Somebody's always watching me

 And interesting confluence of items crossed my desk yesterday.  First was an advertising email from The Folio Society, a purveyor of luxury editions of classic books.  They've recently released a limited edition of 1984, by George Orwell on the 75th anniversary of its first publication.  The landmark novel is one I have had repeated experiences with.  I was required to read it in high school, at a time when I couldn't yet fully comprehend its message.  I read it later as an adult and appreciated the dystopian tale much more.  Then in 2017, I attended a Broadway theater production of 1984, just as the full Orwellian nature of the Trump administration was becoming understood.  The loss of objective truth, the populist authoritarianism, the memory holes, and the doublespeak ("alternative facts" was an early feature of those dark years) was damage that the country still is dealing with.  The Broadway stage version of 1984 was as shocking and provocative as live theater could possibly be, and as gloomy and foreboding as Orwell must have intended.  Having experienced the show and having lived through the (hopefully only) Trump term, I will be forever changed.  So with that in mind, I ordered a copy of the new book, bibliophilic prole that I am.  More on that in a later post.

Concurrently with all that, I read an article in the Washington Post that describes a formal surveillance program of the US Postal System.  The so-called "mail covers program" allows the tracking of postal mail to and from targeted individuals, with little regulation or oversight.  Back when mail was still a primary mode of individual communication, and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution was still respected, detailed laws were put in place to require warrants to open mail.  But merely monitoring and recording addresses of mail to a specific person requires very little formal approval.  Without warrants or judicial approval, law enforcement agencies of all descriptions can request the USPS to monitor the mailboxes of targeted individuals, which it does with little resistance.  Despite the Post's recent article, this is not a new practice.  In 2013, the mail surveillance of award-winning author William Vollmann was described in an article in Harper's Magazine.  Vollmann had mistakenly fallen under suspicion by the FBI of being a suspect in the Unabomber bombings.  His mail was tracked - and indeed opened - for years before his innocence was demonstrated by the brother of the actual Unabomber, who recognized his manifesto.  This is a sobering reminder for a snail mail aficionado like me, who likes to believe that old-fashioned physical letters escape some of the privacy concerns of online digital communication.  Indeed, I can't help wondering if my innocent personal correspondence with iconoclastic individuals like publisher Fred Woodworth has landed me on some watch list.  Woodworth himself has often written about incidences of FBI harassment in his own long publishing career.  The truth is evident: 75 years later, Big Brother is still watching.