The US Post Office Should Create a Public Email System
A colleague of mine recently bemoaned the inadequacies of the US Post Office. I petitioned that a careful review of the balance sheet reveals that it is not government lethargy, rather an unwieldy mandate given to it by Congress. In a nutshell, the private package system is profitable because they can discriminate upon which mail to deliver. They choose the profitable “package” zones, while the US Post Office is required to deliver all parcels including those from politicians and officials that constitute a public good, cost free. The merits of this system are self evident, it provides contact between the leaders and the public in a unadulterated format. But should this format evolve to better suit the needs of a modern society? Maybe the USPO could assume a new and highly technical role of webmasters of a publicly created email system.
All functions of government need not be profit oriented, but they should be kept as lean as possible. In this capacity, I suggest that a member of Congress author a bill that keeps the current USPO system, but creates a public “.gov” email scheme, i.e. “Michael.Kraemer@USA.Gov”. In a five year plan, about the time span required to renew a drivers license, a person would be given a government contact for email. I further suggest that a person be able to “opt-out” of physical mail system for government correspondence. A person could stilled be mailed official correspondence as the old system is in place, but an official may now set up two non-overlapping mailings for a release; one electronic and one physical. This envisioned plan will reduce unnecessary costs causing massive deficits in the postal system. The main objective is efficiency, but an even stronger argument may exist for the extrinsic benefits.
Government agencies should be able to interface and have certain individuals readily able to respond. This e-mail address will specifically only be able to communicate with other .gov emails and thus creates an official communication forum. An official communication matrix has the possibility to revolutionize public/private relations. The goal is to be more responsive to people, more efficient, and create a more civic minded public.
It would also shed the illusory privacy people believe exists on the internet. It would log IP’s and the expectation of privacy would be limited as it is meant as a more public tool. This openness would encourage intelligent dialog between officials and constituents. The digital age was ushered in by a personal identity hiding behind a proxy, the username. An increasingly emerging truth is that the “privacy obsessed” culture in America may be coming to a crashing end. Look to social network indicators like Facebook. People at first were hesitant of this new technology, but now it looks as if people are uninhibited about “going public”.
For people wishing to embrace this new public email technology it has palpable benefits. Others may simply want to use this as a “receive only” tool, which is fine as well. I am unconvinced by the notion that certain people will be disenfranchised because they cannot use a computer. The internet has become such a omnipresent force in American culture that being disconnected is akin to not knowing how to drive or pay taxes. Further, those who can’t figure out these tricky series of tubes will still have the traditional methods of communication.
As a small aside, it may help courts disperse with tricky notion of service of process. How obnoxious is it that people realistically cannot be located to be served? Instead of denying the plaintiff’s recovery because of this technically that a person has made themselves hidden, perhaps relieve a small burden off the aggrieved party.
If the potential for cost savings do exist and it would encourage increased public/private connectedness, is it in the best interests of society to create such a plan? Yes, as usual, I would be willing to donate my time and expertise to help create such a system… if any legislative aides are reading this article…
I like the idea of being able to send official documents via e-mail and serve defendants by e-mail. That could be accomplished with just a change in mindset, though. Oh, and some changed laws and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and such. (I’m having flashbacks already)
It would also be handy if web-based e-mail like gmail supported read-requests.
What would the US e-mail look like? Would it be publicly listed like a street address? Would it cost e-postage to mail something via it? Would it be impossibly flooded by spam? I’m interested and curious to hear more on this one.
In my opinion of this hypothetical scenario, the system should be closed in the sense that it can only be used to communicate with government sanctioned emails addresses. For instance government agencies and politicians would now actually be able to respond to intelligent requests… instead of torrents of spam that make responses impossible.
No, this email system is totally free. Spam generally would not be a problem because it can communicate to only certain addresses and filters should take care of it quickly… Likely also based on a web client.
Anyway the point is to increase efficiency and promote contact between people and government – all while saving money.
I don’t think you can simply write-off those who aren’t “connected” as stone-age Luddites or primitive-minded technophobes. There could be a phase-out period of say a generation or so. Many people still need to be informed that the world isn’t flat, the Earth revolves around the Sun, and the internet is not actually a complex series of tubes.
In a time in the not-too-distant future, computer illiteracy will be the new illiteracy, and the digital divide will be a division of universes (if it isn’t already).
Actually, thanks largely to the internet, The World Is Flat.
I don’t think it is a dismissal of the technologically impaired. This system would be installed in parallel to the current status quo. At some point though, when the critical mass of people are connected, it becomes reasonable to require everyone to get on the system. Society can not operate on the lowest common denominator forever. While illiteracy is only a minor problem in developed nations, we still require reading for almost all functions of life. So too will it be required to use a computer, it is simply a question of when.