[mattmanser]

To be fair, look at it from totally the opposite direction to see their point of view.

Your workers are under threat from poorly made postal bombs that could easily blow up during processing, killing your workers. Due to the vast volume of post you process, the threat is real and non-trivial.

Do you do nothing?

I think you obviously have to do something, whether you go as far as they did is what's up for debate.

[stefan_]

Yes, when will the USPS do something about the 0 postal workers killed from letter bombs this year, last year, the year before last, the year before last before last year, ...?

More of them are endangered by their shitbox LLV trucks catching on fire.

[filoleg]

Bombs in packages isn't the only thing that threatens postal workers that USPS is trying to protect.

For example, look at this[0]. Two people physically attacked a postal worker after accusing her of "stealing their stimulus checks"[1].

Sure, you can say that this case had nothing to do with USPS surveillance. But it just goes to show that there are plenty of serious dangers to postal workers other than just nigh-non-existent "bomb in the mail" scenarios that you seem to be fixating on.

0. https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/police-make-arrest-after...

1. https://news.yahoo.com/usps-worker-beaten-michigan-alleged-1...

[_-david-_]

That has nothing to do with this issue. The article is about USPS investigating online threats. Do you really think people who are going to beat USPS workers are going to post about it online and that the USPS would be better equipped than agencies whose sole purpose is to deal with these kind of things?

If you think every postal worker should have some sort of security / police going with them on their routes that is one thing, but that is not at all what this article is about.

[filoleg]

>That has nothing to do with this issue

It addresses the comment that essentially boiled down to "why would they want this, letter bombs almost never happen", and I simply have shown other reasons for why they might want it. I wasn't addressing the article, I was addressing a specific comment.

>Do you really think people who are going to beat USPS workers are going to post about it online [...]

Yes, it does happen. People publicly post on twitter about their plans to vandalize property and such, so I don't see this scenario out of reach at all.

>[...] and that the USPS would be better equipped than agencies whose sole purpose is to deal with these kind of things?

No, but USPS would be able to use this as a clue of something brewing and make the relevant agencies aware, all while dealing with ad-hoc mitigations (e.g., if the threat seems credible on the surface, prepare tentative re-routing plans for their drivers to avoid that area, in case the agencies confirm that the threat is credible; if the agencies confirm that the threat isn't credible, everything proceeds as usual).

[_-david-_]

I agree that sometimes people do post online about committing crimes, but I do not believe USPS is better equipped than the FBI or DHS at handling it. The job of the USPS is to deliver mail. The job of the FBI is to stop crimes that will happen or find those responsible for crimes which have already been committed.

The FBI has more resources for investigating, finding, and assessing crimes. They also have additional intelligence that the USPS is not privy to. Why have an agency which has less resources and intelligence handle it? If it is a real threat the FBI can relay that information the USPS (and other agencies who operate in the area) to re-route their drivers or lock down their offices.

The USPS does not do anything so unique that it needs to a specialized investigative unit.

[jjgreen]

"In 1975, no one died, ..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUoT5AxFpRs

[reaperducer]

when will the USPS do something about the 0 postal workers killed from letter bombs this year

And how do you think that number became zero? Magic bomb-negating fairies?

[NavinF]

https://youtu.be/xSVqLHghLpw

[kelnos]

Yes, you contact the FBI and get them to investigate, just like everyone else does when federal crimes are involved.

(Also, echoing the sibling: where are all these poorly made postal bombs you're talking about? I can't remember anything in recent and not-so-recent memory.)

[GCA10]

A couple postal workers died about 20 years ago when someone used the U.S. mails as an anthrax-delivery mechanism. Details are here: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5239a2.htm Note that's there's also a deeper CDC analysis looking at whether mail sorting is a job with higher than usual mortality rates. (Answer: probably not).

Granted, that's a long time ago, and it doesn't happen habitually. But if you're going to have a workforce safety team (good idea), they will likely want to either actually do something to stop the threats, or at least signal to management that they aren't totally clueless

[java-man]

Just don't ask where that anthrax strain came from.

[ErikVandeWater]

> Your workers are under threat from poorly made postal bombs that could easily blow up during processing

How does that threat compare to threats the post office accepts for it's workers such as being killed in traffic accidents?

[cblackthornekc]

You don't even have to say bombs, the article lists a great example. They are tracking protests. I think I would like to be aware if where I normally deliver mail I'm walking into a protest that might get violent.

[throwawayboise]

If I turn the corner on my mail route and see an angry mob down the block, I turn around? It's not like people don't have eyes anymore.

[cblackthornekc]

Or you can look to see that it is scheduled for the afternoon so you deliver in the morning.

[_-david-_]

The FBI (or some other agency) can investigate these things and send out notices to government agencies operating in the area. It seems like you are advocating for every single government agency to monitor the internet for potential protests in their area? Why duplicate the work when we can get people who are experts handle it?

[_-david-_]

If there is a bomb threat why can't the FBI or DHS investigate? That is the entire purpose of those agencies.

Should every government agency have a department to investigate threats towards their employees? Why limit it to just the USPS? Why not give investigative powers to the Agency for Global Media or the Administration for Community Living? Should those employees have to risk the very "real and non-trivial" threats they face?

If this was just some sort of way of detecting bombs or anthrax or something I think most of us could get behind it. This is turning the post office into an investigative crime solving agency and not even strictly for the thing they do (mail delivery).

[jdavis703]

Agency for Global Media has their own law enforcement that investigates threats against the agency and it’s personnel. This ranges from securing HQ against protests to investigating what happens to broadcast infrastructure in war zones like Afghanistan to securing classified information.

[_-david-_]

I chose a random agency without checking what exactly they do. The specific agencies I mentioned are irrelevant to the actual points I was making.

We don't need every single agency to handle investigating threats to themself. It just doesn't make financial or practical sense. We can use the FBI, Secret Service, DHS, etc to deal with protecting the entire government and their employees. This will eliminate duplication and make it easier to share threat information.

One problem we have is the lack of information being shared with the correct agencies. This was allegedly the cause of some terrorist attacks not being stopped. If there are only a couple agencies that handle security and threat investigations instead of 100s it will already be in the hands of the correct agency. We should be striving for a streamlined process that removes duplication instead of hoping every single agency can do the job well.

[salawat]

We don't need more centralization. That just puts all the spoils in terms of getting corrupt individuals in positions of influence in one basket. Keeping agencies and jurisdictions divided keeps people specialized, limits the spread of taint, and ensures any that does take root is limited in scope; which is a good thing. Last thing we need is a monolithic law enforcement agency.

[yosito]

> Do you do nothing?

No, you coordinate with the CIA or FBI to investigate threats against the government.

[popinman322]

Postal inspectors can hand off to other teams for investigation of affairs that might affect more than the post system-- hence this memo.

If postal workers are at risk then it's within their purview (as it has been for over 200 years) to investigate and warn local offices in addition to other government offices.