Postal regulations require that PS Form 1093, Application for Post Office Box Service, contain updated current information for each box holder. Customers that receive mail in a Post Office Box must be listed on the PS Form 1093 and each person must have two forms of verifiable identification.

Attached to this letter is a new PS Form 1093, please complete the form and hand it to any of the window clerks at the post office. When you do so, you will be asked to show two types of acceptable identification, one bearing your photograph. The identification presented must be current, must contain sufficient information to confirm that the applicant is who he or she claims to be, and must show your street address. Acceptable identification includes valid driver's license, State non-driver's license, armed forces or government ID, university or recognized corporation ID, passport, alien registration card, certificate of naturalization, current elase or mortgage, deed of trust, voter or vehicle registration card, and home or vehicle insurance policy. Credit cards, social security cards and birth certificates are not acceptable forms of identification.

Each person over the age of 18 that receives mail in the post office box should accompany you to the post office and show two types of ID. We appreciate your cooperation, and apologize for the inconvenience.

I don't like having to do this, especially since my driver's license has a ghost address. I wonder what would happen if I simply didn't file the form? Or maybe just let the PO Box go? What's the point of it if you can't have privacy?

... If this problem were mine, I would start advising everyone of a new address. Eventually, the USPS may not follow up but if they did, I'd let the box go.

I have PO boxes also but to date have never received such a request.

However, what the courts and the police seem to be missing in planting GPS data collectors is that in order to do so, a PHYSICAL TRESPASS to your private property is required. Placing an object, any object, on or in your vehicle without your permission is a criminal trespass and a civil tort. So is retrieving the device. A warrant should be obtained before committing such trespasses.

That being said, two things come to mind: Garage your vehicle and buy a "bug sweeper" that can detect the IF (intermediate frequencies) emissions of the GPS receiver and sweep your car regularly.

All radio receivers actually generate radio frequency emissions to some degree. The process of receiving a radio transmission like a GPS signal requires circuitry that operates at radio frequencies and emits detectable electromagnetic signals, just like the keyboard on your computer. This is why your keyboard is susceptible to a "Tempest Attack" wherein a snoop can use a specially-tuned highly sensitive radio receiver to detect the electronic signals from your keyboard, thereby collecting all your keystrokes.

I don't know what the IF frequencies are for GPS receivers, but some research by those concerned should reveal enough information to buy or build a "sniffer" that can be used to detect the presence of a GPS tracker. If, of course, that's something you're worried about.

First, a GPS tracking device on a vehicle only proves that the VEHICLE traveled to various destinations. It doesn't prove who was driving the vehicle.

Second, the courts have previously held that things like repossessions of a vehicle for nonpayment of the car loan (for example) cannot be executed when a vehicle is parked inside the "owner's" locked garage (keeping in mind that in the case of a repo, the owner isn't really the owner, the bank holding the note is the owner, but regardless, the courts have upheld that a locked garage is not an acceptable place to perform a repo from). I would think that a driveway *might* be an extension of the garage, since it is personal property. Maybe not. Did I mention I'm not a lawyer? (yet...)

Anyway, I see at least a couple different angles that a defendant could appeal the Wisconsin ruling from. Please don't interpret my looking for loopholes implies in any way that I'm approving of stalking behavior, only that I'm totally against the idea that a tracking device could be legally attached to anybody's person or possessions without a court order.

Excerpt from the article: " Jesse Jackson’s FEC reports list payments as being made to J. Donatella & Associates, which Bryant described as “Sandi’s sole proprietorship” for her consulting work. The couple’s oldest child is 9-year-old Jessica Donatella Jackson.

From 2003 through mid-2005, the recipient is shown on Jackson’s reports as “Lee Stevens” or “Lee Steven” at the J. Donatella firm. Sandi Jackson’s middle name is Lee. Her maiden name is Stevens.

Different Names

“Using all these different names to describe the same person raises questions as to whether they’re intentionally disguising information on their FEC reports,”

Submitted Link #1: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtons...

... Using various names is perfectly legal ... unless fraud is involved. And when it comes to anything involving Jesse Jackson ...