OTOH, the annual 1099-SSA still shows the full SSN. It’s the document I plan to use when I try to get my Real ID driver license next year.
You might think twice if you’re a Seinfeld fan.
I did an internship at a federal public defender’s office while in law school. It was not uncommon to see postal workers charged with stealing birthday cards for the $20 bill. (maybe you could say “uncommon,” but not unheard of). I was there less than one academic year and I recall about three such cases.
I wish more people and organizations would use secure envelopes. Instead they will mail you a check with a clear window for the address that shows the check inside!
I had a lottery ticket that won too much to collected at a retailer and needed to be mailed in. I thought they would be discreet about mailing my money back to me, nope. It came back in the mail in a white envelope with red lettering clearly showing Oregon State Lottery and with a clear window showing that there was a check inside! I could not believe it.
I use security envelopes in order to adhere to HIPAA privacy requirements in my business.
When I’ve had to mail something like a check and didn’t have a security envelope, I’ve just put the check in a blank piece of 8.5" x 11" paper folded in thirds. Between the paper and the envelope, I don’t expect it’s possible to read the contents.
This is an odd question. People can and do steal mail from personal and public mail boxes all the time looking for checks and money. It’s so prevalent that they recently redesigned and replaced all the mailboxes in my City to make it harder for people to do so. Security envelopes make it harder to see what is inside.
Woodstock doesn’t even know how to read.
Good one! 
I think another important purpose concerns people whose mail is opened and sorted for them by staff. It signals that different rules may apply, meaning rules the person and staffers have already agreed to, but it signals the use of different rules.
By the way, 1st amendment rights don’t prevent the government from censoring you, they just prevent Congress in particular from doing so. The executive branch until recently censored us pretty severely with Executive Order 13950, as an example.
That’s not true. The first amendment absolutely applies to the executive branch. There are certainly some legal scholars that have advocated for this position, but as far as I know, the courts have not accepted it.
Here’s a law review article about it.
https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2130&context=plr
For all that has been written about the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, Free Speech Clause, and Free Press Clause, surprisingly little has been said about the Amendment’s first word: “Congress.”1 But in the last few years, the grammatical subject of the First Amendment has finally gained attention from constitutional scholars, especially those of a textualist orientation. These scholars have advanced the claim that the First Amendment, according to the plain meaning of its text, constrains only the legislative branch. “The simple fact is that the First Amendment by its terms does not apply to executive or judicial actions,” write Gary Lawson and Guy Seidman in their 2004 book The Constitution of Empire.2 “That fact may be out of step with modern sensibilities, but it is a fact nonetheless.”3
You’re agreeing with me, aren’t you? You quoted “The simple fact is that the First Amendment by its terms does not apply to executive or judicial actions,” write Gary Lawson and Guy Seidman in their 2004 book The Constitution of Empire.2 “That fact may be out of step with modern sensibilities, but it is a fact nonetheless.” This is what I just said.
Quoting the Constitution itself, “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech […]”
It’s about Congress in particular.
You’re agreeing, aren’t you? Or do I completely misunderstand your post?
I quoted an article that agrees with you. Personally, I don’t. And I don’t know of any court that does.
I acknowledge there’s an argument for that position. But I think that would be terrible policy, and questionable constitutionally.
Yes, it is because mail thieves look for cash and checks.
Executive Order 13950 applied only to Federal agencies and contractors. The more expansive interpretation of what the executive branch can and can’t do is New York Times v. United States.