CDR: Re: Congress proposes raiding census records.

Declan McCullagh declan at well.com
Wed Oct 25 06:45:36 PDT 2000


I didn't answer even that question. I did not return the form.

My result was the same as yours: No visits or inquiries. 

That's a shame. If I get fined $100, I can write a column about my
experience and sell it for much more.

-Declan


On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 04:08:42AM -0400, Lucky Green wrote:
> I only answered the first question in the last census: how many people live
> at that address (or something to that effect). The rest I crossed out with
> fat black permanent marker. The result: no visits from the census taker. No
> inquiries from the Census Office. No fine. No repercussions of any kind.
> 
> I am puzzled why anybody would have bothered to answer the remaining
> questions.
> 
> --Lucky Green <shamrock at cypherpunks.to>
> 
>   "Anytime you decrypt... its against the law".
>    Jack Valenti, President, Motion Picture Association of America in
>    a sworn deposition, 2000-06-06
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cypherpunks at openpgp.net [mailto:cypherpunks at openpgp.net]On Behalf
> > Of Trei, Peter
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 14:07
> > To: Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject: Congress proposes raiding census records.
> >
> >
> > Let us remember that the last time the privacy of
> > census records were violated on this scale,
> > they were used to imprison tens of thousands
> > of law abiding American citizens, whose only
> > crime was to have Japanese ancestry.
> >
> > Peter Trei
> >
> > -------------
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/23/opinion/23MONK.html
> > (free registration required)
> >
> > New York Times, 23 October, 2000
> >
> > My Data, Mine to Keep Private
> >
> > By LINDA R. MONK
> >
> >   WASHINGTON -- I was one of those paranoid Americans
> > who chose not to answer all questions on the long form of
> > the 2000 census. My husband and I decided that the
> > government did not need to know, or had other ways of
> > finding out, what time we left for work, how much our
> > mortgage payment was or the amount of our income that came
> > from wages. We were willing to risk the $100 fine to take a
> > stand for individual privacy in an increasingly nosy and
> > automated age.
> >
> > Editorial writers across the nation chided people like us
> > for being so silly, insisting that only right-wing nuts with
> > delusions of jackbooted federal invaders could possibly
> > object to the census. Think of all the poor women who need
> > day care and disabled people who depend on public
> > transportation, we were told. And don't listen to the
> > warnings of Trent Lott, the Senate majority leader -
> > they're just another Republican ploy to get a low count on
> > the census.
> >
> > Now, however, my concerns don't appear quite so
> > ridiculous. The Congressional Budget Office, with the
> > surprising help of some Congressional Republicans, is
> > angling to get its hands on Census Bureau files. The budget
> > office wants to create a "linked data set" on individuals -
> > using information from the Internal Revenue Service, Social
> > Security Administration and Census Bureau surveys - to help
> > it evaluate proposed reforms in Medicare and Social
> > Security.
> >
> > Under current law, census data on individuals can be used
> > only to benefit the Census Bureau, which has balked at
> > turning over files to the budget office without greater
> > assurances of individual privacy. However, the Congressional
> > number crunchers are not taking no for an answer.
> > Republicans may tack an amendment allowing Congress access
> > to census data onto an appropriations bill before Congress
> > adjourns for the elections.
> >
> > The records the budget office wants are not themselves from
> > the 2000 Census; they are voluntary responses to monthly
> > surveys, with confidentiality promised. Forcing the bureau
> > to give them up would set a disturbing precedent. Commerce
> > Secretary Norman Mineta, who supervises the Census Bureau,
> > warned Congress this month that amending the census law
> > would "seriously compromise" the department's ability to
> > safeguard taxpayers' privacy and "to assure continued high
> > response rates of the American public to census surveys."
> >
> > Chip Walker, a spokesman for Representative Dan Miller, a
> > Florida Republican who chairs the House subcommittee on the
> > census, sees no problem with congressional access to census
> > data. "The Census Bureau is the government, and Congress is
> > the government," he said.
> >
> > Well, that's exactly what I'm afraid of. It's not surprising
> > that a federal agency that stockpiles information would be
> > raided by other federal agencies. If Congress changes the
> > census law, the government will be well on its way to
> > becoming another Amazon.com, which abruptly and
> > retroactively weakened its privacy policy this year. I
> > expected as much, because I don't believe either the
> > government or businesses when they promise me
> > privacy. That's why I routinely lie about personal
> > information when applying for shoppers' discount cards and
> > the like. And it's why I don't answer invasive questions on
> > census forms. Keep your hands off my data set.
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 






More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list