Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Snail-mail security question


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Just_One_Question

Just_One_Question

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Local time:06:32 PM

Posted 22 August 2017 - 08:31 AM

I know that no-one is allowed or cares enough to open up and read the mail that you are sending to someone via classic snail-mail. However, is it true that the postal service takes photos of the letters' envelopes and, apart from that, is there any other database being filled when it comes to sending mail? Because I feel like it would be strange for classic mail to be completely unregulated, but then again it would probably take massive amounts of resources to register all mail that goes through the service. For example, can they check who sent mail to whom 6 months ago if, let's say, the police required that info? Just curious, I haven't actually sent classic mail in a year. :)


Edited by Just_One_Question, 23 August 2017 - 07:08 AM.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 r.a.d.

r.a.d.

  • Members
  • 669 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:08:32 AM

Posted 22 August 2017 - 09:51 AM

Wikipedia info:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_Isolation_Control_and_Tracking
Bleepin' desert rat retiree in climes yet to fry brains (knock on cactus).

Past climes/best friend:  photo-91.gif

#3 Just_One_Question

Just_One_Question
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Local time:06:32 PM

Posted 23 August 2017 - 07:08 AM

Hey, man, that is basically all the information I asked for. Thanks!:thumbup2:



#4 r.a.d.

r.a.d.

  • Members
  • 669 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:08:32 AM

Posted 23 August 2017 - 10:35 AM

Thanks back, learned stuff I didn't know.
Bleepin' desert rat retiree in climes yet to fry brains (knock on cactus).

Past climes/best friend:  photo-91.gif

#5 DelPomerinke

DelPomerinke

  • Members
  • 42 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:32 AM

Posted 23 August 2017 - 11:17 AM

Therefore,  'mail from' spoofing is important/useful even when using USMail as a Transport.



#6 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 8,651 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:11:32 AM

Posted 23 August 2017 - 12:48 PM

I guess "mail from" spoofing is important if you're planning something illegal via the mail (e.g., sending letter bombs or anthrax spores) that could be traced back to you.   Otherwise, why bother?

 

The content of your envelopes remains sacrosanct under U.S. law and the retention period for the tracing scans is limited.   I don't even consider this an invasion of privacy if the system is implemented as stated.  It's the content of my mail that's private, not the fact that I'm sending it and to whom, when that information is not used unless legally required and destroyed on a rolling basis.

 

I guess I'm one of those people who privacy absolutists hate because I still treasure and fight for keeping private what I actually consider private rather than trying to keep anything and everything I do absolutely private because that hasn't been possible since before the age of the internet.  I worry a lot more about the fact that laws regarding internet privacy are, by comparison to the mails and telecommunications, virtually non-existent and the internet remains the wild, wild west of data collection and mining without an individual's knowledge in a great many cases.   I don't mind sacrificing absolute privacy for forms of convenience that I believe are worth the tradeoff but I abhor sacrificing any privacy that I am not aware that I'm sacrificing.

 

There are trade offs to be made, and neither absolute privacy or absolute lack thereof is actually a tenable situation.


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 

     . . . the presumption of innocence, while essential in the legal realm, does not mean the elimination of common sense outside it.  The willing suspension of disbelief has its limits, or should.

    ~ Ruth Marcus,  November 10, 2017, in Washington Post article, Bannon is right: It’s no coincidence The Post broke the Moore story


 

 

 

              

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users