A recent New York Times report uncovered troubling new data on a long-standing mail surveillance program. But there are still some important numbers left unknown.
The U.S. Postal Service approved close to 50,000 law enforcement requests for a mail surveillance program called “mail cover” in 2013—a much larger number than the Postal Service had suggested in the past, by leaving out certain types of requests in their reports.
The mail cover program allows law enforcement agencies to record any information on the outside of physical mail delivered to a targeted person, including names, addresses, and locations of the mail. It does not permit them to open the mail.
An internal audit of the program obtained last week by the New York Times also revealed that the Postal Service failed in a number of cases to observe the proper protocol for requests, as Politico had previously reported.
The Times obtained the audit under a Freedom of Information Act request, giving them an unprecedented look into the program. According to the Times, “in many cases” the Postal Service granted surveillance without written authorization or justification.
They also erroneously tracked surveillance requests, and failed to process requests in a timely manner.
Additionally, the program had been occasionally used for inappropriate surveillance, like monitoring mail sent between lawyers and their clients.
But now that the report is out, Reason’s Kevin R. Kosar notes that several more key questions remain, like why requests increased so drastically in the past year, and how many requests were denied:
This leads to a second question worth a public response: how many law-enforcement requests for mail covers were denied? Knowing this number would clarify whether the Inspection Service is rubber-stamping these requests. Which it may well be, seeing as it authorized a renegade sheriff and prosecutor to use mail tracking to investigate a politician who dared criticize them. A former FBI agent has said the mail cover program is “so easy to use…you don’t have to go through a judge….You just fill out a form.”
And finally, Kosar wonders, why are elected officials taking no interest in the case?
Read the full piece at Reason.
