--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE ...
Going postal
over new regulations
Rules on private mailboxes
have critics seeing red
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Stephan Archer
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
A new U.S. postal regulation has Americans concerned about government invasions of privacy, and infringements of their personal freedom.
After Nov. 1, customers of commercial mail receiving agencies such as Mailboxes, Etc. will have to include their private mail box number, or PMB, along with their address when mailing anything.
To become authorized to use a private mailbox, PMB owners will have to fill out a new form and show two forms of identification, one of which must have a picture. If the address on the ID doesn't match the current home address of the owner, a proof of address must also be shown.
The purpose of the regulation is to deter mail theft and fraud, say Post Office officials.
"The new regulations are a protection for all of us -- for consumers and for businesses -- because, unfortunately, there's been an ever-increasing abuse of mail receiving agencies by criminals wanting to hide in order to conduct fraud," said Inspector Tom Hall of the postal inspection service. "The new regulations help reduce that possibility. That's part of the aim with these new regulations."
Activist groups, however, are concerned that the new regulations will end up hurting consumers by curtailing competition and invading privacy.
Jim Elwood, the vice president of the International Society for Individual Liberty, expressed concern about the regulations being imposed on his group, a PMB owner. Elwood explained that his organization sends out hundreds of thousands pieces of mail yearly with the organization's current address on it. Beginning Nov. 1, customers won't be able to mail anything to the organization's current PMB because the old address doesn't include the PMB number. Therefore, Elwood's organization will have to somehow notify all of its customers and readers of the change of address, which includes the PMB number. That could be costly.
"Basically for us, there's a minor and a potentially major effect resulting from this regulation," Elwood said. "The minor effect -- changing the stuff we print to PMB -- isn't that big of a deal though it has already incurred extra expense. However, the big problem for an organization like us is that we are educational. We produce and sell hundreds of thousands of pamphlets every year, and so we have a lot of literature floating around out there with our old address on it."
Elwood expressed additional concern that his organization could lose customers if any send the organization mail via the old address. When the mail is returned, customers may assume the group is out of business.
George Getz, the press secretary for the Libertarian Party, believes that besides causing problems for organizations with large mailing lists, the new regulation also infringes on privacy by making it easier for the government to track mail citizens are sending.
"We don't think that the government has any business trying to find out who's delivering what to whom," Getz said.
Phyllis Schlafly, the leader of the pro-family Eagle Forum, expressed similar concerns when she asked, "How soon will it be before (the government) will demand the right to open our letters going to the Post Office?"
However, Inspector Hall reiterated the purpose of the regulations by saying that the "primary reason for the new regulations is increased security for the mail and to protect the American public -- both businesses and consumers -- from criminals."
Hall continued to explain that when someone chooses to go to a private mail house, he or she is asking that company, an agent, to receive mail. Hall said that the Post Office doesn't want to give mail to someone who isn't legitimately registered as the agent of the mail's owner, because crooks can easily use private mailboxes by falsely registering a name.
Hall could not provide any statistics on the percentage of mail fraud occurring through private mailboxes. Elwood, however, claims the total is only 1 percent.
"The main issue here is that you're punishing 99 percent of the PMB owners who are legitimate box users in an attempt to do something about the 1 percent," said Elwood.
Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center believes the new regulations are a privacy concern as well, but he sees another problem.
"They (the government) are trying to do away with anyone who is trying to compete with the Post Office by forcing commercial mail receiving agencies to adhere to all these regulations, making it much more difficult to operate. This will just shut down another avenue that the rest of us have to getting around the Post Office," DeWeese said. "The regulations are both an invasion of privacy and an attempt to 'stamp out' private enterprise."
Karen Gajewski, a public relations manager at Mailboxes, Etc., said that in spite of all the negative criticism aimed at the regulations, her company supports what the Post Office is trying to do, although she has concerns about its implementation.
"We do applaud them for addressing the issue," said Gajewski. "We, however, certainly feel that it is unfortunate that so many honest business people and consumers have to go through such trouble to comply. Should it turn out that any of these regulations are really unduly burdensome on our box holders, we will certainly strike up conversation with the Post Office to address that."
Getz, however, doesn't appreciate Mailboxes, Etc.'s supportive role in the matter.
"This is another example of the federal government butting in and telling a private company what to do," he said. "These private companies -- companies like Mailboxes, Etc. -- ought to be able to set whatever privacy policy they want. It's just a relationship between them and their customers."
"It's bad enough when government tries to control government functions," continued Getz, "but here they are coercing a private agency to do something."
"What the regulations are really about is the federal government wanting to set up data banks on every single American citizen and knowing exactly what they're doing, how they're doing it and where they're doing it and then tying it all together. It makes us all bad guys," DeWeese added.
Although there is much concern about the new regulations, Inspector Hall doesn't understand why.
"The new regulations put CMRAs more in line with postal regulations," Hall said. "If you want to obtain a Post Office box, the regulations that apply are very similar or the same as those applied to a commercial mail receiving agency box."
Elwood disagrees, however.
"The regulations violate privacy," Elwood said. They also violate Post Office statutes that forbid discrimination of mail boxes."
As a result of the public outcry over the regulations, J. Bruce Henderson, an attorney, will be researching the issue. A class-action lawsuit calling on the Post Office to stop the implementation of this new regulation could be right around the corner.
YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE ...
Going postal
over new regulations
Rules on private mailboxes
have critics seeing red
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Stephan Archer
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
A new U.S. postal regulation has Americans concerned about government invasions of privacy, and infringements of their personal freedom.
After Nov. 1, customers of commercial mail receiving agencies such as Mailboxes, Etc. will have to include their private mail box number, or PMB, along with their address when mailing anything.
To become authorized to use a private mailbox, PMB owners will have to fill out a new form and show two forms of identification, one of which must have a picture. If the address on the ID doesn't match the current home address of the owner, a proof of address must also be shown.
The purpose of the regulation is to deter mail theft and fraud, say Post Office officials.
"The new regulations are a protection for all of us -- for consumers and for businesses -- because, unfortunately, there's been an ever-increasing abuse of mail receiving agencies by criminals wanting to hide in order to conduct fraud," said Inspector Tom Hall of the postal inspection service. "The new regulations help reduce that possibility. That's part of the aim with these new regulations."
Activist groups, however, are concerned that the new regulations will end up hurting consumers by curtailing competition and invading privacy.
Jim Elwood, the vice president of the International Society for Individual Liberty, expressed concern about the regulations being imposed on his group, a PMB owner. Elwood explained that his organization sends out hundreds of thousands pieces of mail yearly with the organization's current address on it. Beginning Nov. 1, customers won't be able to mail anything to the organization's current PMB because the old address doesn't include the PMB number. Therefore, Elwood's organization will have to somehow notify all of its customers and readers of the change of address, which includes the PMB number. That could be costly.
"Basically for us, there's a minor and a potentially major effect resulting from this regulation," Elwood said. "The minor effect -- changing the stuff we print to PMB -- isn't that big of a deal though it has already incurred extra expense. However, the big problem for an organization like us is that we are educational. We produce and sell hundreds of thousands of pamphlets every year, and so we have a lot of literature floating around out there with our old address on it."
Elwood expressed additional concern that his organization could lose customers if any send the organization mail via the old address. When the mail is returned, customers may assume the group is out of business.
George Getz, the press secretary for the Libertarian Party, believes that besides causing problems for organizations with large mailing lists, the new regulation also infringes on privacy by making it easier for the government to track mail citizens are sending.
"We don't think that the government has any business trying to find out who's delivering what to whom," Getz said.
Phyllis Schlafly, the leader of the pro-family Eagle Forum, expressed similar concerns when she asked, "How soon will it be before (the government) will demand the right to open our letters going to the Post Office?"
However, Inspector Hall reiterated the purpose of the regulations by saying that the "primary reason for the new regulations is increased security for the mail and to protect the American public -- both businesses and consumers -- from criminals."
Hall continued to explain that when someone chooses to go to a private mail house, he or she is asking that company, an agent, to receive mail. Hall said that the Post Office doesn't want to give mail to someone who isn't legitimately registered as the agent of the mail's owner, because crooks can easily use private mailboxes by falsely registering a name.
Hall could not provide any statistics on the percentage of mail fraud occurring through private mailboxes. Elwood, however, claims the total is only 1 percent.
"The main issue here is that you're punishing 99 percent of the PMB owners who are legitimate box users in an attempt to do something about the 1 percent," said Elwood.
Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center believes the new regulations are a privacy concern as well, but he sees another problem.
"They (the government) are trying to do away with anyone who is trying to compete with the Post Office by forcing commercial mail receiving agencies to adhere to all these regulations, making it much more difficult to operate. This will just shut down another avenue that the rest of us have to getting around the Post Office," DeWeese said. "The regulations are both an invasion of privacy and an attempt to 'stamp out' private enterprise."
Karen Gajewski, a public relations manager at Mailboxes, Etc., said that in spite of all the negative criticism aimed at the regulations, her company supports what the Post Office is trying to do, although she has concerns about its implementation.
"We do applaud them for addressing the issue," said Gajewski. "We, however, certainly feel that it is unfortunate that so many honest business people and consumers have to go through such trouble to comply. Should it turn out that any of these regulations are really unduly burdensome on our box holders, we will certainly strike up conversation with the Post Office to address that."
Getz, however, doesn't appreciate Mailboxes, Etc.'s supportive role in the matter.
"This is another example of the federal government butting in and telling a private company what to do," he said. "These private companies -- companies like Mailboxes, Etc. -- ought to be able to set whatever privacy policy they want. It's just a relationship between them and their customers."
"It's bad enough when government tries to control government functions," continued Getz, "but here they are coercing a private agency to do something."
"What the regulations are really about is the federal government wanting to set up data banks on every single American citizen and knowing exactly what they're doing, how they're doing it and where they're doing it and then tying it all together. It makes us all bad guys," DeWeese added.
Although there is much concern about the new regulations, Inspector Hall doesn't understand why.
"The new regulations put CMRAs more in line with postal regulations," Hall said. "If you want to obtain a Post Office box, the regulations that apply are very similar or the same as those applied to a commercial mail receiving agency box."
Elwood disagrees, however.
"The regulations violate privacy," Elwood said. They also violate Post Office statutes that forbid discrimination of mail boxes."
As a result of the public outcry over the regulations, J. Bruce Henderson, an attorney, will be researching the issue. A class-action lawsuit calling on the Post Office to stop the implementation of this new regulation could be right around the corner.
