USPS shared customer postal addresses with Meta, LinkedIn and Snap
USPS’s Informed Delivery service was found to be sending customers’ postal addresses and other data to Meta, LinkedIn and Snap via embedded tracking code, raising alarms about government websites loading third‑party analytics and adtech. Commenters argue this reflects deeper structural problems: USPS’s mandate to self‑fund, its heavy reliance on junk mail and data products, and a broader ecosystem where tracking pixels routinely leak sensitive information. Many call for strict limits on possession and sharing of personal data, self‑hosted analytics for public services, and a comprehensive U.S. privacy law akin to GDPR.
Scope of the USPS Issue
- USPS’s Informed Delivery and change-of-address pages included third‑party “tracking pixels” (often full JS tags) from Meta, LinkedIn, Snap, etc.
- Form fields (including postal addresses) were reportedly templated into pixel requests, leaking PII to ad platforms.
- Some call the article title “clickbait” because USPS likely didn’t mean to share data; others argue intent is irrelevant because the data left anyway.
- Debate over whether this was simple negligence, gross negligence, or possibly corrupt arrangements; no evidence in the thread, so true intent is unclear.
Government Sites and Third‑Party Content
- Strong sentiment that government sites should not load any third‑party content, let alone adtech.
- Others note many governments worldwide run ads and third‑party scripts; the U.S. is “better than many,” but still problematic.
- USPS and other agencies justify analytics and marketing, but critics say public services shouldn’t be doing surveillance-style attribution at all.
USPS Business Model, Junk Mail, and Data Sales
- USPS is a constitutionally grounded federal service but structured to self‑fund, creating pressure to market and monetize data.
- Junk mail and products like NCOALink (change-of-address data licensing) are seen as revenue mechanisms that degrade service and privacy.
- Some view USPS as net negative (spam, data sales); others argue it’s essential infrastructure and a counterweight to private carriers.
Privacy, Surveillance, and Mail Scanning
- Informed Delivery relies on scanning the front and back of all mail; images are stored and accessible to law enforcement.
- Some report letter contents visible through envelopes or scanner artifacts, raising concerns about “dragnet” surveillance.
- Others note physical addresses have long been quasi‑public (voter rolls, real estate), so expectations of secrecy are limited.
Adtech, Regulation, and User Defenses
- Pixels are described as general-purpose tracking/attribution tags, not just 1×1 images; they can and do exfiltrate sensitive fields.
- Marketing and executive pressure to “make platforms work” drives widespread, often uncritical pixel deployment.
- Proposed fixes: ban or tightly regulate tracking pixels, make possession of PII legally “radioactive,” adopt GDPR-style laws, or a national privacy act.
- Practical user responses: ad/tracker blockers, disabling remote email content, avoiding permanent USPS COA, and general distrust of both corporations and agencies.