The U.S. Postal Service is in trouble. It’s been struggling with financial and structural problems for a long time, facing competition from private companies and paperless communication methods. Now, drastic changes are recommended. The Government Accountability Office placed the post office on the list of high-risk federal agencies in need of change, and the independent Postal Regulatory Commission recently released a list of nearly 700 metropolitan post office branches that may be closed or consolidated in the near future. In addition, the services offered by the U.S. Postal Service may be cut from the current six days a week down to just five. Already, some changes can be seen nationwide; the U.S. Postal Service is removing many of the mail drop boxes that can be found around communities, saying that the cost of maintaining them just isn’t worth the small volume of mail they collect.

What’s been bogging down the U.S. Postal Service that could lead to a situation like this? The recession is part of the problem, with overall postal revenues dropping. The dominance of the web is another hurdle, as most households with Internet access send emails instead of letters and pay at least one bill online, meaning less postage is spent to mail a check to the billing company. In fact, most of those who pay bills online cite environmental preservation as part of their motivation to go paperless, which is great news for the planet but bad news for the post office. The combination of these two factors has caused the single biggest drop in postal volume in the agency’s 234-year history, just in this past year alone. Less volume means less revenue, which also means having to cut postal routes, offer early retirement to workers and find other means to recoup the losses.

Some critics say that the U.S. Postal Service should have privatized long ago. They say that the bureaucratic nature of the organization has created a bloated, inefficient agency that would best be served by a complete overhaul. The post office is indeed trying to keep up with the times through online services and other means, but it hasn’t been enough. How could the post office have stayed in business this long with the Internet and economy taking bites out of its revenue?

The answer, unfortunately, is junk mail. Junk mail delivery has become the foundation of the U.S. Postal Service’s business model, with 800 pieces of junk mail delivered to each household per year. Junk mail alone hasn’t been enough to shore up the entire agency – the U.S. Postal Service reported a loss of $7 billion in 2008 – but it’s been a temporary fix that’s slowed the decline of the post office and allowed the government to put off revamping the system. Now, the overhaul can’t wait any longer, which may be good news for those who dislike junk mail (that’s pretty much everyone); changing how the U.S. Postal Service does business might help it end its reliance on junk mail, which might then lead to more options for cutting junk mail altogether.

It remains to be seen just what will be done to the U.S. Postal Service, but one thing is true: This is a new era of communication, and even post offices must evolve to accommodate the changes. As Geoff Caldwell of the Wichita Independent Examiner put it, “The postal closings will bring pain to some, inconvenience for others, and ‘change’ for all, but they will not bring the end of the world.”

In the meantime, you can stop your own junk mail, help the environment and cut down on your own aggravation by signing up for the Privacy Council’s list removal service. The service removes you from all major marketing lists and keeps you on the “Do Not Call” registry so that your telemarketing calls go down. Click here to get started!

I found a really great article on grist yesterday, written by Alan Durning. He’s long been a proponent of cutting junk mail and giving Americans and Canadians a choice to opt out with a Do Not Mail registry (similar to the Do Not Call list we already have). He made an effort to cut his own junk mail by subscribing to the Direct Marketing Association’s Mail Preference Service and by using Catalog Choice, but then he decided to do an experiment: How well would those two services alone really cut his junk mail? He decided to stockpile the junk mail he got for an entire year and see how it turned out.

The results, which he writes about here, were disheartening: Even after signing up for both of those removal lists, he still received 50 pounds of junk mail and unwanted phone books in a year. His article details the different kinds of junk mail he got and how much of each kind he received, but in the end, he was left with pound after pound of glossy catalogs, credit card offers and other unsolicited mailings.

Durning acknowledges what the rest of us know, as well: getting rid of junk mail is a hassle if you’re trying to do it yourself. Contacting the catalog companies and mailing services, asking them to remove you from lists, can be time-consuming and frustrating. He suggests the national opt-out service to keep people from having to deal with junk mail.

Another option is Privacy Council’s list removal service, which takes you off of all major marketing lists and KEEPS you off of them for a very low cost. You can sign up for the list removal service here and start cutting back on the pain in the neck that junk mail has become!

Searching for alternative energy sources is nothing new. We use energy in enormous quantities; the production and disposal of junk mail in this country alone each year uses more energy than running 3 million cars. What’s new is the latest attempt to tackle the energy crisis: collecting solar energy from the Sahara Desert.

According to Organicjar.com, if 0.3% of the Saharan Desert was made into a solar plant, “it would produce enough power to provide…Europe with clean renewable energy.” That’s a pretty promising projection, and now, 20 German companies are coming together to try to make such a solar farm possible. The Desertec Foundation is pushing for the alliance so that they can erect the solar plants across northern Africa. If it comes to fruition, this would be the largest solar installation in the world.

Inhabitat reports that this project is still 10-15 years from going online, but getting started now means laying the groundwork for growth. Desertec is not without critics, though… Inhabitat also reports, “Herman Scheer, President of the European Association for Renewable Energy is disappointed that these companies are considering such large scale projects and not distributed generation at the demand centers, and says that the Desertec project is ‘highly problematic’ due to sand storms, dealing with foreign countries, meeting deadlines and so on.” Still, many advocate large-scale projects as the quickest means to resolving the energy crisis, and there’s a chance that solar power from the Sahara is one of the first steps of this kind.

Another way to help with energy problems is to cut the energy we use every day. Turn off lights when you’re not in a room, unplug appliances you don’t need, and cut your junk mail by signing up for the Privacy Council’s list removal service. You’ll save some trees AND some energy; that’s great for the planet! Click here to sign up and get started with doing your part for the planet.

Myspace lawsuit: It was just over a year ago that we first posted about the Myspace suicide case. Lori Drew, a middle-aged Midwestern mom, allegedly created a fake Myspace account of a teen boy in order to harass 13-year-old Megan Meier, a neighbor girl who took her own life when her online “boyfriend” turned against her. Last week, Lori Drew was acquitted of the charges brought against her in the girl’s death, charges that revolved around violating Myspace’s terms of service when the fake profile was created. While most people agree that Drew is the bad guy in this case, they also agree that finding her guilty in criminal court would have set a dangerous precedent for the future.

If everyone who ever lied (or even stretched the truth) in an online profile could be convicted of a misdemeanor, the lawsuits would never end. And bullying with harsh words and body language is rarely a criminal activity; as this Wired article notes, “Bullying with no physical contact” is usually a matter handled by schools and parents, not the courts, and the fact that the bullying took place online doesn’t change the nature of the offense.

Drew will probably face a civil suit, and she’s already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. But there was no reasonable way to send her to jail for this case without creating a means for selective prosecution of others who don’t tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth when they’re online.

Craigslist: You’ve probably heard of the case of the alleged Craigslist Killer, Philip Markoff, who prosecutors say met women from the online classified ad site and robbed them, eventually killing one. His case is currently in the courts. But now, there’s a new story about Craigslist that has a similarly creepy vibe as the Myspace story above: A woman allegedly placed a sexually suggestive ad on Craigslist inviting interested men to email and then call a phone number. That number, as it turned out, belonged to a 9-year-old girl who was evidently the woman’s daughter’s “rival,” and she was setting up the little girl out of revenge because of a dispute between the two girls.

Roughly 40 men called the number, including 22 in a single day, looking for the “cute blonde” mentioned in the ad, the targeted girl’s mom said. The woman who allegedly placed the ad, Long Island social worker Margery Tannenbaum, now faces charges of aggravated harassment and endangering the welfare of a minor. This is quite a bit more complicated than the Myspace case above… Tannenbaum allegedly gave out the little girl’s home phone number to dozens of men who were looking for sexual activity on Craigslist. That could have placed the child in real jeopardy.

Tannenbaum pleaded not guilty, and she’s due back in court July 16. Her case is a clear example of why giving out a phone number isn’t always “harmless” or “in good fun.” If she is proven to have placed the ad, then she didn’t just pretend to be someone else and bully a teenage girl; she handed over a young girl’s personal contact information to every strange man, well-intentioned or not, who replied to the ad. This, clearly, is just one reason why privacy matters.

Want to do what you can to protect your own privacy? Sign up for the Privacy Council! The list removal service takes your name off of major marketing lists (so you get less junk mail), adds you to the government Do Not Call list, and helps you fight back against SPAM emails. Sign up today and reduce your chances of identity theft!

As early as tomorrow, the U.S. House of Representatives could vote on a cap-and-trade bill designed to reduce the impact of harmful greenhouse gases. And while most Americans are in favor of greenhouse gas regulation, not as many want to foot the bill.

The cap-and-trade bill introduced by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif) and Edward Markey (D-Mass) would set a limit on the U.S.’s greenhouse gas emissions while issuing or auctioning greenhouse gas “allowances” that can be bought and sold by people, companies or agencies as needed. Essentially, the bill would make greenhouse gas emitters pay for excessive emissions while providing encouragement for development of alternative energy sources. That extra cost could be passed along to consumers, with the prices of goods and energy potentially going up in price.

A Washington Post-ABC poll showed that 75% of Americans want greenhouse gas regulation, but while that support crosses party lines, it tends to divide by age, with younger Americans more in favor of regulation and cap-and-trade. It also divides by household income, as those who make less money are less inclined to support legislation that could raise prices on necessary goods and services (current estimates say cap-and-trade could cost the average household $175 more per year in 2020). Right now, 62 percent of Americans support regulation even if it raises the cost of goods and services, but that number drops to 56 percent when asked if they would support a $10 increase in utility costs. Still, that’s more than half of Americans willing to pay a little more out of pocket in order to reduce the output of harmful greenhouse gas emissions; that’s a very positive message to those who support “going green” and reducing our carbon footprint.

Some opponents of regulation are opposed simply on principle, believing that the government should not be regulating businesses. Others are opposed because they deny global warming, despite the overwhelming evidence across the scientific community. But in general, the public supports regulation even with the potential costs, and the bill’s sponsors are hoping to get a vote on the legislation before the July 4 holiday. Even President Obama is on board with the bill, saying that it will create jobs in renewable energy technology and help us protect the planet for our children. Sounds like a win-win to us.

Want to do your part to save the planet, cut energy use and go green? Cut down on your junk mail! The average household gets 41 pounds of junk mail a year, and the production and disposal of America’s junk mail uses more energy than 3 million cars! Sign up for the Privacy Council’s List Removal Service and stop getting the junk mail that wastes our energy resources and ends up in our landfills. Do you part today!

Yesterday, Congress approved the “Cash for Clunkers” program, H.R. 2346. All that remains is for President Obama to sign the bill into law, which he is expected to do. With this bill, according to Reuters, people who drive cars with poor fuel economy have the chance to trade them in for vouchers of $3,500 to $4,500, depending on the gas mileage they get.

The one slight catch: the money can’t be used for just anything. It must be used to buy a new, more fuel-efficient car at a participating dealer, which will have the dual effect of reducing auto emissions across the country and stimulating the struggling car companies. You might call it a win-win, for both the economy and the environment.

The program is expected to start in early August, implemented by the Department of Transportation. Not everyone agrees with the Cash for Clunkers idea, but as the Sacramento Scoop notes, whether you agree or disagree with the bill, Congress is spending a billion dollars on it in an effort to help families, car companies and the planet with one stroke. With any luck, the motivation to trade in old cars for fuel-efficient models will be helpful to those struggling with the rising cost of gas. As the National Automobile Dealers Association noted here, “With more fuel-efficient vehicles on the road, it will also help reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. A spike in new car and truck sales will also help communities that rely on the revenue from vehicle sales taxes and other fees to fill their budget shortfalls.”

Specifics about the Cash for Clunkers program, including a list of qualifying dealers and a chart describing the requirements for trade-in vehicles, can be found at cashforclunkersfacts.com.

And if doing something for the environment appeals to you (but you don’t have an old clunker to trade in), think about signing up for the Privacy Council’s list removal service! You’ll get less junk mail and fewer telemarketing calls, which means less paper in landfills and less stress for you. Sign up today!

Today’s the day: The long-awaited day, at least in broadcast circles. Today, TV goes completely digital.

If you watch any TV at all, you probably already know the details about this transition, but just in case you missed the news, here’s the deal. Today, TVs that receive an analog signal (those that use rabbit ears or antennae to get a signal) will no longer work. If you have a TV in your basement, guest room, etc. that uses rabbit ears and you try to tune in “The Price Is Right” today, you won’t be able to watch. If you have any form of cable or satellite (Charter, Time Warner, Direct TV, etc), you’ll probably be fine. Your TV will still work, although this NPR article notes that some of the analog cable channels will be taken back in order to make room for other services, so some cable customers might notice a few channels disappearing. Still, households that rely entirely on antennae are the ones who need to act right now.

If you use an antenna for your TV signal, there’s still a way to keep your reception: You need a digital converter box. They cost around $45, but the government is offering $40 coupons to be applied toward the cost. Each household can apply for up to two coupons at this coupon program site.

The original digital switch date was four months ago, but the administration pushed the date back in order to give people more time to get the needed equipment after the funding ran out for the converter box vouchers. The airwaves have been bombarded with news and updates about the coming switch, but even with that effort, experts estimate that there are still one million households not ready for the transition. This Associated Press article on Pilot Online notes that many people still do not understand the details of the digital switch, although the article also mentions that the public is far better prepared now for the transition than it was four months ago.

The date will not be pushed back any further, so hold-outs need to get their converter boxes or risk missing the Showcase Showdown. People with additional questions can visit dtvanswers.com to learn more.

For anyone who worries that the new converter boxes and the lack of analog broadcasting somehow means a reduction in personal privacy or security, fear not. The converter boxes are not a way for “Big Brother” to keep tabs on you, nor are they a way to control what you see and hear. A video that went viral a few months ago allegedly showed a man opening up his converter box to show a camera and microphone inside, but the video turned out to be a hoax. Of course, any widespread mandatory action such as this will spark conspiracy theories and tinfoil hats among the most skeptical of the population, but there’s no reason to worry this time around. Save the panic for the next flu strain.

Of course, if you DO want to protect your privacy, sign up for the Privacy Council’s list removal service. The service removes you from marketing lists (which send you junk mail) and puts you on the no-call lists (which means fewer telemarketing calls). Sign up today to start cutting down on these annoyances in your life!

Now there’s yet another reason to stay off the phone (and discourage those telemarketing calls): Cell phone elbow.

According to sources like U.S. News and World Report, cell phone elbow is described as a nerve condition that affects “high tech talkers.” People who spend long periods of time holding a cell phone to their ears, their arms bent at more than a 90 degree angle, are choking the blood supply to the ulnar nerve, a nerve in the arm that runs from the collar bone to the pinky and ring fingers. Eventually, the fingers get tingly, painful or numb. Compressing this nerve for long periods can lead to hand and forearm issues, including cubital tunnel syndrome (similar to carpal tunnel syndrome), with the worst case being loss of hand strength (the J-Walk Blog mentions that sufferers have trouble opening jars and playing musical instruments, among other challenges).

How can we prevent cell phone elbow? For starters, use a headset instead of holding the phone. If you must use your hands, switch hands frequently to allow your arms to relax and get back to normal. If you ignore the pain and tingling for too long, it could eventually require surgery and physical therapy to decompress the nerve, so listen to your body; if your pinky is feeling the pinch, put down the cell phone. After all, as Lifehacker wonders, how can we make cell phones less of a pain on our bodies? For now, the handsets aren’t exactly conducive to our health, and the impact doesn’t stop with cell phones… When you think about it, ANY phone, including a land line, can have this effect on our arm nerves. The problem is in the design, not in the calling plan.

Of course, the best way to avoid the impact of talking on a phone is to avoid talking at all. That keeps conditions like cell phone elbow at bay and also prevents the loss of focus that talking hands-free can cause, especially while driving. It’s almost impossible to avoid talking on the phone throughout the day, so use good judgment when you talk, and try to save the phone time for important conversations.

If you’re trying to make the minutes that you DO talk on the phone count, you probably want to cut down on any telemarketing calls you get. That’s where Privacy Council can help! Sign up for our list removal service, and we’ll make sure you’re removed from all the major marketing lists and placed on the Do Not Call list. Reduce your junk mail and your unwanted phone calls with our service today!

What’s new in privacy news this week? Here comes the roundup…

Wisconsin’s No Call List: Unlike the National Do Not Call list, where you need to submit your number just once to get onto the list of numbers that telemarketers can’t call, state no-call lists aren’t necessarily in effect forever. Such is the case with Wisconsin, where the list expires every two years. According to WEAU News 13, thousands of people have dropped off the state’s list since January. Those who sign up for the free service before June can make it onto the July 1 list, so if you live in Wisconsin, call 866-9-NO-CALL or click here to get your number back on the no-call directory. Fox 11 News reports that the list is updated quarterly, so if you don’t sign up by this Sunday, it’ll be a few more months before you can make sure you’re on the list.

DMV’s Do Not Smile Policy: According to USA Today, four states have now adopted policies prohibiting smiling in your driver’s license photo. Arkansas, Indiana, Nevada and Virginia are combating identity theft and driver’s license fraud by putting this policy into place, and others might follow suit. Why the lack of mirth in the photos? The states have new, high-tech software in place that compares new license photos to old ones in an effort to stop people from assuming others’ identities. But the software doesn’t work as well if the faces in the photos have anything but a “neutral” expression… after all, we look different when we smile. Other states claim that their software works just fine with or without a smile, but the reality is that facial matching software would, by nature, be far more accurate if the faces had the same expression. So far, 31 states use some version of this technology, and in Illinois alone, the system has stopped 6,000 people from getting fraudulent licenses since 1999. So if you go to the DMV, don’t get too annoyed if they tell you not to smile… Protecting your identity and decreasing the incidences of driver’s license fraud are worth it.

Tired of junk mail in your mailbox? Want to be placed on every Do-Not-Call List possible, and keep those lists updated? Want to aid in the fight against email spam? Then sign up for the Privacy Council’s List Removal Service. A small monthly charge ensures that your name is removed from all major marketing lists, and that your name is KEPT off those lists. Sign up now!

This morning on The Today Show, I saw a hilarious story: A new website, AwkwardFamilyPhotos.com, has become a repository for strange, uncomfortable and outright funny family photos. Users submit the photos (often under the guise of “anonymous”), and viewers get a chuckle. The Today Show staff even saw fit to Photoshop a fake photo of Matt Lauer to add to the slideshow fun (watch the video linked above to see it). Blogs like this one encourage people to submit their own hilarious photos to the site in order to add to the general amusement, and overnight, AwkwardFamilyPhotos.com has become a sensation. According to this blog, the site generates 2 million viewers per DAY and is fielding offers from book publishers.

While this website is a great idea for the sake of humor, it’s also a lesson in how posting personal photos on the Internet can backfire. Even a photo that you consider to be adorable, precious or beautiful might be someone else’s laughter-inducing image, so be prepared for that if you see fit to upload. It helps if you follow these rules every single time you post a photo on the Internet, regardless of which site you’re posting it on:

1. Don’t post anything that you wouldn’t want the entire world to see. Even if you’re posting with privacy settings or “friends only” viewing in a social networking profile, you still have to assume that somehow, a photo will get out to the general public. It just happens.

2. Don’t post photos of yourself doing anything remotely illegal, immoral or questionable; even if you think it’s a good idea now, you WILL regret it. That kegstand from last weekend? Awesome for you, but if you post the photo, it’ll be out there forever, certainly long past the age when you’ll be proud of kegstands. The same, of course, goes for photos of nudity, drug use, vandalism, etc. If it’s illegal, you just gave up the evidence willingly. If it’s immoral to the bulk of the population, you just impaired your chances of becoming a huge success in life (see: politicians, heads of major corporations, etc.).

3. Don’t post anything that gives away too many details about your identity (a photo with your home address on it, a photo with your full name or the names of your kids, etc.). Prudence is best when posting images, and you don’t want an identity thief using that info against you.

4. Be willing to laugh at yourself. After all, someone else probably is, especially if the photos are at all goofy, dated, and of course, awkward.