FedEx Indicted For Failing To Look Into Its Packages To See If Any Online Pharmacies Were Sending Drugs
from the say-what-now? dept
Back in March of last year, we were somewhat disturbed by UPS agreeing to forfeit $40 million to the US government for shipping drugs from "illegal internet pharmacies." Not that such drugs or pharmacies should be legal (that's a whole different discussion), but it's insane to pin the blame for the shipments on the shipping company, whose sole job is to get packages from point A to point B. In fact, we don't want shipping companies to be liable for what's in packages, because then they have not just the incentive, but the mandate to snoop through all our packages.Apparently, FedEx was unwilling to fall on its sword and cough up a similar amount to the US government, so the DEA and DOJ have announced they've gotten a grand jury to indict the company for delivering drugs associated with internet pharmacies. You can read the full indictment, which tries to spin a variety of stories into evidence that somehow FedEx "knew" what was in those packages. The indictment does describe FedEx deliveries to vacant homes and parking lots where carloads of people would be waiting.
As early as 2004, FEDEX couriers and customer service agents in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia expressed safety concerns to their management, including the following: FEDEX trucks had been stopped on the road by Internet pharmacy customers demanding packages of pills; delivery addresses included parking lots, schools, and vacant homes where people would wait for deliveries of drugs; customers would jump on FEDEX trucks and demand Internet pharmacy packages; FEDEX drivers were threatened if they insisted on delivering a package to the address instead of giving the package to the customer who demanded it; and customers would use multiple names and identification documents to pick up packages of drugs.While that may sound damning, remember this is the DEA/DOJ's spin on things. Even if everything above is true, FedEx's job is to deliver packages, not examine everything inside those packages to make sure they're legal. Even in some of the cases -- as described in the indictment -- where FedEx becomes aware that some of the companies ran into trouble with the DEA for selling drugs illegally, it's hard to see how that means FedEx should automatically drop all business connections with those entities. Presumably, a firm that was caught selling drugs illegally could have other legitimate business to continue and would make use of services like FedEx going forward. It's not FedEx's job to examine everything in those packages.
A FEDEX employee also raised concerns to FEDEX management that some recipients of Internet pharmacy packages were engaged in "doctor shopping," were "known to be selling and using," and that "some of the recipients have overdosed and died."
This is, quite literally, blaming the messenger.
FedEx is fighting these claims pretty aggressively, insisting that it's crazy to make it responsible for what's in the packages:
"We are a transportation company — we are not law enforcement."Furthermore, the company notes that it has long asked the DOJ to provide it with a list of online pharmacies that it shouldn't do business with, so that it didn't have to just guess. The government did not provide the list, and seems to think that FedEx must be psychic (and should know what's in all packages and whether or not they're illegal."
"We have repeatedly requested that the government provide us a list of online pharmacies engaging in illegal activity," [VP Patrick Fitzgerald] said. "Whenever DEA provides us a list of pharmacies engaging in illegal activity, we will turn off shipping for those companies immediately. So far the government has declined to provide such a list."Even a former DEA official interviewed by Bloomberg, Larry Cote, claimed the situation was extreme and unprecedented:
The criminal case is an unprecedented escalation of a federal crackdown on organizations and individuals to combat prescription drug abuse, said Larry Cote, an attorney and ex-associate chief counsel at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.We often talk about secondary liability on the internet, but it's the same basic principal here. The company that's merely acting as the conduit shouldn't be liable for what's traversing over its system. The implications of changing that, and holding a company liable are very serious. It's going to create massive incentives for shipping companies to not just open up and look at what's in our packages, but to also make on-the-fly determinations of whether or not they think it's legal.
“Targeting a company that’s two, three steps removed from the actual doctor-patient, pharmacy-patient relationship is unprecedented,” said Cote....
“The DEA does believe that everyone in the supply chain is responsible and has an obligation to understand where their products are ending up,” said Cote, calling that “a stretch.”
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dea, doj, drugs, online pharmacies, secondary liability, shipping
Companies: fedex
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The DEA is obviously still waiting for the US pharma companies to provide the list of 'rogue' pharmacies/competitors, whereas the US pharma companies are reluctant to provide that list, because if they do people will be able to see that the vast majority of it is almost certainly nothing more nefarious than people getting perfectly legal drugs, from out of country, because they can't afford the US prices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the whole idea of the DEA and the DoJ is exactly that, to be able to snoop through packages, removing another piece of privacy and freedom from the people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They want to see detailed lists of all the links we click and websites we visit each year? I'm fine with that so long as we can do the same to them.
They want to view, at any time, the contents of all the e-mails we send and receive? I'm fine with that so long as we can do the same to them.
They want access to everyones phone and geolocation records, as well as audio recordings of all our conversations? I'm fine with that so long as we can do the same to them.
They want access to all of the texts, forum postings, comments, tweets, files, etc, that we send and receive daily? I'm fine with that so long as we can do the same to them.
They want laws which allow them to force everyone to give up all of their passwords upon demand? I'm fine with that so long as we can do the same to them.
They want to create laws which prevent us from even using any and all forms of encryption to begin with? I'm fine with that so long as we can do the same to them.
They want to subvert all of our Constitutional rights and justify doing so by claiming it makes our country safer? I'm fine with that so long as we can do the same to them.
They want to be able to come into our homes and search through everything found there, all without a warrant? I'm fine with that so long as we can do the same to them.
They want to put surveillance equipment everywhere and justify it by saying its all to prevent crime? I'm fine with that so long as we can do the same to them.
If any of this bothers them, how can they possibly expect it to not bother us? If any of this scares them, how can they possibly expect it to not scare us? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You can't pick and choose when rules apply and when they don't. They either apply to everyone or no one. There can be no middle ground on this point if we want to prove our basic human rights matter and we're the truly democratic society we claim to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boston Tea Party
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Boston Tea Party
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Boston Tea Party
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Boston Tea Party
The US tax code is written to pander to corporations that incidentally are more like the British East India company than anything else from the colonial era.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Boston Tea Party
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Boston Tea Party
Yeah, there was the Roaring Twenties, when income inequality was almost as severe as it is now. Or was there something else you had in mind?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Boston Tea Party
This Depression we're in now has lasted a lot longer then the so called Great Depression. We have far more people on Wel-Fair then ever before. Taxes are still way to high, especially for those paying them all!!! Paying taxes and then just getting all your money back when you do your taxes doesn't make you a Tax Payer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Boston Tea Party
"So called"? You're saying it really might not have been that big of a deal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Boston Tea Party
- I thought they were mostly complaining about the lack of representation, is this incorrect?
"These days we are taxed on pretty much everything"
- Except ill gotten gains - too big to jail and all that crap. Oh, yeah - and capitol gains not so much.
"Half the population pays ZERO in Federal Taxes."
- I think you are embellishing ... but regardless, we all know that when corporations and the uber riche use legal deductions it is all good and great, but when those low life peons use legal deductions it is tax evasion plain and simple! To the gallows with them!
"This Depression we're in now has lasted a lot longer then the so called Great Depression"
- So called? Care to expound upon that?
- I believe you need to discuss the duration of the present economic downturn with the party of NO.
"We have far more people on Wel-Fair then ever before"
- Many of which hold full time jobs that pay minimum wage. Isn't it fun subsidizing corporate greed?
"Taxes are still way to high, especially for those paying them all"
- Are you claiming that the very rich who pay no income tax are paying too much? Oh ... I see, you are saying that those in poverty are not paying enough. How would that work, exactly?
"Paying taxes and then just getting all your money back when you do your taxes doesn't make you a Tax Payer."
- Actually ... it does. Overlooking the free interest rate loan these people give uncle Sam, the wage slaves are not the ones passing tax law - they simply follow what the law says and therefore they met their tax obligations - do you forgo deductions because you do not believe they should be allowed? If the rich get cudos for all their nifty dodges and evasions that garner high fives at cocktail parties then the middle class should not be belittled for filling out forms as the law stipulates. I think you are just a little brainwashed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Boston Tea Party
Since nobody else has corrected this and it's a pet peeve of mine, I'll bite. This is not true. What's true is that half pays zero in income taxes (because they're poor), but they pay all of the other federal taxes. Further, since those other taxes are not scaled according to income level, lots of those taxpayers pay a greater percentage of their income to the federal government than wealthier people do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
E.g. ogling, groping, harmless-property-disposing, and dignity-skull-fucking by the TSA...
E.g. victim-less-criminal-incarcerating, shipment-snooping, baby-flash-bang-bombing/burning, harmless-dog-shooting, and future-parolee-job-opportunity-screwing by the DEA and various law enforcement agencies...
E.g. privacy-violating, nude-picture-trading, email-reading, phone-call-recording by the NSA...
E.g. bankster-criminal-ignoring, harmless-"hacker"-persecuting, corporate-corruption-facilitating, lobbyist-door-revolving, and petty-copyright-enforcement-prioritizing by the DOJ...
...versus how many Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks? ...versus how many terrorist plots that the FBI didn't make up would have occurred otherwise? ...versus how many people have overdosed on marijuana or shot up a school while they were high?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every time secondary liability expands...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every time secondary liability expands...
Wait, no, that's when governments turn to tyranny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The lack of a list of "illegal pharmacies" is unlikely to have anything to do with big US pharmacy companies being unwilling to come up with names. Rather it's likely a function of it being a nightmare to determine who has been duped, who has been merely careless, and who has been knowningly, and actively breaking the law. Plenty of these online pharmacies are likely perfectly legal where they are based, and do plenty of legitimate business, which is why they can get the drugs in the first place. Determining who is deliberately failing in their legal obligations is difficult given the difference in jurisdictions.
In short, this has pretty much nothing to do with the prices of medications in the US. It's about drug dealers, and drug addicts taking the things they do offline to fraudulently obtain prescription drugs, and taking them online. And the DEA is blaming the shippers for not either psychically knowing what shipments are problematic; or preemptively blacklisting legitimate businesses just in case. Behavior by the recipient is no guarantee they aren't on the up and up. Just because they're addicted to painkillers and/or an asshole about it doesn't mean they don't have a legitimate prescription to receive. Being addicted doesn't even mean they don't have a legitimate condition that's being treated.
So yeah, the bottom line is that the story here isn't about how much big pharmaceutical companies suck because medication prices in the US are high. The story here is the DEA and the DOJ whining that package carriers aren't violating the fourth amendment on their behalf and making customs decisions on their own because the DEA's job is hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, Fedex (and it's drivers) should be a little wise when they are delivering to people who are not actually in the house they are going to, just standing nearby. Doubly so if the house is abandoned or half burned down. It should at least make them wonder a very little bit.
People who want to be met in parking lots and such should also send off alarm bells, and that is the sort of thing the DOJ seems most upset about. The cross the line from delivery company to accomplice when they willing forego their own rules to "help" this sort of transaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There are occasions for many suspicious looking things and the only way to deal with them is to look at why the situation is the way it is.
Namely why are people ordering from online pharmacies, is it because their life saving medication is so expensive in the US yet costs pennies from elsewhere, where an asthma inhaler costs $75 in the US but less than $5 from an internet supplier which supplies the exact same thing from the same manufacturer.
Why would i not want to take advantage of receiving my drugs from an on-line pharmacy and save my life and tens of thousands of dollars a year on medication that has been prescribed to me by a doctor.
And yes it is dangerous to order from online pharmacies that are not regulated, but in desperation i might just take the chance to save my life or the life of a family member if i had no other choice.
Maybe if this was acknowledged and something done about the Prices of Medication in the US this problem would drop to manageable levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Here is a relevant comment from another blog
bzipitidoo (4388) writes
(quote)
"One of Big Pharma's leading talking points on why US citizens should not order prescription drugs from outside the US is the supposed danger that those drugs will be of substandard quality or outright fakes."
(/quote)
http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=2947&cid=70842
and, from my understanding, many of those same pharma companies buy their drugs or have them manufactured in other countries. IOW, the govt simply gives them a distribution monopoly. They get to produce their drugs in countries where labor and taxes are perhaps cheapest (to avoid having to pay Americans more for the same thing), which hurts jobs here in America and lowers our average pay, while at the same time they get to prevent us from buying directly from manufacturers overseas, which increases prices. They want to charge us to distribute drugs from other countries but they don't want to pay us to produce those drugs and they don't want to allow us to buy directly from those other countries at cheaper prices. They are simply a parasite middlemen leeching off of everyone else.
(/quote)
sjames writes
(quote)
The funny part is that other than the opiates, the questionnaires are probably just as effective as the cursory exam a doctor might give the patient before prescribing. Just a hell of a lot cheaper.
(/quote)
http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=2947&cid=70823
and I think that's the whole point of the govt requiring a prescription for everything. Because prescriptions cost money and so it keeps doctors and clinics employed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And the behaviors alleged aren't people desperate to get their asthma inhaler, it's of people desperate to get their prescription narcotics. Those sort of people will always exist because they're abusing the system for addiction or profit. Pricing won't change that as the problem is that they can't legitimately get prescriptions for the quantities they desire in the first place.
The only thing more reasonable medication prices would change is reducing the number of people impacted when the pharmacy they were buying from was shut down because their scruples ended at selling genuine medications at the price advertised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So then you agree that medication prices are unreasonable? and wouldn't more reasonable prices fix that? Wouldn't it allow consumers to not overpay for the medications they need? Wouldn't that be a good thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
online pharmacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is a line there somewhere that gets crossed. The DOJ thinks fedex crossed a similar line, that's all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Without a list, the choices are basically 'check everything', or 'check nothing', and given the first would basically slow their business to a crawl(among other problems with the idea), potentially killing it off, the second becomes the default choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The bottom line is that it's the whole job of the USPS, FedEx, and UPS to take packages from someone they don't know, and deliver it to someone else they don't know, regardless of how shady they appear to be. Just because someone looks like a drug dealer or drug addict it doesn't mean they don't have legitimate mail and packages to send and deliver.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The source" being Mexico and "the destination" being the US? You're saying that FedEx and the rest should refuse to ship packages from Mexico to the US because they might be drugs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am trying to see where you guys feel the line is on liability here. Fedex is a royal pain in the butt when it comes to shipping things at times, and equally a pain when it comes to receiving something. Their employees would certainly be bending the rules pretty far to deliver to people in parking lots and such without getting ID matching the original destination address, or for that matter delivering to people who do not appear to live in the abandoned property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course not.
What if that company only delivered for this one person?
Then it would be a completely different situation that has no relevance to FedEx.
Their employees would certainly be bending the rules pretty far to deliver to people in parking lots and such without getting ID matching the original destination address, or for that matter delivering to people who do not appear to live in the abandoned property.
I don't recall an accusation that they're delivering to a parking lot that's unrelated to the delivery address. Lots of addresses have parking lots, and I don't see what's wrong with someone meeting the truck in the parking lot. Whether the shipment requires ID is a different matter. And I don't think we want FedEx drivers determining whether a house looks abandoned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're disgusting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think it's just because he's a troll. Techdirt argues that FedEx shouldn't be held responsible, therefore he has to argue that they should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not interested in the guess of some shill. I want actual transparency. The citizens are entitled to a transparent government. A lack of transparency is a breach of the government's obligation to provide what we are entitled to - what taxpayers pay taxes for - and so the lack of transparency itself is corruption.
"The lack of a list of "illegal pharmacies" is unlikely to have anything to do with big US pharmacy companies being unwilling to come up with names."
This is nothing but worthless hearsay. Again, no one cares about your opinion about what you think is probable or not probable. I want actual transparency not mere guesswork.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And this is part of why I comment anonymously on this site. If I used a consistent name I'd have people like you launching ad hominem attacks at me all the time, simply because I said something you disagreed with once.
Nice transparency rant. What exactly does it have to do with this situation? The problem here isn't the government not being open about it's actions, the problem is that they're whining that FedEx didn't fucking help them violate the Fourth Amendment.
Oh shut up. All any of us are working on at the moment is guesswork. The most we have to go on is a federal indictment, which aren't famed for their completeness and objectivity. The "transparency" you're demanding here would be the actual evidence to be produced at trial assuming things get that far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
as you said
"The lack of a list of "illegal pharmacies""
That list would be part of being transparent.
"which aren't famed for their completeness and objectivity."
and perhaps they should be more complete and objective.
"The "transparency" you're demanding here would be the actual evidence to be produced at trial assuming things get that far."
There is a good chance FedEx won't even try to fight it, even if they can potentially win, just because the cost of a lawsuit is so expensive. The feds are probably seeking to settle. In which case the government should provide a whole lot more transparency. They should have to justify to the public why are they threatening FedEx with a long, drawn out, expensive trial if they don't settle for having to pay huge sums of money to the DOJ. I want answers and more transparency. What I don't want are your best scenario guesses.
"All any of us are working on at the moment is guesswork."
Which is exactly the problem. I want government transparency to work with and not just guesswork.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you're so obviously a shill I'm going to call you out on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ok, after reading through your original comment more carefully maybe you're right, I should shut up. It does appear you are not a shill. My apologies.
Having said that what I'm guessing might have happened, if the DOJ acted correctly (who knows), is the DOJ simply went online and ordered unauthorized drugs from an online pharmacy via FedEx. Upon being able to receive the ordered drugs they told FedEx this online company is delivering unauthorized drugs and to stop shipment from them and FedEx either failed to stop shipment at least one time in the future or the drug company somehow found a way around the block by getting the packaged delivered from another location. and to some extent rerouting the package is very difficult for FedEx to regulate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Some of these "local" companies have declared themselves foreign in order to avoid taxation then wag their finger at foreign products while being all self righteous about how US citizens are not paying enough in taxes. Oh, and then they get all huffy when put in the spotlight by media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You would be incorrect.
"So yeah, the bottom line is that the story here isn't about how much big pharmaceutical companies suck because medication prices in the US are high."
It kinda is. That's exactly what it's about.
More protectionism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is ironic as well considering the US government has US troops guarding opium fields in Afghanistan for use in the US sanctioned drug trade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
... according to the corporate owned media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jury
You should look up how grand juries work. As the famous line from Bonfire of the Vanities goes, a prosecutor can easily get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich." Most people have no idea how grand juries really work, but if you want a good (if depressing) description, read this:
http://www.popehat.com/2014/02/27/the-kaley-forfeiture-decision-what-it-looks-like-when-the-fed s-make-their-ham-sandwich/
The whole thing is worth reading, but here's a snippet that reveals that the grand jury does very little. Basically, prosecutors give it drips and drabs of info over many months and then says "indict!" and the grand jury rubber stamps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If this was the entirety of the salient facts you might have a point, but the factual allegations are far, far broader. Surely at some point even you would have to agree that a line is crossed and a company can reasonably be viewed as complicit in illegal transactions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's that? Can't find one? The function of checking the content of packages at the border belongs to customs?
Maybe they are just too busy groping people at the airports (soon to be features elsewhere) and cannot find the time to grope some packages (which is a whole lot less fun).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now, if you are dealing with a particular wackaloon "customer" on a particular delivery, it might be smart to ring up law enforcement. But then law enforcement needs to move very quickly and release the driver so everyone else can have their packages on time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So by that logic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So by that logic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ahem
wouldn't it be awesome to have your assets frozen by a grand jury of people just naturalized via amnesty by people that still cannot speak proper English, never-mind the fact that their knowledge of the law is worse than the average but commonly massively ignorant American?
Do you not yet understand why the dems want these people here? Not only do they vote to keep them in power, they also vote to put innocent people in jail or at the very least at odds with the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ahem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ahem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Response from FedEx...
"Hello, FedEx, may I help you? You want to ship a package? Certainly, that's why we're here! Where is it being picked up? DEA offices downtown? Oh, I'm very sorry. We can't help you. FedEx does not do business with the U.S. Government. You've not received any shipments through FedEx lately? The same reason. FedEx will not cooperate with the government in any way whatsoever. I'm sorry, ma'am. There's nothing we can do about it. The government is engaged in open and notorious criminal activity and under state law, we would would be aiding and abetting that activity. How can this be fixed? The government has to abide by the law and Constitution; it's that simple. I don't think that kind of language is appropriate to a conversation of this sort. You have a good day now, okay?
And the FedEx employee hangs up on the now-furious and embarrassed DEA agent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whom the feds try to protect here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shipping Documentation
International shipments will have customs declarations that describe the goods and their value so the correct duty can be assigned.
So if the shipments are coming from Canada or Mexico the area to look at is the customs declarations. If they are incorrect then the shipper/receiver can be hit with try to evading paying the proper duties. If the shipment is domestic there is currently no method to determine what is the contents are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shipping Documentation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shipping Documentation
Customs routinely opens and inspects packages. They reseal the boxes with tape that alerts the receiver that the package has been inspected (It's usually red). DHL and other couriers will also take that task on themselves, and they also use tape that alerts the receiver that the package has been opened and inspected.
As far as I know, the private couriers have every right to open and inspect packages at their whim. They often have to do this when a label falls off and the only way to possibly determine the final destination is to open the package and hope that paperwork inside points to the correct address. That's why it's a good idea to include a paper with the destination address inside of your package, in case the label gets lost or damaged.
I believe only domestic US Mail is protected from tampering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shipping Documentation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, because no seller of illicit items would ever be smart enough to think of putting some completely innocuous label on the parcel, such as "ACME widgets", rather than emblazoning it with their usual giant "JOE'S ILLEGAL DRUGS! 1-800-GANJA4U!".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get the DEA to ride shotgun
Huh, maybe they'll start singing once they get arrested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get the DEA to ride shotgun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's extremely depressing that America has come to the point where federal agencies are taking orders directly from wealthy plutocrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RENEGADE LAW ENFORCEMENT ON A MISGUIDED AND ILL FATED CRUSADE.
Who are these people that set themselves up like some Micro God demanding absolute blind obedience and offering total subjugation, deciding what is good for everyone. I object. The D.E.A.are a group of evil authoritarian sociopaths., Completely out of control and way over the top. Billions in public grant funds are being misdirected and commandeered by these Authoritarian Sociopaths. This is funds intended for the well being and benefit of the American people. Instead turned on the American people and used to buy entire weapons systems used for war,now targeting mostly pot smokers and the homeless and other victims. This theft of public funds must stop. The grant funding empowering them to make their war on the American people are funds taken from us all. The world had enough of these soulless creatures when the S.S. goosestepped onto the world stage during World War Two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please use 'principle' and 'principal' correctly
Principle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please use 'principle' and 'principal' correctly
Their are just two many people out they're using there words wrong too get to upset and loose you're cool about it.
Mini common examples exist of incorrect usage.
People pick the write words two use according too there porpoises.
But you'd have to be a fool to begin or end a sentence with the word "but".
And only an idiot would begin or end a sentence with "and".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please use 'principle' and 'principal' correctly
Whoa, careful! You're coming off as an idiot under your own definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Please use 'principle' and 'principal' correctly
Thank you for explaining the joke, that always makes it more funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As late comedian Mitch Hedberg once joked...
That's the important point, isn't it? FedEx doesn't know what's in the parcels it delivers, its job is merely to deliver them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inspection of containers
If it was all about FedEx delivering closed containers from A to B and there was no way to distinguish between child pornography and cat pictures, and the government attempted to hold the company strictly liable for the contents, the similarity to secondary liability on the internet would be appropriate.
But here, there is apparently information intrinsic to the contents the government argues FedEx has been ignoring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Inspection of containers
People need to stop pretending that corporations are people.
This is one area where that metaphor obviously breaks down as complaints can easily get bogged down in a beaurocracy.
This is much like expecting an email service or a web locker to dedicate the majority of it's resources to "detecting illegal activity". They have better things to do with their time and resources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not enough opportunity for graft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not enough opportunity for graft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not enough opportunity for graft
If you're going to bribe someone, it's going to be a Democrat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not enough opportunity for graft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hopefully the comments are searched. Tech Dirt shouldn't make readers have to do this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Operation Choke Point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since when should buying my own medicine be a crime?
Every day more people are coming to the judgment that a carefully organized effort to repair the constitution via the States' power to propose and ratify amendments has less risk to our liberty and prosperity than the present trajectory of the federal government and especially the federal bureaucracy.
The first order of business of an Article V Convention must be to limit government's ability to create and spend near-infinite amounts of money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes perfect sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Makes perfect sense
UPS / FedEx responsible -- because drugs!
ISP's responsible -- because copyright!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the only ones...
Betcha they do a lot of this stuff too-but they're not caught at it.
Because they have the right to look at the packages too if they think they're suspicious.
And Fed-Ex should fight this to the nail. Blackmail has its' limits.
How about also indicting the customers for receiving illegal drugs? Wouldn't that make more sense (but not more money, I guess)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the only ones...
How about also indicting the customers for receiving illegal drugs? Wouldn't that make more sense (but not more money, I guess)
That would be a lot of work. There are thousands or millions of recipients that would have to be tracked down, but only one FedEx.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More DOJ Shakedown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You gotta love the spin
As early as 2004, FEDEX couriers and customer service agents in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia expressed safety concerns to their management, including the following: FEDEX trucks had been stopped on the road by Amazon customers demanding packages of books; delivery addresses included parking lots, schools, and vacant homes where people would wait for deliveries of books; customers would jump on FEDEX trucks and demand Amazon packages; FEDEX drivers were threatened if they insisted on delivering a package to the address instead of giving the package to the customer who demanded it; and customers would use multiple names and identification documents to pick up packages of books.
I think it sounds absurd either way, but I'm not a DOJ employee looking to make a name for himself. At least they didn't try to add "using a computer to place a delivery order" and call it a cybercrime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quit FedEx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]