In the comment stream, some used various pejorative terms to describe my last post: infantile, tin-foil hat etc. Others said that it was perfectly ok for the government to impose the long form census since safeguards are in place to protect the information and StatsCan has a good track record in that regard. Besides the government really needs this information in order to do a good job, and some argued, to realize how bad FATCA is.
I am hoping for a little more actual dialogue on the nature of the privacy invasion. You see, I am unsatisfied in this post 9-11, post Edward Snowden revelations, era, that the government make assurances that private information be kept private for the anonymous usages of StatsCan. My issue is whether the government fails to uphold one the deepest principles of English common law since the Magna Carta–that every person is king of their own castle (i.e., the Castle Doctrine). There are just some lines that government should not step over–and the only allowable reason for stepping over those lines is if the government suspects that a crime has been committed. But never ever may a government force people to divulge information that belongs to their private and personal life: e.g., how many hours you spend playing with your children. It is completely inappropriate for government to ask these kinds of questions.
And if the government will throw you in jail for refusing to answer these kinds of questions, how much more will they be willing to violate your Charter rights by sending your banking information to the IRS? I am not impressed with our young handsome PM’s first act. I called him King, but the fact is that in the English-speaking world, the Younger Trudeau is insisting on the power that kings have been barred from exercising for centuries by the Castle Doctrine. Thus, it is a violation of natural law, and so naturally there are many people who become extremely irate over the violation of their personal jurisdiction–as elder Trudeau said, the government has no business in our bedrooms–but the government doesn’t belong in our kitchens, our living rooms nor in our children’s rooms either.
The government insists that it needs accurate information. But truly, if the government is justified in forcing people to fill out 40-page questionnaires revealing certain details of their private lives, would it not be better to collect the information just by installing cameras into their bedrooms, living rooms, kitchens, and children’s bedrooms? In this way, direct surveillance would permit for a better picture of Canadian households and provide the necessary and most accurate information for StatsCan. Be assured however that your private information will be only for the eyes of bureaucrats who need the information.
Since you created a new post out of your last comment to your prior post, I’m repeating my comment here. Re: ” how many hours you spend playing with your children,” at first glance, questions like these seems intrusive. This is what one commenter to the article you reference has to say:
Criminality rates. Academic success. Physical and mental health issues. Social integration. These are only a few of the problems that can be alleviated by having this information.
For example, time spent playing with a child has an impact on them learning language, social and quantitative skills. It has been linked with better success in life.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/129/1/e204
Likewise, girls whose fathers spent more time doing house were found to aim for careers that are traditionally male (engineering, management), and achieving higher positions.
http://www.cbc.ca/…/dads-who-do-housework-have-more…
Yet, this crucial time spent with children is lacking in some impoverished communities.
In the same vein, knowing whether a house has « a missing floor tile » or not will help determine a family’s quality of life (not a trivial question, considering 40% of homes in reservations were in need of major repair and that 91 First Nation communities were under water advisory in 2014).
This kind of information can help, for example, design help programs for parents and target them at the communities most in need of them.
And finally, the market surveys that this article proposes to use instead of the census will leave out some marginalized communities who do not fit marketer’s demographics and do not have as much of a buying power. So yes, these questions are intrusive, and the government might not have a right to force people to answer them, but they are of vital importance. I consider it our personal duty to answer them, not for the sake of we who have the education and luxury to debate privacy rights, but for people who are otherwise politically and mediatically underrepresented and sometimes unaware that what they experience is not the norm.
@Petros:
It would be a tragedy if the data stream needed to analyse and record the social history of Canada ended with the last census; that has been an issue in Britain as well. I can understand why some would (however tactlessly) lump those who would find excuses for doing just that with flat Earth types. Or, like the 20 November issue of DH that just went on sale, “Le Monde sous le choc : Hitler serait mort en Argentine à 95 ans”.
There could be other solutions, if (unlike the anarchists currently making trouble in London) dissenters would trust somebody some of the time.
If your only concern is data security then there are other ways to assure that, among them storing and embargoing access to the raw data or the long-form returns for a certain period of time.
It is no argument at all to suggest the ludicrous as an alternative: it only aids your opponents by making you seem unserious.
@Whitekat, if people voluntarily give information about their private lives to the government, there is no violation of human rights, Magna Carta rights, or the Castle Doctrine. The issue is with using state terror to force people to yield their rights.
@andy05, My concern is obviously not about data security. Obviously not. I said that my concern was with whether it was legitimate for the government to force people to divulge information that is protected by the Castle Doctrine. Once we establish two principles in the argument of my detractors: (1) The government needs the information; (2) the government may use force to procure the information that it needs–then we are left open with the conclusion that cameras in the castle are the best means of procuring the information that is needed.
My understanding (not being a statistician) is that a voluntary census does not yield representative data. “Economists and statisticians defended the value and integrity of the long-form census, and warned against the biases that would occur in a voluntary survey. In 2010, the head of StatsCan, Dr. Munir Sheikh, resigned in protest. ”
http://voices-voix.ca/en/facts/profile/statistics-canada-mandatory-long-form-census
And if you do mandatory required questionnaires you will also have some mistakes and errors. Garbage in.
Hence my suggestion that cameras will avoid all possibility of user input errors.
Stephen Kish. You should be concerned that the infantile tin foil hat drivel from Petros will discourage potential donors and other supporters of ADCS. Unfortunately his posts land directly below your updates and requests. He appears to be unwilling to give the new government a chance.
“Some mistakes and errors” does not equate with “garbage in”
“The government’s…[i.e. Harper and company]… justification…[to end the mandatory long census]… was that it wanted to ‘protect privacy’. However it was difficult to reconcile this argument with the fact that all the data is depersonalized for statistical purposes, meaning that it cannot be traced to any individual. The former federal Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, had called StatsCan’s protection of privacy exemplary, noting that for the 20 years prior to the 2006 census, the office had received just 50 complaints, only some of which were about the mandatory long-form census. The government also described the mandatory long-form census as coercive. No one has ever been jailed for refusing to answer census questions.”
http://voices-voix.ca/en/facts/profile/statistics-canada-mandatory-long-form-census
The part about the Cons using ‘privacy issues’ as justification for canning the long form census (note they didn’t just make it voluntary, they canned it) reeks of hypocrisy in light of FATCA and plays on people’s fears – kind of like how we need Bill c-51 because the terrorists are after us.
I’ve been a bit surprised at the enthusiasm many have for the reinstatement of the _mandatory_ long form. Remember, it’s the _mandatory_ part that Petros (and myself as well) are concerned about. No problems asking for information, many problems forcing it out under threat of incarceration ($500 fine and up to three months in jail).
I work in a highly-collaborative medical research environment. There is an enormous amount of progress that could be made in many, many different disease areas (in my field — neuroscience — think Alzheimers, Parkinsons, various dementias, brain injury, aging, etc.), but this progress is greatly impeded by a lack of data about sufferers. We rely on a comparatively tiny number of volunteer subjects who graciously give of their limited time and flagging energies. Because of their sacrifice, we make as much progress as we do.
If we had broad access to population data, medical records, medical history, lifestyle, and the like … we could greatly accelerate progress into these diseases. But we don’t have such access. Nor should we. Yes, that’s what I said: even though it would be very helpful medically, WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO DEMAND that data.
Subject data is carefully used, reviewed, monitored, protected, and eventually destroyed. We are very careful to explain exactly what we are collecting, and why, and how it will be used, and any risks involved. The information gathered is the minimal possible set, kept for the minimum possible time. This is the right way to do it. The data, the information, belongs to the people. We have no right to force it from them. We just gladly receive it when they offer it of their own free will, and assiduously protect it.
Our ethical requirements, worked out over decades, demand high accountability and careful justification of any data acquisition. What allows the government to demand equally invasive information at the point of a gun is simply power, not moral perogative.
@Whitekat, people have been prosecuted, fined and threatened with jail sentences. FBAR has made few victims in Canada through prosecution, but many via threats and intimidation.
Humans are also capable of surprisingly honest and useful contributions. My feeling is that a census is useful, that it must be government run and transparent, and that it must be voluntary. Any type of penalty will be counter-productive. Moreover when penalties apply, great effort is wasted applying them, creating huge misgivings and the risk of people filling in garbage. Best to put that effort into education, and explaining why the data is crucial, and also building trust. The lack of penalties will go a very long way in reassuring people. Note that there should be no reward for data either, because that would also lead to people filling in garbage.
In brief, the world will be a more friendly place, and data will be more complete and accurate, if such data is given voluntarily. And room must always be made for the several percent of people who do not want to give out their data. It is essential that everything not always be known about everything… this is the root of privacy.
Tin-hat is just as vexing as King Justin. These issues are delicate and full of nuance and we may agree more than we disagree, sometimes without knowing it.
FBAR has made few victims in Canada through prosecution, but many via threats and intimidation.
You can’t compare the coercion used for filing FBARS with the coercion used for filling out long census forms as the effect of the latter is benign whereas the effect of the former can be life altering.
Fred re: “.. data will be more complete and accurate, if such data is given voluntarily. ”
The statisticians disagree with you.
You can be sure libertarians would be underrepresented under a voluntary census form. Most would be willing to live with that.
@Whitekat, I think it perfectly legitimate to lack trust when it comes to coercion. The question is when is coercion justified. The benign intentions and effects alone are not adequate in mind to justify using coercion to violate a person’s natural rights.
@Bubblebustin, Libertarians will be over represented in prison with the newly reinstituted census. That’s who they will prosecute and fine.
@DukeofDevon, The Younger Trudeau had a chance to demonstrate he was serious:
http://maplesandbox.ca/2015/adcs-fatca-questions-trudeau-reply/
“The benign intentions and effects alone are not adequate in mind to justify using coercion to violate a person’s natural rights.”
The intentions are not merely ‘benign.’
The article states: ‘It didn’t provide details on how it plans to make sure that people actually fill it out, although Navdeep Bains, the minister of innovation, science and economic development, said “the law is the law” and the Statistics Act hasn’t changed,’
So that depends on how you read it. The last portion, (the Statistics Act hasn’t changed) is not a part of his quote. Just sounds to me like somebody’s trying to stir up trouble. Give them a chance and time to change that law. There were NO details on their plan.
@Petros
People with US birthplaces will also be overrepresented in Canadian prisons for refusing to fill out place of birth. That is if they don’t want to lie, knowing that lying would only skew the data. Leaving it blank would indicate that there is a problem with the census itself, which leads back to my comment about providing self incriminating information.
@WhiteKat
“You can’t compare the coercion used for filing FBARS with the coercion used for filling out long census forms as the effect of the latter is benign whereas the effect of the former can be life altering.”
One can and one must compare and ultimately beware. For the end result is the same in both instances. COERCION. In a free society , if it is free, COERCION must NEVER be used on a population as a whole for any reason other than the protection of same. PROTECTION with the full knowledge of the people and enthusiastic cooperation.
Governments exist for only one reason in a free society. To SERVE the people. Not to coerce them or FORCE them to do anything that is not in the best interests of the country as a whole.
Your argument FOR the return of the long form census is EXACTLY the same argument used to excuse FBAR and FATCA regime entire.
The arguments have begun regarding TPP in the US and they are the same arguments as are being utilized here regarding FATCA and, by the same token and argument, the return of the long form census and the excuses made for this intrusion into the private lives of citizens.
Simply there is NO excuse for the kind of coercion @Petros argues against so very well. He has honed in on the absolute : Voluntary. Threats of fines and imprisonment are COERCION from a government that intends to intrude where they do not belong and place private information in the hands of bureaucrats who can and will do what they want with it. If it is given voluntarily, then there is no reason to be suspicious of the government and many will enter the information not only voluntarily but willingly.
And your argument regarding First Nations and information that will enhance the government’s ability to improve the lives of those within the First Nations belies the facts of the matter :
First Nations are given billions and billions of taxpayer’s money to do with what they will within THEIR nations. It is what they have NOT done with the money and where that money has gone instead that is the issue . You don’t need a long form census to get the answers needed for improvement in their lives. Certainly not one that is forced and is under threat of fine and imprisonment.
@Petros arguments are simple and to the heart of the matter.
Frankly it is the GOVERNMENT that should be filling out mandatory forms explaining in detail WHERE our tax dollars have gone and will be going! And that applies no matter who inhabits the PMO!
As one who server with NSA 40 years ago, during the days of Nixon. I can tell you without a doubt that all recorded information exists to be exploited. A government or corporation with boundless funds can find a way to get any information which has been recorded in any media if it so wishes.
For example 40 years ago it was possible to access company and corporate records to build a profile of any person so specific that we could project where they would be with a very high rate of accuracy at any time of day on any day into the near future, sometimes much longer with decreasing accuracy.
Think about it a second, lets say that you wrote something to another person that was meant to be between you and that person only. But someone who happens to know you both, just also happens to work at your local internet ISP. This third person is asked by FBI to search for activity in all email with the search phrase “in her bedroom” for the FBI. Guess what? He sees your email, which is speaking of his wife with the phrase “in her bedroom” the rest you can imagine.
You are now exposed to the searcher who was not looking for information that relates to you but now he has it. Take it one step further, what if the searcher has no warrant, no probable cause, is not a government official with legal access to your records but is searching anyway? This was done on a daily basis 40 years ago by people in the government who did just because they could and get away with it to use for whatever purpose they wished.
Fast forward 40 years, the situation is far, far worse. If information is recorded by any means anywhere someone can get it and use it in any way they wish, and you will not know it until it’s too late.
“In a free society , if it is free, COERCION must NEVER be used on a population as a whole for any reason other than the protection of same. ”
Having representative data as the basis of policy decisions is ‘protection of same.’