are new postal regulations tied to government surveillance...?

[necso]

10. In March (my 20th year here),

I had to show (just) a recent utility bill (for the first time, I believe) as proof of residency in order to keep my free po box (it's a benefit that potentially costs the post office revenue); so I think that a "tightening up" of proof of residency (identity) is a broader phenomenon. But I don't know to what extent defining the required proof is up to the individual postmaster.

Also, I recently had some deliveries to arrange, and I was told that Fed-ex no longer serves this area (I don't know about UPS, but I haven't heard any delivery truck in some time, whereas before I heard them pretty regularly) -- and without my pob I wouldn't have been able to receive delivery (a huge problem for me).

As for the general delivery route, I had a buddy who tried this. It turns out that some places won't mail general delivery, or won't mail certain (eg, important) things general delivery. (And you have to get to the post office when there's counter-service.) In short, he had all sorts of problems as a result.

My take is that this is not so much a surveillance thing as it is a security thing (eg, to try to prevent certain mail fraud) -- and simply making it harder to receive a benefit that one is due. So I'd just conform (as I have in the past)... or at least appear to conform. (Maybe your landlord would be happy to sign a simple rental agreement: mine is just a one page standard form.)

...

On another note:

My condolences to one and all.