Australian Census Stirs Up Storm of Privacy Concerns (buzzfeed.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Next week over 20 million Australians will take part in a mandatory government census. While such data-gathering exercises are usually uncontroversial, some significant changes to the process of collecting the 2016 data -- and in particular the way in which personally-identifying information will be retained for long periods (possibly indefinintely) -- have left many privacy advocates and others calling for a mass boycott. The Australian government's response has been to try to calm fears by promising that it will secure the census data, keep personally identifying data separate from statistical data, and only use each in a responsible way. It has, at the same time reminded Australian citizens that the fines for non-participation in the census have recently been radically increased (now $1800 for failure to submit a form; or $180/day for late submissions).Further reading: Australians threaten to take leave of their census.

Comments

Re:10 days

[Anubis IV]

His skills seem fine. After all, "$180/day for late submissions" should tell anyone with decent reading comprehension that there must be a submission, because you can't have a late submission without having a submission. And in the case that there is no submission, a fee of $1800 apparently applies, just as he said.

Admittedly, it may not work that way in practice, which is what you seem to believe, but that's certainly the way that it's worded.

Re:In the U.S., why isn't this obsolete by now?

[PvtVoid]

You're aware that the census is legally mandated in the Constitution, right?

Re:What?

[EvilSS]

Who the heck actually participates in a census? And it is mandatory? You get fined? Is this common? You guys need to move to a civilized country like America.

It's mandatory in the US as well, although it hasn't been prosecuted since 1970. It's mandatory in virtually every country that has a census, including Canada, UK, France, Spain, and Ireland (where fines can go up to 44K euros).

13 U.S. Code 221 - Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers

(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.

(b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

(Aug. 31, 1954, ch. 1158, 68 Stat. 1023; Pub. L. 85–207, 15, Aug. 28, 1957, 71 Stat. 484; Pub. L. 94–521, 13, Oct. 17, 1976, 90 Stat. 2465.)

Re:Sounds a lot like the "ACS"...

[chihowa]

Ok, why not? Why don't they have a right to your name, your age, or even your citizenship? Where is collecting this information forbidden?

The usual answer to that question is right here:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In the US, any powers that are not explicitly delegated to the government are forbidden by default. The correct question is, "Where is collecting this information allowed?"

The answer to that question is in Article 1, Section 2:

[An] 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.

As that section is talking about taking a headcount for the purposes of representation, the intention was probably just to count the population. The exercise of the power is left up to Congress, though, so the current census is most likely constitutional. If nothing else, it would probably be defended using one of the elastic clauses.