Wednesday, December 31, 2008
I couldn't let the year end without one last post. A few weeks ago my friend Oliver from the U.K. sent me a Christmas package. It happened to contain Christmas crackers. It was thoughtful of him to deduce that I had grown up with them but can't find them where I am now.
Unfortunately, Christmas crackers each contain a minuscule amount of gunpowder (which seems awfully 1650 to me). Apparently, gunpowder is a substance that can't be sent to the U.S. in any amount. The package was confiscated by customs.
On Friday (two weeks after customs took the package), I got a call from UPS saying that the package was being held. I had to either fax or email my consent for customs to remove the crackers and release the package. I'm pretty uncomfortable with the government pawing through personal packages (because I don't think there is much restraining the people from doing the pawing from having sticky fingers or worse), though I understand the need to protect the system for the use of everyone. Still. And there was one more twist -- the charge to remove the crackers (and hopefully tape up the package again) was $77, payable on delivery, by check only (which I don't have, so I have to remember to go to the bank to get a cashier's check -- errr). The other option was to abandon the package, and I wasn't about to let government workers take home whatever other goodies might be in the package.
So if the crackers made it from China to England in the first place, and since firecrackers are freely available here and contain far, far more gunpowder, what's the big deal with crackers? It's just enough gunpowder to make a loud bang, but not enough to even spark a fire. How are Christmas crackers a threat to national security? I can understand if some bomb sniffing dog flagged the package, but once opened, wouldn't humans see that the amount is harmless?
A blanket policy like this is penny-wise but pound-foolish. A blanket policy reduces human error, but it also snuffs out human adaptation and freethinking. By reducing the guidelines to securing mail service (including courier services like UPS) to a stiff set of rules, this opens the system to exploitation, and I would argue, leaves it less secure.
Unfortunately, Christmas crackers each contain a minuscule amount of gunpowder (which seems awfully 1650 to me). Apparently, gunpowder is a substance that can't be sent to the U.S. in any amount. The package was confiscated by customs.
On Friday (two weeks after customs took the package), I got a call from UPS saying that the package was being held. I had to either fax or email my consent for customs to remove the crackers and release the package. I'm pretty uncomfortable with the government pawing through personal packages (because I don't think there is much restraining the people from doing the pawing from having sticky fingers or worse), though I understand the need to protect the system for the use of everyone. Still. And there was one more twist -- the charge to remove the crackers (and hopefully tape up the package again) was $77, payable on delivery, by check only (which I don't have, so I have to remember to go to the bank to get a cashier's check -- errr). The other option was to abandon the package, and I wasn't about to let government workers take home whatever other goodies might be in the package.
So if the crackers made it from China to England in the first place, and since firecrackers are freely available here and contain far, far more gunpowder, what's the big deal with crackers? It's just enough gunpowder to make a loud bang, but not enough to even spark a fire. How are Christmas crackers a threat to national security? I can understand if some bomb sniffing dog flagged the package, but once opened, wouldn't humans see that the amount is harmless?
A blanket policy like this is penny-wise but pound-foolish. A blanket policy reduces human error, but it also snuffs out human adaptation and freethinking. By reducing the guidelines to securing mail service (including courier services like UPS) to a stiff set of rules, this opens the system to exploitation, and I would argue, leaves it less secure.
posted by KaOs at
12/31/2008 05:26:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home