Act
Would OK Snail Mail Searches By
Declan McCullagh 2:00
a.m. May 23, 2002 PDT WASHINGTON -- Just a few years ago, the U.S. Postal Service got
savaged by privacy advocates after suggesting that private mailbox
services were somehow objectionable. Since services like Mailboxes Etc. could encourage fraud, the post
office declared,
businesses must limit anonymity by demanding
photo ID from all customers. So far, the Postal Service has had little luck: On Wednesday, the
U.S. House of Representatives approved the new surveillance powers by a
327 to 101 vote.
The bill, titled the Customs
Border Security Act, says that incoming or outgoing mail can be
searched at the border "without a search warrant." The vote on the larger bill -- which deals mostly with the budget for
the U.S. Customs Service -- came
after a surprisingly heated debate on the House floor over an amendment
that would have deleted the mail-snooping sections. "Exercise of these new powers could infringe on the right of
innocent Americans to travel and communicate internationally free of
unnecessary federal control," says Rep.
Ron Paul (R-Texas), Congress' most ardent libertarian. "Please
say no to unconstitutional searches and unaccountable government, and
say yes to liberty and constitutional government " Under current law, it is already legal for Customs agents to open
packages they deem to be suspicious. Rep. Maxine Waters
(D-California) sponsored the amendment, which also would have preserved
the current legal status of Customs officers, who can be sued civilly
for wrongful searches. It failed. On a largely party-line
vote of 197-231, with only five Republicans voting in the
affirmative, the House rejected Waters' proposal and voted to keep the
bill intact. In other words, that retains the Customs Border Security Act's
original language, which says a customs agent cannot be held liable for
any type of search, including racial profiling, as long as the
"officer or employee performed the search in good faith." Last December, the House's previous attempt to pass the bill failed
by a 256 to 168 vote. It was considered under a procedure reserved for
ostensibly noncontroversial bills that requires a two-thirds majority. Even critics of the Postal Service say the agency has -- at least in
this particular legislative tussle -- been sticking up for privacy
rights. "While I have been publicly critical of the U.S. Postal Service
for their poor overall record on privacy, I will admit that they have
been consistent and resolute in their adherence to our Fourth Amendment
protections against warrantless searches," says Brad Jansen, deputy
director of the Center for Technology Policy at the Free
Congress Foundation. But, Jansen says, the politicking may be mostly "a bureaucratic
turf battle with Customs trying to poach authority from the Post
Office." Customs boasts
that it "is considered one of the most effective agencies at
congressional" lobbying and says that the Customs Border Security
Act "carries a great number of important legislative requirements
for the agency." Katie Corrigan, legislative counsel for the American
Civil Liberties Union, says she was heartened by Wednesday's floor
debate. "They expressed concern that the bill would undermine individual
privacy," Corrigan says. "With each step in the process,
people become a little more educated. We hope that when it heads into (a
future Senate-House conference committee), we can strip that section
out." Last December, the ACLU sent a
letter to Congress saying that: "People in the United States
have an expectation of privacy in the mail they send to friends, family
or business associates abroad. The Customs Service's interest in
confiscating illegal weapons' shipments, drugs or other contraband is
adequately protected by its ability to secure a search warrant when it
has probable cause." In the Senate, a similar
bill with identical mail-opening language is waiting for a floor
vote, which is likely to happen as early as this week. Democratic senators Jon Corzine (New Jersey) and Dianne Feinstein
(California) are expected to introduce amendments to delete the
mail-surveillance sections. Other opposition to the mail-surveillance proposals comes from
industry groups. The Direct Marketing Association says
"this would be the first time since Ben Franklin created the Postal
Service that seizure and searches, without warrants, of outbound
international mail would be allowed."
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
any copyrighted work in this message is distributed
under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. [Ref.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml] |