Will Your Answers To the Census Stay Private? 902
Hugh Pickens writes "James Bovard writes in the Christian Science Monitor that Americans are told that information gathered in the census will never be used against them and the House of Representatives, in a Census Awareness Month resolution passed March 3, proclaimed that 'the data obtained from the census are protected under United States privacy laws.' Unfortunately, thousands of Americans who trusted the Census Bureau in the past lost their freedom as a result. In the 1940 Census, the Census Bureau loudly assured people that their responses would be kept confidential. Within four days of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Census Bureau had produced a report listing the Japanese-American population in each county on the West Coast. The Census Bureau's report helped the US Army round up more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans for concentration camps (later renamed 'internment centers'). In 2003-04, the Census Bureau provided the Department of Homeland Security with a massive cache of information on how many Arab Americans lived in each ZIP Code around the nation, and which country they originated from — information that could have made it far easier to carry out the type of mass roundup that some conservatives advocated. 'Instead of viewing census critics as conspiracy theorists, the nation's political leaders should recognize how their policies have undermined public faith in government,' writes Bovard. 'All the census really needs to know is how many people live at each address. Citizens should refuse to answer any census question except for the number of residents.'"
first post? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't have anything to worry about right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1x American here
Useful to whom? The racists who care about skin? (Score:5, Insightful)
Useful to whom? The racists who care about skin color in Washington?
Skin color is about as much use as eye color or hair color, except to racists.
So much for Martin Luther King's wanting to be judged on the content of the character instead of the color of your skin.
Re:Useful to whom? The racists who care about skin (Score:5, Insightful)
Medical researchers who would like to know the demographics of an area and how they affect various health issues
Demographers who research race/ethnicity and a whole host of things
i could go on, but you've clearly got an axe to grind.
Keep tilting at windmills.
Re:Useful to whom? The racists who care about skin (Score:4, Insightful)
Then they can do their own damned study and spend their own money to do it rather than piggyback on a Federally mandated study.
Re:Useful to whom? The racists who care about skin (Score:4, Insightful)
Then they can do their own damned study and spend their own money to do it rather than piggyback on a Federally mandated study.
umm...i thought techies hated re-inventing the wheel?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US Census is for and should only be used for Congressional seats (congressional apportionment), electoral votes, and government program funding
Re:Useful to whom? The racists who care about skin (Score:5, Insightful)
Says who? The US Constitution thats who says what the US Census is for.
Article 1, Section 2: "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."
You want more data collected and used in different ways? Change the Constitution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Constitution doesn't work that way. It doesn't prohibit them asking for more information, and other clauses imply that so long as it isn't prohibited expressly or implicitly then there is no problem as long as it serves a legitimate government purpose.
being able to anticipate how diseases might affect the population certainly falls under a legitimate government purpose.
Just because the American Libertarian Party tells you incorrect information about the constitution doesn't make that information correc
Re:Useful to whom? The racists who care about skin (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how the Founding Father's interpreted that? Well, let's see the questions that Thomas Jefferson asked on his 1790 census.
From here: http://www.gengateway.com/census/1790_census.htm [gengateway.com]. Hmm. I suspect Thomas Jefferson may have had a better idea of what the Constitution meant than the libertarian fanatics who suggest breaking the law (it is illegal not to answer every question on the Census, and wastes taxpayer money as they to hire more people to come to people's doors and find stuff out).
Just for comparison purposes, let's take a look at the 2010 short-form census that the vast majority of people are receiving.
, like the age and DoB one, are from the 1800 census. Others, like the naming question, are a later addition because it was found that asking for names helped people list the correct number of people. But all in all, it's pretty much the same census the Founding Father's took. You're also missing the "in such manner as they shall by law direct" clause. Sure sounds to me like Congress can direct the Census people to ask more and different questions according to the Constitution. [census.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Look like someone needs to actually read the section again:
Article 1, Section 2: "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."
This end part of the section explicitly gives them the power to ask for other information as it is directed by law.
Re:Useful to whom? The racists who care about skin (Score:4, Insightful)
They can ask, you don't have to answer - by the 4th and 5th amendments. The only authority is for an enumeration. Look it up, you will find it means counting.
I believe you don't know how to read the Constitution. 10th amendment and article 1 section 8. It's a limited government with enumerated powers. If it were unlimited, god help us all.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I am not at all seeing your point. How does A1S2 of the Constitution prohibit asking demographic information?
Did you forget to quote an extra clause which says "and don't ask about race, because that doesn't jive with my preconceived notions of what the Constitution should say, even though it doesn't"?
Re: (Score:3)
In context of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, the census is only to count free people (perhaps citizens) to allot representatives.
Wake me up when representatives are allotted by race or sex.
Re:Useful to whom? The racists who care about skin (Score:4, Funny)
Wow. I want whatever census form you got.
I remember doing the census in 2000. It was a small booklet taking about a week of evenings to complete. I don't remember the questions off hand, but I do remember having to do a lot of research. There was a lot more there than the obvious questions of how many people at this address, how old are they, what are their ethnic origins.
And after taking the time to complete and return the census form, I still got a phone call to answer all the questions a second time.
I haven't opened the form for 2010 yet, but I'll make this wager.
When I get home tonight, I'll open my census form. If contains only the 10 questions you list above, I'll post a link to youtube for the video of me eating my census form.
Re:Useful to whom? The racists who care about skin (Score:5, Informative)
I mentioned neither Republicans nor Democrats. Progressivism, both big- and -small p versions, cuts across party lines: Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican, Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat.
However, you're simply wrong about the major parties and the Civil Rights Act. Democrat LBJ pushed the 1964 Civil Rights act through Congress, after Democrat JFK introduced it, and a majority of both Democratic and Republican Representatives and Senators voted for it [wikipedia.org]. The split was strictly a North-South one. ("South", here, being states once under the control of the terrorist group that styled itself the "Confederate States of America".)
Both Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans were opposed to it, and Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans, in favor. (Though a slightly greater percentage of Southern Republicans opposed the bill, and a slightly smaller percentage of Northern Republicans supported it, than geographically comparable Democrats.)
I invite you to check your facts before you accuse someone of "Fail!" Because now you look like a total ass.
You need to stop getting your history from Glen Beck, friend. The Progressive Era -- big P -- was from the 1890s to the 1920s, it didn't come into being in the '20s. And if you want to label Theodore Roosevelt a commie, well, good luck with that.
I just love the way that right-wing loons have started lumping communists and fascists together, despite the fact that one of the primary attributes of fascism was anti-communism -- fascism was the right's counter-move to the Russian Revolution. It's almost as much fun as the way they complain about people talking about class warfare, while promoting the actual practice of that warfare.
And if you think socialism necessarily implies a powerful central government, you need to read this [blackened.net]. (And also have a look at this [k-1.com].) State socialism is not the only form of socialism.
It's capitalism that requires a strong government, to create and defend artificial property rights. Many socialists believe in a small government -- Marx himself, wrong as he was about so much, believed that under his philosophy the state would eventually wither away, unneeded.
Re:Useful to whom? The racists who care about skin (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Different skin colors usually mean different race, which usually means minor differences in physiology, which may mean different types of medicine. If you think that's racist, then do so at risk of your own health.
Also, turns out different hair colors are best served by different types of hair products. Don't know about whether eye color makes any physiological difference, but I'd be surprised if it didn't.
Pretty much all external physical traits are related in some way to other physical traits, some of whi
Re:first post? (Score:4, Interesting)
White Male, 30
I don't have anything to worry about right?
Depends. Are you communist, libertarian, atheist, gun-clinging fundamentalist Christian, or Irish?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Libertarian, 2nd Amendment Loving, Fundamentalist (but not xian), Mostly Northern European Mutt Mix.
I'm Libertarian, because I don't want people telling me what gun I can or cannot own, What religion I can or cannot belong to, and my heritage is such a mix I have no allegiance to any nationality except Constitutional US of A (which has long since been whittled away).
I don't like big government, big corporations, and big unions. I don't like people who make policies based on things like race, color, creed, p
Re:first post? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the submitter is worrying about the wrong thing.
The answers could have remained private (as in remained within the Government), but the Japanese-Americans still rounded up.
It's not great comfort when the general public, criminals and Corporations don't have access to your census info, but the Government still kicks in your door at 3am and bundles you away just because you happened to have filled in the "race" field with the "wrong race of the day".
Race: Pikes Peak Hill Climb :).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exdUD02JryI [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you don't really understand MLK's version of civil disobedience.
He would have not filled out anything he didn't believe he should, and take the consequences. He wouldn't just be an asshole w/in the rules in an effort to not get caught. In your way, no one notices, so no one cares, so you don't even make strides to make a difference.
My Race: "(o) OTHER: 1/4 Polish 3/4 Italian
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
RUNNER!
Oh, and for those interested... (Score:3, Informative)
The actual form can be seen online here. [census.gov]
I agree (Score:5, Funny)
And the fact that Glenn Beck has said the same thing makes me feel dirty. Ugh.
Re:I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Same here. But he said not to answer the race question because liberals value minority lives over white lives.
Re:I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, I can't see any other reason for collection of this data. The government should be 100% color blind. Why collect race data unless you plan to give one race(doesn't matter which) preferential treatment? If you don't plan on providing differential services based on race, why would you care what my race is?
Someone explain this to me. Please.
Re:I agree (Score:5, Interesting)
Ever heard of a white person with Sickle-Cell Anemia? (yes i know it can happen, not very likely)
How about a black person with melanoma? (yes i know it can happen, not very likely)
Just because you don't know the beneficial to harmless uses of the data doesn't mean it must be "omg bad!".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The hang up is the sort of race-based round-ups which have occurred in the past, and which some advocate today. The CDC can easily obtain general area-related racial statistics without involving the census. The purpose of the census is purely to record population. And sickle cell is not a contagious disease, so it hardly needs "controlling". I cannot think of a reasonably high profile (eg actually worrisome) contagious disease which is strongly race-influenced in its effects or infection rate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You really think the banks don't already have that information?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have a clue what it's like to be born into and grow up in a ghetto. You can't even imagine waking yourself up to go to school, not having breakfast, being half asleep all day from the sirens and the gunfire and the fights from the night before, and then going back home straight into your room, because it's simply not safe to be outside.
White guy here; Yes, I do know what it is like. Not all white people are rich. I grew up poor, in a predominately Mexican and Black neighborhood.
White kids absol
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Politicians value those who vote for them over those who do not.
Liberal politicians value liberal voters over conservative voters.
Statistically, minorities are more likely to be liberal and whites more likely to be conservative.
Liberal politicians value minorities over whites.
Do you really think the politicians care if those who do not vote for them are alive or not?
I've got it! (Score:3, Interesting)
Since we're facing a real possibility of insurrection from the tea party secessionists, let's encourage them to refuse to answer the ethnicity question on the census. Then we can do a sort for all those who've failed to answer that question, and march 'em to the FEMA camps!
Is Beck a double agent?
You know what's really sad? (Score:5, Insightful)
I no longer expect any privacy from my government. I want it, and I think it's fucked up that I don't have it...but I no longer expect it.
What the hell has happend to us as a country? Has it always been this fucked and we just have the means to know about it now? Or were things truly better back int he day?
Re:You know what's really sad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Yes it has. As have all countries, everywhere, since the dawn of man. The only real difference now is information flows faster than ever before in history. So the general populace is aware of all the f'ed up stuff much, much faster. In the past it could take months, if not years or even decades, for this information to reach the ears of the people.
Re:You know what's really sad? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. I think we actually had more privacy in the past only from a practical point of view. Before computers, and back when the government couldn't afford massive buildings full of employees, it was simply impossible or impractical to gather much data to be used against us. Today you can have one guy in the CIA decide to gather/analyze data and have thousands of people immediately help.
So I think privacy rules have gotten stronger, but technology and government size have made privacy weaker.
Re:You know what's really sad? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You know what's really sad? (Score:5, Interesting)
What the hell has happend to us as a country? Has it always been this fucked and we just have the means to know about it now? Or were things truly better back int he day?
This quote reminds me of a skit I saw on The Daily Show. Jon Stewart showed various clips of people saying, "Life today is not like it was when I was a kid." Stewart than proceeds to look at each decade and ends up showing that every decade had some screwy problems. As the conclusion, Jon Stewart commented, "So...if all the previous decades were screwed up, what is it that made [those people] say that life was better?" He concludes that it was because those individuals were CHILDREN during those decades. As a child, we're protected from a lot, we don't have critical thinking and reasoning skills that is obtained in early teenager-hood, and we don't have to fend for ourselves (of course, this is not always true for some children, unfortunately).
So, your statement probably comes from the same spot is my guess. Of course, I don't know how old you are, but my guess is that your "back in the day" involves some time in your early, childhood/teenager years when you really have no worries, no mortgage, no taxes, don't have to worry about your next meal, or whether you'll have a job, haven't been jaded by bad relationships, and your hardest decision is what sugary cereal to eat in the morning.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if you were not a child, you look back to the past with some blinders and 20/20 hindsight.
First you have blinders where lot of your daily worries are cleared from your memory and the emotion attached from it is gone. Do I feel Stress about that project I did 10 years ago. No I go back and laugh at it. That and if I go to analyze problems in the past I can go back with much more advanced thought process then I had at the time, As I know how it will end. During the beginning of the Iraq war, Most am
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The voters voted for lying, deceiving, power-hungry, corrupt crooks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The voters voted for politicians.
Fixed that for you
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I no longer expect any privacy from my government.
Pretty sure the US Government (I'm not sure which Government you're under; you didn't specify) never promised you privacy in the first place. You could change that with a Constitutional Amendment, but it wouldn't be easy.
What the hell has happend to us as a country? Has it always been this fucked and we just have the means to know about it now? Or were things truly better back int he day?
It's always been fucked, and in fact it's better now than at any time i
Re:You know what's really sad? (Score:4, Informative)
"Women used to be chattel, we had slaves, corporations had private armies that could kill striking union members with impunity, young children were forced to work twelve-hour shifts in factories and mines, American Indians were slaughtered by roving army units and bands of vigilantes, mob lynchings were commonplace, college was available only to the very rich, antibiotics and blood transfusion hadn't been invented yet, and so on. Heck, at the outset, only white male landowners could vote."
Thanks for that People's History rant, but it isn't true.
Women in the US were never "chattel", sure they couldn't vote for a while but they could own property, divorce, have a job, own land and pay taxes they sure got to pay taxes. The middle and upper class Southern woman all but pushed the Southern society into the Civil War and shamed the men into volunteering to go to war.
Some states had slaves, some Indian Tribes had slaves, not everyone in the United States did and at the time many countries had slavery or serfdom.
Corporations did hire some private security forces, they they weren't "armies" anymore than the striking workers were "revolutionary vanguards".
Child labor sucked, no doubt about that.
"American Indians were slaughtered by roving army units and bands of vigilantes". Sand Creek is the only instance of this where there was a real "slaughter" of civilians by "roving army units". In the course of the Great Plains and Southwest Indian Wars from 1859-1900 there were roughly 13,500 American Indian fighters and never more than 10,000 US Army and Marine Corps personnel in the theatre, in combat the casualty rates were about 1:1.5 in favor of the US Army. The Indian Wars were not great slaughters and its insulting to the memory of the soldiers and warriors who fought on both sides to call it that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Please accept my apologies for impugning the memory of the racist thugs who stole an entire continent from its rightful owners.
According to the traditions of human beings (especially the traditions of Native Americans): If you conquer it, you ARE the rightful owner. Take a history course NOT taught by a rabid "Your country sucks and I'm the only one to teach that!" evangelist, for once. Until 100 years ago, wars were fought for keepsies. Educate yourself on history to the point where you can exhibit a shred of empathy, rather than this 1-dimensional, self-righteous indignation. Then, perhaps, you can comment on the state and af
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Judging inter-societal conflict and history through the same morality used to describe individual behavior makes for great righteous indignation, but poor history.
Human history is a story of cultural migrations full of bloodshed. Every piece of land owned by a society was taken from another society. The Americas were full of warrior tribes and ethos... who were they fighting before the white man arrived? Cortes' invasion was successful because he started an uprising against the last warlike conqueror. Europ
There are no other questions (Score:5, Informative)
I got the census papers. Besides the obvious: what's your name, race and address there are no other questions. I can lie about race if I wanted to because it's saying which race you consider yourself to be part of. I'm not a US citizen, yet I consider myself part of one of the races on the list. If you're afraid you're going to be corralled up, you could do the same thing, say you are "Other" or whatever is closest to your skin color (African-American/Negro (yes that's one of the options on there) for anyone not-white and not-native american)
All other questions (SSN, birth date, birth place) are not part of the census so if anyone asks they are not acting on behalf of the census office.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Human is a race. Write that in.
Re:There are no other questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Human is a species.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:There are no other questions (Score:4, Funny)
What if I'm only humanoid.
Re:There are no other questions (Score:5, Informative)
Re:There are no other questions (Score:4, Interesting)
Speaking as a livestock breeder, your pedigree (which is to say, genealogy) may be the only clue in tracking down a genetic disease and perhaps the major clue in finding a cure.
And if you know your family is at-risk as carriers of some lethal defect, it provides the data you need so you can purposefully marry an outcross (unrelated person) to reduce the chance of producing dead children.
Also, it can be interesting for its own sake to know where you came from, especially since personality traits are as much inherited as are physical traits.
Much more rarely, your genealogy may determine that you are due, say, an inheritance. Turns out that courtesy of an ancestor 6 generations back, I'm an heir to a Welsh castle (no kidding, I am) -- if only I care to pay the back taxes on it!
BTW the census bureau does have a policy of not releasing much of this info until after the people are dead, which is why genetic studies usually need to do their own footwork.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Greetings and Salutations,.
You must be very, very young. I say this because youth is mostly self-centered, and, uncaring about history, family, etc. However, to answer your question, genealogy IS very worthwhile. As a following post points out, for anything from genetic questions to inheritance questions. Beyond that, and, perhaps more importantly, it can give a person a clearer perspective on their place in history, and how that might influence their lives
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There ain't no such critter. All "blacks" -- technically "Negroid [thefreedictionary.com]" in ethnology -- entered the Western Hemisphere from Africa (eventually), either brought as slaves early on (1400s - 1800s) or as immigrants later. African-American and Native-American doesn't refer to just U.S. people. The "American" part refers to all of North, Central and South America.
"Native American" covers all ethnicities that were native to the pre-Columbian Western Hemisphere. Everything from Inuits up north down to the Mapuche o
Only Box the Census Taker Will Check For Me is... (Score:2, Funny)
[ x ] Gun Owner.
If he's smart enough and fast enough.
Re:Only Box the Census Taker Will Check For Me is. (Score:4, Funny)
Will census data stay private? (Score:5, Interesting)
The real question is, does it matter? Ok, so census data is kept secure. What about every other form you've filled out that asks the same questions, or similar questions. Or just plain ol Google datamining?
What difference does it make if this data over here is locked up tight when this same data over here is plastered all over the interwebs?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure it could happen... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course the government could abuse that information, but what is the record like? Besides 1940, are there any other situations where the data was used to locate an individual? The 2003 situation mentioned is not an abuse. Providing demographic information is standard operating procedure for the Census Bureau, and a lot of good can be done with that information.
So if 1940 is the only case of census information being used to locate individuals, I'd say their record is pretty good.
...and it did. (Score:3, Insightful)
So if 1940 is the only case of census information being used to locate individuals, I'd say their record is pretty good.
1940 is a case where census information was used to round up an entire ethnic population and relocate them and strip them of all belongings despite assurances that census information would remain "private", which I'd say pretty much destroys any credibility of such assurances forever.
Of all the people counted by the Census over the last century (not including re-counts of same people), tha
Just the number of residents? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps in 1790 that's all the census needed to know (that and how may slaves you owned), but it's a far different situation now.
Then amend the constitution to empower the government to collect more than an enumeration.
Re:Just the number of residents? (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps in 1790 that's all the census needed to know (that and how may slaves you owned), but it's a far different situation now.
Then amend the constitution to empower the government to collect more than an enumeration.
Article I Section 2 - The House
... The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. ...
Article I Section 8 - Powers of Congress
... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Maybe you ought to actually RTFC (Score:3, Insightful)
Per Article 1, Section 2: "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."
In other words, the government already has the power to ask what they want to ask in the Census. You people who want the Constitution to spell out in detail every activity the government might need to do crack me up. The Constitution is supposed to be an overall guide for r
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm white, but i'll see myself as Hispanic or african-american and record that on the census then, recognize a lower income etc, and anon encourage all the people living in my state to do the same.
That way we'll get more funding right? Since there will be more "lower income" families in the area, and they'll all be minorities (on paper).
Not that i'm about to do it... but just a thought....
Re:Just the number of residents? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, even Jefferson in the first ever census saw the value in obtaining extra information. He pushed for more than just number of people, although that was the doctrine provided by the constitution. Were his motives pure evil? I doubt it. Government has reasons for what it does, which often conflict with the citizens best interest ( real or perceived ) and has always pushed the limits on every process that has been available, even the super-freedom-loving-and-creating-founding-fathers.
I gave them my address and number of residents.
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
What bullshit. The privacy protections regarding census answers were put in place AFTER the Japanese internment camps as a RESPONSE. This summary reads as is those protections were disregarded in that roundup, and then darkly speculates on what could have been after 9/11, if those privacy protections had been disregarded.
Slashdot isn't far from freerepublic these days, in political leaning or critical thinking.
this and other meaningful questions (Score:2)
Will your answer to the census stay private?
Will your health-care premium grow extensively and will the new 'reform' get blamed for it?
Will the people make assumptions about you based on your 'political association'?
Will the corporate interest together with the government involvement ensure that the economy finally ends in a total collapse?
Stay tuned to get the answer to these, and other meaningful questions.
Aggregate data = No privacy (Score:5, Informative)
They say that they won't release your information for something like 85 years, but they do release aggregate data. In the 2000 census, there were complaints that it was possible to determine individual answers from the aggregate data because they were releasing data for very small areas. I think it was by Zip+4, which narrows typically narrows it down to fewer than ten houses.
For me, I'm not concerned about the privacy, but I take offense at being asked to identify as being of a specific race. Whatever happened to the Great American Melting Pot?
Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
To give a hypothetical example, it would be like if you were a neilsen family but refused to fill out info about the tv shows that you liked and then complained when they got canceled.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
The quote in the slashdot summary doesn't advocate refusing to fill it out. It advocates not filling anything out other than the number of residents, which is all that's needed in order to determine congressional districts, etc.
The slashdot summary is about the use of racial information. The government doesn't need to know what race I consider myself to be in order to govern effectively.
No, a correct analogy would be if you volunteered to participate int he Neilsen ratings, filled out the information about the TV shows you watched, but refused to give Neilsen any information about your race.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Haha, that's the best point ever. Indeed, that's why they're supposed to live in their district. See how well THAT gets enforced... :(
As it stands, the race/income demographics just get used for gerrymandering. So while the theory that it's for our benefit is good if applied by the good and true, in fact it winds up being used solely for the benefit of politicians' election campaigns.
Obligatory (Score:3, Insightful)
-Ayn Rand
What does this say about America? Read this [huffingtonpost.com] for a good overview of technology's intertwined relationship with the failings of geopolitical advancement of privacy. Basic summary: it isn't technologies fault for privacy lost, its the people who regulate it.
To quote:
"The attacks of 9-11 challenged our country in new ways. But perhaps the biggest challenge was whether we would safeguard both our country and our Constitutional heritage or whether we would have weak leaders who were unable to protect the country without sacrificing our freedoms. Regrettably, we found that our political leaders lacked the ability to uphold our laws. For electronic surveillance, they pushed aside the judiciary and asserted the President's authority to intercept the private communications of American citizens within the United States. Even with the broad powers of the Patriot Act, the White House grew impatient and colluded with the telephone companies to disclose private customer records without legal basis or judicial review."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you have a country/world willing to post all their info online, there is no problem with privacy because no one cares any more. There are plenty of good reasons to want pri
I exist (Score:2)
Chalk me up for another person who just listed:
3 Americans live here.
Not to defend the US government... (Score:5, Informative)
But:
1) Saying that census data will 'never be used against you' and 'are protected by US privacy laws' is nowhere near the same thing.
2) The NY Times article about Arab Americans in each ZIP code was using publicly available data from the census. As with medical records, the data used by DHS was deidentified.
So in the end, I have faith that the answers I give will stay private, though I understand that information that identify me as a community will be available - that's one of the points of the census!
Who advocated rounding up the arab population? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Conservatives" wanted to round up arabs? Do you have a single shred of proof for this or are you basically a Truther or Birther at heart, with nothing but paranoia to offer us?
No-one wanted to "round up arabs" since that would have been stupid and done nothing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I refer you to this article [amconmag.com] from, wait for it, The American Conservative [amconmag.com]. Read the last paragraph. Here is the relevant part:
Such information could have made it far easier to carry out the type of mass roundup that some conservatives advocated.
And while we're on the subject of rounding up people, here's a neat goodie [thinkprogress.org] to show the mindset of at least one "con
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Who advocated rounding up the arab population? (Score:4, Informative)
hate to reiterate the AC - but Ann Coulter did advocate this. The right has some serious reactionary pisspantses among its ranks these days.
Re:Who advocated rounding up the arab population? (Score:4, Insightful)
My privacy won't be violated (Score:4, Interesting)
I didn't give them any information to leak or misuse. The constitutional purpose of the census is to count people, not to figure out who rents vs. who owns their homes, or what their age/race distribution is. So that's what I gave them. A complete and accurate count of the people living in my home.
Per Title 13, they could fine me $100 for failing to complete the form. I don't think that'll happen, but it's worth $100 to me to stand on the principle.
True but ignores later laws (Score:3, Insightful)
But the thing about America is that we FIX problems when we realize that we made a mistake.
After World War II, American realized what a horrible thing we did with the Census and we changed the laws.
Now, it is illegal for information from the Census to be given to any other government agency. Specifically:
Immigration is NOT allowed to get the information.
The Internal Revenue Service is NOT allowed to get the information.
FBI and local cops are NOT allowed to get the information.
I myself am always a bit paranoid about giving out information, but the promisses the US government has given are about as extreme as it is possible to get. It is true that governments can ignore their own laws. But if you won't trust the US government after it wewnt that far to fix the problem you are worried about, then you should leave this country.
Because if you are concerned about them rounding you up in the future after they change the laws, then you should be more concerned about them rounding you up TODAY for failing to obey the existing laws
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A letter included with the census form states:
“Federal law protects your privacy and keeps your answers confidential (Title 13, United States Code, Sections 9 and 214). The answers you give on the census form cannot be obtained by law enforcement or tax collection agencies. Your answers cannot be used in court. They cannot be obtained with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. As allowed by law, census data becomes public after 72 years (Title 44, United States Code, Section 2108).”
is tha
Census Info Ultimately Becomes Public (Score:3, Interesting)
The census isn't just about counting (Score:3, Insightful)
For crying out loud... (Score:3, Insightful)
So let me get this straight. The data was publicly available, and the Bureau was getting in heat for... sorting it?
A six year old story about an eight year old NOTHING.
I routinely waste five minutes of time, but this block I particularly regret.
Sometimes your census data is used for good... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Protected by law" (Score:3, Insightful)
And remember this when they say the information is "protected by law": Laws can be changed. (Yeah, I know that sounds obvious, but how many foolish people are assuaged by being told "don't worry, your privacy is protected by law.") They're just words on paper, the government changes them all the time, and most of the time it just breaks them without even bothering to change them.
Want to protect your privacy? Don't share information. Once it's out there, it's out there.
I think the Census Bureau is fibbing (Score:3, Insightful)
In the instructions with the census form it says that the information on the form cannot be used in a court of law. However, at the same time it says that completing the form is required by law.
So the obvious question is, if the form cannot be used as evidence, how can they prove that I did not complete it?
Either the law is not enforceable, or they are lying when they say it cannot be used as evidence.
Not this again... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the third census I've participated in as an adult, and the fourth for which I was old enough to pay attention to the media/hype around it. And in each and every one, wingnuts from all over the political spectrum have crawled out from under their respective rocks and foamed at the mouth over the government intrusion into private lives.
Give it rest guys. Your claims don't stand up to a moments dispassionate scrutiny. The interment camps were nearly seventy years ago. We've learned since then.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's hope you're right. Personally, I still wonder if one of the reasons that it hasn't happened since is that there hasn't been the same scale of war since then.
Privacy Act of 1974 (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, we did a lot of crazy things in the 40's. Misuse of census data, treatment of japanese americans, tuskegee airmen.
What the @ssholes who are spouting this propaganda forget is there ARE privacy laws in place to prevent misuse of data.
It IS illegal to do now in ways it WASN'T then.
I'm an Immigrant (Score:3, Interesting)
Uncle Sam already knows this and much, much, much more about me.
Census Data private? (Score:3, Funny)
Will Your Answers To the Census Stay Private?
No.
--- Captain Obvious
Just One Race -- American (Score:3, Informative)
The constitution authorizes the Federal government to conduct a decennial enumeration of the people, but it also forbids racial classification of the American People. The Census Bureau has allocated one-quarter of the space on this year's census form to questions about race and ethnicity, which if not unconstitutional, are clearly contrary to its spirit.
Question 9 on the census form asks "What is Person 1's race?" (and so on, for other members of the household).
I will answer Question 9 by checking the last option -- "Some other race" -- and writing in "American." It is a truthful answer but at the same time is a way for me as an ordinary citizens to object to unconstitutional racial classification schemes.
"American," was counted by the Census Bureau when it reported the results of the 2000 census. In fact, the number of people answering "American" grew from 12.4 million in the 1990 census to 20.2 million in 2000, "the largest numerical growth of any ancestry group," according to Wikipedia. "American" was the most common answer to that question on the 2000 census in four states and several hundred counties.
It is a violation of the law to lie or to not answer a question on the census form, that is why I will answer question 9 with "American". Some people maybe tempted to check an inapplicable box. But lying in this constitutionally mandated process is wrong. Really -- don't do it.
If you are not a member of an enrolled tribe, don't check Native American -- they won't count it.
Cutesy answers such as "human" or 100 Yard Dash will not be counted by the Census Bureau.
So remember: Question 9 -- "Some other race" -- "American". Pass it on.
If you are hassled about answering American by the census bureaucrats or the ACORN minion who comes to your door, you have legal support for your answer:
"In the eyes of government, we are just one race here. It is American."
Justice Scalia, concurring in Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995).
One word: FRAUD (Score:3, Informative)
In the end, the first U.S. Congress decided on one central principal of that first census: VERIFIABILITY. Each household would be associated with a specific district or ward. Each household would be identified by the name of its head of household. Each household would be thus be able to be visited by Census Bureau verifiers who could verify that the census as reported by the local judicial district was actually accurate. If the roster you got back from the 3rd Ward of Virginia said there was a Howard Mathers in district 3 who had one male, one female, and two children living in his household, you could go to district 3, ask around for Howard Mathers, and verify that he actually had four people living in his household.
The 1850 Census occurred at a time when representation was especially important because the South had already made secession threats and was threatening to inflate their Census counts in order to gain more representation in Congress. In addition, the population had grown such that it was possible for there to be two heads of households with the same name in a judicial district. So the 1850 Census was the first to require not only the name of the head of household, but the names and ages of all members of a household too, which allowed Census workers to uniquely identify which of the households headed by Howard Mathers that they were actually talking to. Census Bureau checkers could then come behind and not only locate the Howard Mathers who had five children listed below his name (as vs. the childless Howard Mathers), but if Howard replied that he only had four children, they could verify which of the children was missing and ask, "What about Jeffie?" At which point Howard says, "Never heard of him", or Howard says, "Oh, yeah, I forgot, he hadn't moved out yet then," or Howard says, "He was living with Aunt Mahoney over in the 5th ward at the time" and the verifier can then update the count accordingly.
So that, in a nutshell, is why the Census has asked for at least the name of the head of household ever since the very first census in 1790 -- it's all about verifiability.
Disclaimer: I worked for the Census Bureau as a contract verifier in 1995 during the Census Test that was validating the forms and procedures to be used during the 2000 Census. And yes, I did find inaccurate data in places, generally from people the original census takers could not find or the original census takers misread an address and put one family at an address they didn't live at while missing the family who actually lived in that address. Verifiability allowed us to correct these errors. Without verifiability, you're stuck with the same nonsense that is computerized electronic voting, where you can never validate that the data actually corresponds to real physical people rather than just being an artifact of computer bugs or hacking...
Re:Those that make the laws... (Score:5, Funny)
"Bad" vs. "worse" (Score:3, Interesting)
Compare and contrast these "concentration camps" with the Nazi version of "concentration camps".
Ah, so we're to compare and contrast "stripped of all worldly possessions and incarcerated for no wrongdoing whatsoever", vs. "stripped of all worldly possessions and incarcerated for no wrongdoing whatsoever, plus torture & death". OK, so one is bad and the other is worse - that does not relieve the former of being bad.
Re:Did you catch The Daily Show and Colbert Report (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you actually read the 10 questions [census.gov]?
Questions 1, 2, 5, and 10 are all simply checks to make sure that the respondent really did, indeed, list all residents of the household (which isn't straightforward in all cases -- think roommates at college, for example).
Questions 6, 7, and 9 have all been asked since either 1790 or 1800 and are basic profiling questions. Don't like it? Complain to the almighty Founding Fathers. Question 8 (are you Hispanic) is necessary to make question 7 (race) make sense in a modern world.
Question 3 (your phone number) is to allow easy follow-up; if you don't include it, I don't think the bureau will care unless there's something they can't understand with your report (illegible handwriting, most likely), in which case they'll have to knock on your door to fix it (which costs far, far more of your tax dollars than a phone call).
Question 4, which has been asked since 1890, is the only one that I agree isn't really necessary.
The ten minutes the Census Bureau says this form will take is a gross exaggeration. Two is more like it -- far more than it took me to write this response or you to complain about it.