Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the con-census dept.

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.

33 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. 10 days by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2

    ... (now $1800 for failure to submit a form; or $180/day for late submissions)....

    So if a person is more than 10 days late in submitting the form, it is cheaper not to submit it at all?

    1. Re:10 days by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:10 days by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2

      Please sharpen your reading comprehension skills.

      Perhaps you should heed your own advice.

  2. They are asking for it by npslider · · Score: 2

    "Australian government's response has been to try to calm fears by promising that it will secure the census data"

    Sounds like an open invitation to 'evil hackers' everywhere to 'come and get it', waving a red flag saying - we have the mother-load here for the taking!!

    1. Re:They are asking for it by ls671 · · Score: 2

      Yep, there was a typo in the summary it should have read:

      "Australian government's response has been to calm fears by promising that it will try to secure the census data"

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    2. Re:They are asking for it by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

      The other thing I'd wonder about is what kinds of questions are they asking, and why do they need all that data? In the U.S., the census is only supposed to be for one purpose, enumeration of representatives in Congress, but they ask all sorts of nosy questions that have nothing to do with that.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    3. Re:They are asking for it by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      U.S. Census data is hella-useful. I use it for a lot of modeling, along with public record of the Federal Government's spending and of income sources from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    4. Re:They are asking for it by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Funny

      we have the mother-load here

      Mother Lode. Refers to gold & silver mines, and that sort of thing.

      On the other hand, you might have been referring to triplets, which could be described as a "mother load".....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:They are asking for it by pla · · Score: 2

      You have confused "useful" with "I give a shit". I can think of a million "useful" data-points to have on every single American. That doesn't mean you have any right whatsoever to collect or access that data.

      More importantly, you should keep in mind that such data has a serious sampling bias - It selects for people 1) bored enough to fill it out, 2) not at all concerned with their privacy, and 3) who have never heard of Japanese-American internment camps.

  3. Sounds a lot like the "ACS"... by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ...the American Community Survey. Theoretically, answers are required by law, but no one's been prosecuted in over 40 years. In fact, the legal theory argument that the survey is constitutional has never been tested in court.

    We got it a couple years back and I refused any information beyond what the regular census requires. I got a phone call where I explained I didn't trust them to secure my information. So far, I haven't been prosecuted for it, nor have I heard back from them. Came down to it, I'd be okay with being the test case.

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    1. Re:Sounds a lot like the "ACS"... by pla · · Score: 2

      We got it a couple years back and I refused any information beyond what the regular census requires.

      Ditto. The (US) government has the right to a count of people for apportionment of representation. They have fuck-all right to anything more than that, not my name, not my ethnicity, not my education level, not my phone number.

      Now, I don't know how Australia sends these out, but in the US, the ACS gets sent to an address, not to a specific person. That would make it somewhat hard to actually fine someone (particularly in a multi-unrelated-adult household) for not filling it out.

    2. Re:Sounds a lot like the "ACS"... by ls671 · · Score: 2

      In my city, they even do census for cats and dogs with somebody actually knocking at your door only for that purpose. Next; goldfish census!

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    3. Re:Sounds a lot like the "ACS"... by JeffOwl · · Score: 2

      The government can make the same argument they make for every other invasion of your privacy, such as Safety checkpoints (DL & insurance check), immigration checkpoints 75 miles inside the US, etc... "The government has a compelling interest in XYZ that outweighs the minor impact to citizens' right personal privacy." And the courts will buy it.

    4. Re:Sounds a lot like the "ACS"... by chihowa · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  4. In the U.S., why isn't this obsolete by now? by kheldan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know about Australia, but here in the U.S., they shouldn't bother/insult people's intelligence with a 'census' anymore, they should just ask the NSA for access to their snooping database; don't they already know every little detail about every person, living or dead, within the U.S. now? Seriously, if they're going to treat us like some combination of convicts in a prison and animals in a zoo, they should at least use all that illegally/immorally-collected data instead of inconveniencing us with some stupid survey to fill out. Honestly, if they're going to spend my tax dollars to stick their little brown noses (and other body parts) into my business, they should at least make as much use of their ill-gotten data as possible and not bother me.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:In the U.S., why isn't this obsolete by now? by PvtVoid · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    2. Re:In the U.S., why isn't this obsolete by now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fun fact: the US government doesn't even know how many people are citizens of the country.

      People whine about how slow liberals are at throwing out illegals, but the fact of the matter is, unless you can positively match a person with a foreign visa or they admit it, it's impossible to prove a person is not a citizen. There is no database of citizens to reference.

    3. Re:In the U.S., why isn't this obsolete by now? by ls671 · · Score: 2

      You missed the point: The census is there to find out if you tell the truth. If you lie, you get put on a blacklist of enemies of the country.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    4. Re:In the U.S., why isn't this obsolete by now? by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      Of all the unjustified responses that will compel me to slap someone upside the head repeatedly, "Because we've always done it this way" comes out on top every time.

      The most powerful single-word question in the known universe is Why, which my example exemplifies.

    5. Re:In the U.S., why isn't this obsolete by now? by geekmux · · Score: 2

      Fun fact: the US government doesn't even know how many people are citizens of the country.

      People whine about how slow liberals are at throwing out illegals, but the fact of the matter is, unless you can positively match a person with a foreign visa or they admit it, it's impossible to prove a person is not a citizen. There is no database of citizens to reference.

      Impossible to prove? And the Social Security database and/or birth certificate database are somehow incapable of this?

      Yes, there ARE data repositories for validating citizenship status, so enough with the excuses. I have no idea how or why you feel the burden of proof is somehow impossible to determine by our government officials.

    6. Re:In the U.S., why isn't this obsolete by now? by penguinoid · · Score: 2

      And does the Constitution say the census must be conducted door-to-door salesmen style rather than by the plethora of other ways we have to know how many citizens live in which district?

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    7. Re:In the U.S., why isn't this obsolete by now? by PvtVoid · · Score: 2

      And does the Constitution say the census must be conducted door-to-door salesmen style rather than by the plethora of other ways we have to know how many citizens live in which district?

      Sacre bleu! Why didn't those dolts at the Census Bureau think of this!

      Oh, wait, they did: The 2020 Census Operational Plan includes a goal of "Knock on doors only when necessary".

  5. Re:How much is the fine for false information? by jarkus4 · · Score: 2

    "The ABS will certainly try to force compliance—fines range from AUS$1800 (~£1,000 or ~$1,370) for providing false information to AUS$180 per day for failing to submit the form. But the agency will have no real way to verify the answers provided by those who do complete the form as accurate. Failure to vote in the Federal Election last month resulted in only a AUS$20 fine."
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

  6. Just a matter of time now. by Dust038 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Quote from Article: Australian Minister for Small Business Michael McCormack told reporters on Wednesday that there has “never been a breach of the actual census data, [and] the ABS assures us that this won’t happen into the future. They have assured me as the minister responsible, they’ve assured the government, that they have every protocol in place, every process in place to ensure that there isn’t a breach this time.” ^ That's how you incite someone to now break into it.

  7. The same Census. . . by Salgak1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    . . . told people not to list their religion as "Jedi"

    Oz, you KNOW what you must do: make the Census FEEL the Power of the Force. Or at least that of the Farce. . . .

  8. Re:What? by EvilSS · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.)

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  9. Re:How much is the fine for false information? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

    Mandatory voting laws should be handled by writing yourself in.

    --
    Support my political activism on Patreon.
  10. Re:JEWS. Need I say more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Donald? Is that you?

  11. Re:How much is the fine for false information? by ewibble · · Score: 2

    mandatory voting is OK as long as long as the following options are available:
    1. None of the above you are all bunch of self serving morons.
    2. How the hell should I know? I haven't got enough information to make an informed decision, so you want me to vote to introduce random noise in the vote to distill the vote of people who actually care. Go major parties.

  12. Re:What am I missing here? by ls671 · · Score: 2

    Yeah right, just do your own research. Many sources available.

    Start here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Hum, no mention of the Mormons on that page, so you must be right, right?

    Now search what "Latter-day Saints" and "Brigham Young University" are. Search who Joseph A. Cannon and John Sittner are.

    You will end up realizing that my post was entirely correct. I have never said there was direct or "official" ties between ancestry and the Mormons but as I said, everybody knows what I wrote in my first post.

    Are you trying to hide something? If so why? I vouch for being straight forward and clean.

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  13. Re:How much is the fine for false information? by Dantoo · · Score: 2

    Correct.

    You can put anything on the ballot paper you like. The requirement is that you attend a polling station and have your name recorded as having receiving the ballot papers. You don't even have to do this on election day. There are a number of pre-poll options and absent voting provisions. They make it so easy that it isn't a drama.

    Election days are more like a giant picnic barbeque these days anyway. There's more live broadcasting of what food is available at the polling stations than political comment. Every local charity sets up a stall outside the boundary and it's more like a street market than a serious national plebiscite.

  14. Re:How much is the fine for false information? by Billlagr · · Score: 2

    I voted early. I was asked if I had a reason for voting early, and my response was "Yes". That was a satisfactory answer.

  15. Re:How much is the fine for false information? by well_in_theory · · Score: 2

    In Australia, writing your name on the ballot paper will, with near 100% certainty, make it an informal vote regardless of any other marks in the boxes.

    Not this year. I'm guessing they regret this decision.

    https://twitter.com/ahcayley/s...