Trying to get change of address dataset, USPS

[Ian Elwood]

This is the data that USPS collects from the change-of-address forms, in aggregate.

http://www.usps.com/ncsc/addressservices/moveupdate/changeaddress.htm

The "NCOALink" dataset is available through certified licensees of the USPS, but tends to be over $500 for a yearly subscription.  The NCOALink dataset is mostly used for people sending bulk mailings so they can find out where people moved to and update mailing lists.  I am trying to get this data for my partner, who is studying the impacts of foreclosure on housing at UCB, but can't cough up the dough to buy a subscription.

Wondering if there might be a way to get it free, since the USPS is a Federal agency.

--ian--

[Aaron Swartz]

We've been trying to get this too thru the FOIA process but they've
been stonewalling and refusing. I'd be happy to pay $500 for it but I
believe it's more like $50,000.

[M. Edward (Ed) Borasky]

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Ian Elwood <iane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wondering if there might be a way to get it free, since the USPS is a
> Federal agency.

Try sending a letter for free. Try sending bulk mail for free. Report
back on your success or lack thereof.
--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
http://www.linkedin.com/in/edborasky

I've never met a happy clam. In fact, most of them were pretty steamed.

[Ian Elwood]

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Ian Elwood <iane...@gmail.com> wrote:
  

Wondering if there might be a way to get it free, since the USPS is a
Federal agency.
    

Try sending a letter for free. Try sending bulk mail for free. Report
back on your success or lack thereof.
  

Not sure what you mean by this. 

[M. Edward (Ed) Borasky]

What I mean by this is that the Post Office *sells* the database. They
do that to cover the expenses incurred in making it. If it cost them
time and money to create it, you shouldn't expect to get it for free.

[Jeremy Dunck]

On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 10:57 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
<zzn...@gmail.com> wrote:
....

> What I mean by this is that the Post Office *sells* the database. They
> do that to cover the expenses incurred in making it. If it cost them
> time and money to create it, you shouldn't expect to get it for free.

Except that selling one copy doesn't deprive them of the ability to
sell more. What if 1MM people wanted it? Would the be justified in
charging the same price they do now?

And isn't the cost of creating the database a requirement of them
doing business? Can they perform their core, taxpayer-provided
mission without the information?

[M. Edward (Ed) Borasky]

On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Jeremy Dunck <jdu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Except that selling one copy doesn't deprive them of the ability to
> sell more.  What if 1MM people wanted it?  Would the be justified in
> charging the same price they do now?
>
> And isn't the cost of creating the database a requirement of them
> doing business?  Can they perform their core, taxpayer-provided
> mission without the information?

I don't believe the "core mission" of the USPS is taxpayer-provided.
It was originally, up until the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations.
I forget the exact details, but Eisenhower changed part of the
equation and Nixon finished the job. There is some kind of Federal
linkage still -- I believe the USPS has to report to Congress
periodically on its financial situation. But it isn't a
"taxpayer-subsidized" entity any more and hasn't been for decades.

[Jeremy Dunck]

On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 11:20 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
<zzn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Jeremy Dunck <jdu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Except that selling one copy doesn't deprive them of the ability to
>> sell more.  What if 1MM people wanted it?  Would the be justified in
>> charging the same price they do now?
>>
>> And isn't the cost of creating the database a requirement of them
>> doing business?  Can they perform their core, taxpayer-provided
>> mission without the information?
>
> I don't believe the "core mission" of the USPS is taxpayer-provided.
> It was originally, up until the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations.
> I forget the exact details, but Eisenhower changed part of the
> equation and Nixon finished the job. There is some kind of Federal
> linkage still -- I believe the USPS has to report to Congress
> periodically on its financial situation. But it isn't a
> "taxpayer-subsidized" entity any more and hasn't been for decades.

Did you deliberately miss my point? I concede that my wording was poor.

[Ian Elwood]

Yes, he probably did.  Ignoring the troll in 3...2...1...

[dsachs]

Just in case it's helpful to someone else here, I figured I'd add my
brief experience with USPS and FOIA. I filed a FOIA request with the
USPS for a different data set, which they denied on, among other
grounds, the argument that the information requested constituted
exempt information under FOIA Exemption 3 (information of a commercial
nature that wouldn't be disclosed following 'good business
practice.').

And I quote from the FOIA denial letter:
"In determining whether Exemption 3 applies, the statutory term 'good
business practice' is interpreted with reference to the normal
practices of private businesses. Private sector delivery firms are
not governed by the FOIA, and are not required to respond to requests
from members of the public for information pertaining to their
customers. Therefore, if the Postal Service were to release the
requested information pursuant to the FOIA, it would be releasing
information that would not likely be disclosed by private sector
delivery firms. The information requested here would likewise not be
disclosed by private delivery firms in the normal course of their
business, and therefore is withheld from disclosure."

IANAL, but my understanding is that this is an incorrect reading of
the law, at least in CA, OR, WA and HI (the jurisdiction of the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals). This view of FOIA by the USPS was the
subject of a court case in California, and my understanding is that
the Court specifically rejected this line of reasoning (and the
proposition that the USPS is not a governmental entity). The decision
is here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/10/15/0516159.pdf

The plaintiff, Doug Carlson (an attorney with lots of experience
tangling with the USPS, see
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/26/AR2006062601420_pf.html
and http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/09/04/MN179295.DTL),
filed a FOIA request for locations and hours of USPS facilities, which
was denied on the grounds that it constitutes "commercial
information." He sued, lost at the District Court, and won in the 9th
Court of Appeals. The court held first that the information requested
was not commerical in nature, and, contrary to the USPS' assertion
that it is governed by a standard that would be applied to a private
business, it is treated as a governmental entity. There are still
other grounds upon which the USPS may deny a request, but, if I read
it correctly, at least in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction, the "a
private business wouldn't disclose this" and "we're like a private
business" argument was rejected.

HTH,

Davd

[kimo]

Another attempt by USPS to use Exemption 3 to prevent access to salary info

 

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/31913799.html

And here for a some recent Exemption 3 FOIA cases government wide

http://thefoiablog.typepad.com/the_foia_blog/exemption_3/