What am I not getting here?

I just don't get this. Recently I went to the post office to mail a package, and was told I had to provide a return address on it, since 9/11, of course.

Okay. But they didn't say whose return address I had to provide, and they didn't ask for identification. Just a return address.

In a handsomely paid (I'm guessing) President's Commission finding, the post office will now require a valid return address to identify the sender.

"The Postal Service, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, should explore the use of sender identification for every piece of mail," said the Commission's report.

That frightens civil liberty advocates, such as Chris Hoofnagle, deputy counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

"People should be able to send an anonymous letter to the editor or an anonymous love letter," said Hoofnagle. "That shouldn't be lost for questionable gains in security."

Use your noggin Hoofnagle. Just put your neighbor's address on it, or your congressman's. Geez. Have you never pulled a fast one before?

In fact, the recommendation and the post office's acceptance of it seem to be limited to bulk mailing, according to this article that quotes Mr. Hoofnagle. How many bulk mailings of love letters does he send I wonder.

The President's Commission report, subtitled "Making Tough Choices to Preserve Universal Mail Service," dismissed such concerns, saying that most people wouldn't mind sacrificing anonymity for national security.

No doubt. And most people are fools. Because they'll give up the former, but they certainly will not be getting the latter.

Mercy. We are a stupid lot.