[Am-info] Why we won't trust the U.S. Post Office

[Gene Gaines]

,
At one time, in the beginning, the computing field was thought
of as a profession, and an honorable one.  Universities started
degrees in Computer Science.

At the beginning, there were some people who did not understand
the proud ethics of the field, some people who were willing to
cut corners, and some who were dishonest.  But by and large,
it was an honorable business.

There were problems with IBM at the beginning, because they were
after with the "big business" objective. IBM delivered early
mainframes they knew could not do one-half the job, and could
deliver only a portion of the throughput proposed, but there were
reactions to that, and by-and-large, the computing field kept its
high ethics.

IBM "bought off" competitors who brought valid antitrust claims
against them, destroyed critical evidence and databases in the
middle of the night (figuratively) before the U.S. Department of
Justice could get the documents by subpoena.  IBM illegally shut
out and damaged competitors, illegally moved to shut out competitive
companies from either buing IBM computers or servicing them.
That said, the work ethic and treatment of customers by IBM and
it employees was highly ethical, and they were proud of it.  The
computing field maintained it high sense of morality and
professionalism.

Then, to my perception, a young man in California, son of a
successful lawyer, became interested in computers.  The story is
he became interested because he found he could illegally use the
high school's computer to change the grades of friends who had
made it worth his while to to so.  He was really interested, began
to plot what he could do with that sort of power.  And Microsoft
had its beginnings.

Fast forward to today.

Is computing a proud, highly ethical profession today?

Few people really think of it that way.  What does the United
States offer in computing?  Little or nothing compared to some other
countries.

We have lost our way.  And we are fast losing one of our most
important national resources -- our lead in computing, in information
technology.

How did it become shabby?  When did we find out that the norm for most
people in the computing field, worldwide is NOT to trust computing
companies.  We lost our way as a computing power as Bill Gates rose
to power, to monopoly, to predatory monopoly.

Shame.

Seems to me that is why most of us will read the story below in such
a negative light.  Blame us.  We permit it to be that way.


Gene Gaines
gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com


See:
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/08/15/ar_usps_stamps.htm
 
 USPS: Smart Stamps on the Horizon
 By Becky Blanton - Sierra Times.com
 
 
 The United States Postal Service is excited about the possibility of "smart
stamps," but privacy advocates are not. "Smart  stamps," so-called because
special digital codes and information about individual senders is embedded 
into
the stamp - aren't widespread yet - but may be soon.
 
 Those with privacy concerns, including the Center for Democracy and
Technology, have alerted consumers about a recent government report urging the
U.S. Postal Service to create the stamps to
 track the identity of people who send mail.
 
 The report, entitled, "Embracing the Future, Making Tough Choices to Preserve
the Universal Mail Service," was released in July by the President's 
Commission
on the U.S. Postal Service.
 
 The report issued several recommendations for reforming the debt-laden 
agency,
including a reduction in the workforce and
 more privatization and commercialization of services. What has the privacy
watchdogs necks bristling however, is the report's suggestion the USPS work 
with
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to develop and expand the smart stamp
system to individuals.
 
 "At a minimum," the report noted, "such a system would identify the sender, 
the
destination and the class of the mail being sent
 by digitally embedding the information in the stamp itself." The USPS 
however,
began its own "transformation plan" in 2001 and has declined to comment on the
new report or its reccommendations.
 
 According to the USPS website, the postal service already uses a "smart 
stamp"
system with many of its corporate clients. 
 
 The primary objection of privacy advocates is over the stamp's potential 
forced
use for individuals and for vaguely defined
 "security" issues. 
 
 "We have a long history in this country of anonymous political speech," said
Ari Schwartz, associate director of the Center for
 Democracy and Technology.
 
 Even simple changes that remove anonymity from the public mail system is
"making a major change to political discourse in
 this country," he said.
 
 The commission believes such a system could only help, not harm users.
 
 "Intelligent mail has the potential to improve significantly the security of
the nation's mail stream, particularly if the postal
 service fully explores whether it is feasible to require every piece of mail 
to
include sender identification, in order to better assure its traceability in 
the
event of foul play," the report said.
 
 Postal employees and customers could track each piece of private mail, the
report noted, but so could the government.
 
 The commission says smart stamps could give law enforcement authorities new
investigative tools in the event of a mail-related
 terrorist attack. The CDT is concerned that requiring digitally embedded 
sender
identification for all mail would present serious risks to civil liberties.
 
 The FBI is already allowed to photocopy the outside of unopened letters and
packages sent and received by suspected criminals in
 order to monitor their communications, they note.
 
 An intelligent mail system would enable the FBI to build databases tracking
communication among people on a broader scale, say privacy advocates.
 
 The commission's report claimed that "issues of privacy should, of course, be
noted and balanced with the value of enhanced
 safety," but no such information was given as to how or who, would achieve 
that
balance.
 
 USPS representatives pointed out that snooping on the public isn't the reason
for the stamp - mailing costs are.
 
 A USPS Task Force claims the costs associated with  
Undeliverable-As-Addressed
(UAA) mail totals $1.9 billion each year.