeted for some level [of] criminal activity as it relates to these medicines that are being shipped from pharmacies, and

we find it to be completely absurd
because it’s really not our role.”


The why of it economically



Online and foreign pharmacies are popular sources of legal pharmaceuticals because they usually offer low prices and high convenience. This competition constitutes a widening crack in the pharmaceutical monopoly that big drug companies would like to enjoy in the United States.


The financial stakes are massive. On September 5, 2012, a New York Daily News headline announced, “Arizona Woman Feeling the Pain from a $83,046 Bill for Anti-Venom Drug after Seeking Medical Treatment for Scorpion Sting (http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/obamas-no-fly-list-for-fedex-and-ups/Arizona%20woman%20feeling%20the%20pain%20from%20a% 20$83,046%20bill%20for%20anti-venom%20drug%20after%20seeking%20medical%20treatme nt%20for%20scorpion%20sting%20%20%20Read%20more:%2 0http:/www.nydailynews.com/news/national/arizona-woman-feeling-pain-83-046-bill-anti-venom-drug-seeking-medical-treatment-scorpion-sting-article-1.1152754#ixzz2OErAA7pb).” The subtitle explained, “Marcie Edmonds was stung in Phoenix and needed two doses of the anti-venom Anascorp.” Because the drug is derived from readily available material, there seems to be no free-market reason for it being extraordinarily expensive. ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/arizona-hospitals-80000-bill-stings-worse-scorpion-venom/story?id=17163685#.UUvanxkU7-k)reported, “The drug is made from horse antibodies, and comes from Mexico, where it costs about $100 per dose, according to Kaiser Health News.” Edmonds would have saved $39,552 a dose if she had ordered the drug from a licensed Mexican pharmacy and had some on hand.


No one keeps the antidote for scorpion venom on hand. And Edmonds’s story may be an extreme one.

But many people shop online for drugs for chronic conditions
like diabetes or heart disease;
many people save a healthy amount of money by doing so.

Every time someone in America frequents an online source, big conventional pharmaceuticals lose a customer.


The why of it politically



When FedEx attempted to get a list of pharmacies suspected of illegal activities in order to refuse their packages, the DOJ’s response was telling. The DOJ refused (http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/now-big-brother-targets-your-fedex-ups-packages/) because providing a list could violate the due-process rights of businesses named and thus open the DOJ to lawsuits. An interesting message is implicit in this refusal. If the government searches private packages without probable cause, then it is violating the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. Specifically, it would violate the

Fourth Amendment guarantee

that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”


But the policies of a private company are not similarly restrained. The federal government uses complicit airlines as a way to

sidestep [read fascism]

the unconstitutionality of random searches at airports; if someone objects to the airline’s policy of screening customers, then he can forgo air travel. Equally, if a courier’s policy is to search packages, then a customer who objects could forgo their service. (It is not clear that customers of FedEx or UPS would be notified of the possibility of such a search in advance.) As Fitzgerald observed, “the government is assigning a role” to “us as law enforcement.”


Conclusion



UPS appears to be negotiating a settlement with the DOJ. In a November 1, 2012, filing on its quarterly earnings, UPS first disclosed the DOJ investigation: “We have received requests for information from the DOJ in the Northern District of California in connection with a criminal investigation relating to the transportation of packages for online pharmacies that may have shipped pharmaceuticals in violation of federal law.” The Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.com/html/health/2019692133_apusonlinepharmaciesshippersinvestigate d.html) (Nov. 15, 2012) reported that UPS was cooperating with the investigation and was “exploring the possibility of resolving this matter.”


By contrast, FedEx has declared that

“settlement is not an option
for us when there’s no illegal activity on our part.”


Hopefully, the line FedEx has drawn is in cement, not sand. If the DOJ can order couriers to report the contents of any pharmaceutical shipment to ensure they do not contain illegal drugs, then it is not merely drug customers who will suffer. How long will it be before the DOJ orders the opening of financial material to fight money laundering?



The Department of Justice
is attacking the very concept
of private mail in America.






So now I have to trust that some hourly employee I'll never know, with no medical training isn't going to black market my kids meds and shove sugar water back in the package?


pissed am I

[sailingaway]

that's ok, it has relevance there as well.

[Michael Landon]

Someone at the post office is pilfering my packages with a more frequent basis. I get a high quantity of media mail that is torn open and given the it was us sticker from the post office. This is happening with greater frequency now then in years past. It is a violation of my privacy and obnoxious to receive these packages which have had their contents displaced and they are not even making a feeble attempt to repackage them so the cartons are left to exposure. That really stinks when it is a 100 year old book set outside.

The machines that sort the mail have a tendency to rip them open. I bet, out of the 2,000 pieces of mail I deliver each day, about 25% of them are ripped open. We use sorting machines to sort everything from letters to magazines to parcels.

The carrier has their supervisor put a sticker on it so we cover our asses from accusations of mail theft. I'm constantly giving letters to my supervisor to have them marked up. I'm not going to lose my job because of their sorting machines.

- ML

[devil21]

That's why Fed Ex is saying if you tell us the criminals we won't ship their packages. The govt says 'we can't do that because they might sue' meaning we have no proof we want you to be a spy arm for us to find out if anyone is. Fed Ex is saying 'how can we possibly know' so the govt will have to spell out specifically the kind of intrusiveness with no warrant they want, and Fed Ex can get that info out to put political pressure on stopping the govt from doing it. Good for them.

NOT so good for UPS which is apparently 'settling'.

Neither UPS nor FedEx requires warrants to open packages. Both are private companies and their terms of service plainly state they can open your package and inspect the contents at any time, for any reason. USPS packages, however, are covered under 4th amendment due process and require federal search warrants to open packages since it is a quasi-gov't agency doing the inspecting.

[TheGrinch]

Good for Federal Express. Who knows? They might just get pissed off enough to take "Federal" out of their name.

Even better:

http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/12499800/img/12499800.jpg

[moostraks]

The machines that sort the mail have a tendency to rip them open. I bet, out of the 2,000 pieces of mail I deliver each day, about 25% of them are ripped open. We use sorting machines to sort everything from letters to magazines to parcels.

The carrier has their supervisor put a sticker on it so we cover our asses from accusations of mail theft. I'm constantly giving letters to my supervisor to have them marked up. I'm not going to lose my job because of their sorting machines.

- ML

Which would be an acceptable answer if it weren't for the fact that it must be the machines are extraordinarily hungry in increasing measure disproportionate to the number of packages received over time. Media mail is one of those items that USPS has waged war on to make sure that contents are what they say they should be. My packages are not just chewed they have gone through the contents and then sent to me with a lame bandaid of an excuse it has been opened and sent on. My post office also likes to randomly hold packages and upcharge me do to a lack of proper packaging accepted at the point of origin. They are a real gem in these parts of the woods.

[sailingaway]

Neither UPS nor FedEx requires warrants to open packages. Both are private companies and their terms of service plainly state they can open your package and inspect the contents at any time, for any reason. USPS packages, however, are covered under 4th amendment due process and require federal search warrants to open packages since it is a quasi-gov't agency doing the inspecting.

But if Fed Ex doesn't WANT to open the packages, then to have government make them do so is a different kettle of fish.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Yes, but this is also so the post office can inspect and control the contents, themselves. They used to respect peoples' privacy to some extent, but less now than ever. Even in the last year, USPS workers are being told to scrutinize peoples' delivery habits further. As I hear, some find it insulting, and most are fine with it.


That's not true. As a long time letter carrier, we've never been told that.

- ML


My information comes from a letter carrier. Respectfully, they may not have told you or your office that, but I trust my source that their office was told that. (Rural MN carrier) This was probably 6-7-8 months ago.

It's hardly a surprise when they're also asking garbage collectors to spy on their customers.

[moostraks]

Neither UPS nor FedEx requires warrants to open packages. Both are private companies and their terms of service plainly state they can open your package and inspect the contents at any time, for any reason. USPS packages, however, are covered under 4th amendment due process and require federal search warrants to open packages since it is a quasi-gov't agency doing the inspecting.

Media mail is free game for inspecting at will:

•Media Mail® can be examined by postal staff to determine if the right price has been paid. If the package is wrapped in a way that makes it impossible to examine, it will be charged the First-Class™ rate
https://www.usps.com/ship/media-mail.htm

also:
Postal Inspection
Media Mail and Library Mail are not sealed against postal inspection. Regardless of physical closure, the mailing of articles at Media Mail or Library Mail prices constitutes consent by the mailer to postal inspection of the contents
http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/173.htm

Just a friendly heads up to any who might be unaware of the loss of rights when one uses media mail.:)

[LibForestPaul]

So, corporations are supposed to play cop now, even though they have less than no right, and doing so is not in their best interests (bad for business). Thus further blurring the line between corporation and government (otherwise known as 'promoting fascism').

And at the same time, it further disguises the heavy costs of the War on Drugs by forcing shippers to help subsidize the fiasco.

Fail.

Yes, as AF has stated.
The Stasi are us. A police state does not work without full participation of the people, comrade. Pharmacists spying, doctors spying, teachers spying, banks spying, they all participate in the Stasi state. If they do not, they are threatened with violence.

[Michael Landon]

My information comes from a letter carrier. Respectfully, they may not have told you or your office that, but I trust my source that their office was told that. (Rural MN carrier) This was probably 6-7-8 months ago.

It's hardly a surprise when they're also asking garbage collectors to spy on their customers.

I can easily see some upper level manager trying to move up in ranks by promoting an agenda. There WAS talk following 9-11 that the USPS was going to start keeping tabs on people who receive suspicious mail but the Unions came out quick and shot down any attempt to have the workers do that, that's the last that it was mentioned. On a side note, I do know that the USPS keeps a database of all address changes. In the past, when someone put a change of address in, it was on file for 18 months and once the forward expired the change was deleted, but now all changes go into a permanent database. This concerns me. Anyway, like I said, the Unions are doing an excellent job standing up for our privacy at this point.

In regards to the media mail, the USPS offers a special discounted rate for objects considered media mail like papers, books, informational dvds and cds, etc. and when someone chooses to mail an object via "media mail" and pays the discounted price they do so under the knowledge that their package can be opened to verify that the contents meet the requirements for "media mail." The USPS had been losing a lot of money in postage by people shipping packages that contained items not considered "media."

- ML

[devil21]

related?

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/UPS-to-pay-40M-for-illegal-drug-deliveries-4395913.php



United Parcel Service will forfeit to the government $40 million that it collected from pharmacies over seven years for delivering drugs that were illegally purchased online without a prescription, federal prosecutors in San Francisco said Friday.

The agreement allows the company to avoid prosecution.

.............

"Good corporate citizens like UPS play an important role in halting the flow of illegal drugs," U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag said in a statement.

more at link

[cheapseats]

The Stasi are us.


Sadly, yes.

The ENFORCEMENT CLASS hails from the classes upon which they will beat.

[cheapseats]

Neither UPS nor FedEx requires warrants to open packages. Both are private companies and their terms of service plainly state they can open your package and inspect the contents at any time, for any reason. USPS packages, however, are covered under 4th amendment due process and require federal search warrants to open packages since it is a quasi-gov't agency doing the inspecting.


I mean really, do anarchist-types believe there should be NO inspection/regulation/prohibition of what is shipped between "consenting adults"?