[GCA10]

Lots of sentiment today that the USPS is way out of its zone of expertise in doing this -- and that is possible.

But it's worth noting that the USPS has had its own legion of postal inspectors going back to the 19th century, when they were a (comparatively) huge part of the U.S. government, and the FBI, etc. did not exist.

Some 1,200 postal inspectors are still around, and they play important roles on federal prosecutions related to mail fraud, drug shipments, etc. There's a good Wikipedia entry on it all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Inspectio...

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

"When our Corps goes in as guards over the mail, that mail must be delivered," wrote Secretary of the Navy Edwin Denby. "Or there must be a Marine dead at the post of duty. There can be no compromise."

https://www.military.com/off-duty/2020/08/25/intense-rules-u...

The mail is serious business.

[el_dev_hell]

That was a wild read.

> Q. Suppose the thief was apparently unarmed but was running away?

> A. Call halt twice at the top of your voice, and if he does not halt, fire one warning shot; and if he does not obey this, shoot to hit him.

There was no chill during the great depression:

> Q. If I hear the command 'Hands Up,' am I justified in obeying this order?

> A. No; fall to the ground and start shooting.

[TedDoesntTalk]

No mincing of words. Something like this would never be put into writing today, as far as I understand the USMC:

Q. Is there a general plan for meeting a robbery?

A. Yes; start shooting and meet developments as they arise thereafter.

[542354234235]

> Something like this would never be put into writing today

Because we don’t need rules like that today. America was a very different place than it is now. Those rules were there, not because they were shoot happy maniacs, or because they didn’t care about being “PC”, but because it was much more dangerous back then. It is the same reason that US soldiers stationed in Germany don’t have the same rules of engagement as soldiers in Afghanistan.

[CobrastanJorji]

Asides from all that stuff about ordering soldiers to kill American civilians, I'm just boggled that it had a FAQ. How old is the FAQ structure? Wikipedia suggests a history going back to the 1600s, and much further if you stretch the definition to Plato.

[blitz_skull]

American civilians who had made a decided effort to commit a federal felony. Also "ordering soliders to kill American civilians" attempts to color the situation in an unfavorable light, as if the soldiers had alternatives, or the situation didn't fully warrant it.

There's no reason that killing armed gangsters wasn't totally justified in this case.

[CobrastanJorji]

They did. The letter clearly instructs soldiers to shoot fleeing people in the back if they don't stop and surrender. "Not killing the fleeing man" is what we can an "alternative."

[jayrot]

Where's the BG copypasta quote about why soldiers shouldn't be police

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

The military defends federal property all the time. US mail is federal property. Is there a copypasta about blanket absolutes?

[drak0n1c]

People were shocked last summer when federal agents started doing night patrols around a vandalized and firebombed federal courthouse in Portland, deterring and detaining people left and right. Not many are aware of how seriously the federal government takes protecting its properties and duties, and how lethally serious such encounters were not too many decades ago.

[jchanimal]

Except the US Capitol.

[CharlieEadwyn]

Except for the killing of Ashli Babbitt, who was fatally shot despite being unarmed.

[riffic]

> going back to the 19th century

18th, even. From the same Wikipedia article you shared:

> The Postal Inspection Service has the oldest origins of any federal law enforcement agency in the United States. It traces its roots back to 1772 when colonial Postmaster General Benjamin Franklin first appointed a "surveyor" to regulate and audit the mails. Thus, the Service's origins—in part—predate the Declaration of Independence, and therefore the United States itself.

[JKCalhoun]

Can't help thinking of W.A.S.T.E. though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crying_of_Lot_49

[TheRealPomax]

Sure, but the 19th century ended over 120 years ago. So that's kind of not relevant to how they're structured and operate today?

[GavinMcG]

Not relevant? Do you somehow imagine that how things were done in the past doesn't affect "how they're structured and operate today"?

[TheRealPomax]

No, I think how things were done almost 120 years and 20 US administrations ago does not in any way relate to how the modern organization works, and how the current institutional knowledge is acted on by its employees (from CEO all the way down to the foot workers).

The late 19th century has so much "nothing to do" with today that it's literally irrelevant other than being a good window into how different things were, and as historical setup to then transition into "and then everything changed as a result of the great depression, with the US further burdened in the years following until the repeal of prohibition" which forced literally every government agency to change the way it worked.

[ErikVandeWater]

Depends if we're talking how they are structured vs should be structured

[JJMcJ]

I think 1,200 investigators for the entirety of the USPS's operations isn't out of line.

[TheRealPomax]

okay? not really related to my comment?

[DanBC]

People forget that spying on citizens by the post office goes back hundreds of years. This doesn't make it in any way acceptable, but people shouldn't act surprised that post offices spy on citizens when it's an activity that's baked into the service from the very early days.

https://pasttenseblog.wordpress.com/2019/09/03/today-in-lond...

> The Post office was of central importance to this surveillance. The ‘Secret Office’ – an arm of what was basically a secret service, dedicated to opening post to discover plots against the government – was formed around 1653 under Cromwell’s post-Civil War republican Protectorate; but it proved so handy, the Office was continued after the restoration of the monarchy.

[...]

> Morland also recorded what he saw as the basic function of his devices and of surveillance in general: “a skilful prince ought to make a watch tower of his general post office… and there place such careful sentinels as that, by their care and diligence, he may have a constant view of all that passes.”

Samuel Morland was interesting and has some early computing devices.

https://history-computer.com/samuel-morland/

https://history-computer.com/samuel-morland-biography-histor...

https://www.headstuff.org/culture/history/terrible-people-fr...

One of the links talks about letters sealed in the Spanish manner.

https://regencyredingote.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/sealing-wa...

> It was then that the superior qualities of the new "Spanish" wax came to be highly valued. The basic formula of this new sealing compound was a blend of shellac, mastic, turpentine, chalk or gypsum, and a coloring agent, to which essential oils and/or fragrant balsams might be added to facilitate melting and impart a pleasant fragrance. This "sealing wax" could be melted to a thick viscous fluid which would readily and firmly adhere to the parchment or paper on which it was placed. While warm, it would take a clear impression of any seal that was pressed in to it. It would remain solid, even in the heat of summer, and was flexible enough to remain intact while affixed to the document on which it had been placed. However, it was extremely difficult to remove a seal made of this material and replace it after the contents of the sealed document had been read. This compound was more brittle than beeswax so it could be easily broken, thus providing clear evidence of tampering. Even if the seal could be removed unbroken, any attempt to re-affix a seal was nearly impossible, since, with such a low melting point, the image which had been impressed into it would loose its crispness, if not melt completely, if additional hot wax was used to re-attach it, yet another sign of tampering.

[realityIsntHere]

A total monopoly on daily mail and we get snooped.

I can't tell if this is corruption or genuine work.

[ROARosen]

the 19th century was also the time when the USPS was not having net losses of $9.2 billion per year.[1]

How about having the FBI monitoring the security instead and them notifying USPS.

[1]https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/2020/1113-....

[boston_clone]

Do you think all public services ought to be profitable? Or can we entertain the thought that our taxes help offset costs of (or directly fund) critical public services?

As an aside, I genuinely dislike seeing misinformation from the Trump/Russia era on HN.

[ROARosen]

How about not having ad hominem attacks on HN? Your dislike to seeing certain information on HN doesn't add any value to the conversation. Especially when it presumes - without evidence - that the parent comment surely has some partisan mental bias just like you yourself have.

And to your actual answer. I do believe public funds can go to fund government enterprises. Just not when any comparative private enterprise seems to figure out how to be profitable.