2011 Census

[7baz]

its that time again , 2011 census.

this year im gona use yoda from star wars as my character and fill it in , aged 869 years old.

i sincerely dont trust government shit.

whats to say this shit doesnt end up in law enforcements officers ?

[Quill]

Come on baz, you can do better than that. Better fake name and something that makes a point, like for example if you were interested in conserving (may be the wrong word, cos it's already fucked) the right to plant entheogens etc.

Was reptyle trying to start a religion that entitled its members to the use of substances they deemed holy? How many people does it take to make a religion?

[Foo]

I have been pondering all week what i should put on my form.

[ballzac]

conserving (may be the wrong word, cos it's already fucked)

 

reinstating?

Was reptyle trying to start a religion that entitled its members to the use of substances they deemed holy? How many people does it take to make a religion?

 

Perhaps a term that can encompass many sub-religions would have the greatest chance. If it was something that all people who believe in the use of sacraments to further their religious and spiritual growth, it would cover a lot more than one specific religion. If it was something agreed upon by the community, everyone who felt comfortable calling their beliefs a religion could put it down without everyone necessarily subscribing to any specific beliefs. I would personally have to think long and hard before I chose to align myself with a 'religion', because I certainly don't want to exploit the concept of religion for my own gain if I don't actually believe it, but I'm certainly open to ideas and would love for others whose beliefs may be a bit stronger than mine to get on board.

From memory, I think Richard King had some good ideas.

[7baz]

well i have filled mine out

yoda

jedi master

aged 900 years

occupation training : telekinesis

place of occupation : galactic federation

language : unique grammar structure

il do a photo if anyone wants to see it lol

[7baz]

Come on baz, you can do better than that. Better fake name and something that makes a point, like for example if you were interested in conserving (may be the wrong word, cos it's already fucked) the right to plant entheogens etc.

Was reptyle trying to start a religion that entitled its members to the use of substances they deemed holy? How many people does it take to make a religion?

 

well i put " smoke weed" as part of my occupational training lol

[Quill]

Perhaps a term that can encompass many sub-religions would have the greatest chance. If it was something that all people who believe in the use of sacraments to further their religious and spiritual growth, it would cover a lot more than one specific religion. If it was something agreed upon by the community, everyone who felt comfortable calling their beliefs a religion could put it down without everyone necessarily subscribing to any specific beliefs. I would personally have to think long and hard before I chose to align myself with a 'religion', because I certainly don't want to exploit the concept of religion for my own gain if I don't actually believe it, but I'm certainly open to ideas and would love for others whose beliefs may be a bit stronger than mine to get on board.

From memory, I think Richard King had some good ideas.

 

Yep cool, some good points. So .. .Sacramentalist? or ?

[tripsis]

All you are doing with by writing crap like that 7baz, is perpetuating money in this country being channelled into religion.

You may have already read this, but it's worth reading again.

[Mycot]

I have been pondering all week what i should put on my form.

 

You may be taking this way too seriously.

Nobody of any concern is likely to even look at it.

What they do is that they get a bunch of drudges who turn the answers into a simplified code which then gets entered into a database. Said drudges handling the workload really wouldn't give a shit what you put on your form.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Mycot

[Alice]

You may have already read this, but it's worth reading again.

 

Great website! That deserves it's own thread. Last time I put Jedi too, from now on I'll be putting "no religion". Very interesting info about the census religion question too.

What happens if I write Jedi Knight?

It gets counted as 'Not Defined' and is not placed in the 'No religion' category. This takes away from the 'No religion' numbers and therefore advantages the religion count. It was funny to write Jedi once, now it is a serious mistake to do so..

In the 2006 census the top three responses for religious affiliation were Catholic (25.8%), Anglican (18.7%), and No Religion (18.7%). However, 2,223,960 (11.2%) people did not adequately answer the question, which may significantly alter the results.

Perhaps a longshot (or not?) but if those 2.2 mil were smartarse non-religious people like me who put Jedi or something else they thought would be amusing and therefore forfeited their non-religious vote actually ticked "no religion" instead, then no religion would be number 1.

Once again, great website! Thanks Tripsis!

EDIT:

The following will be used in all RC Churches as of November 2011

I believe in one God,

the Father almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,

the Only Begotten Son of God,

born of the Father before all ages.

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;

through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation

he came down from heaven,

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,

and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,

he suffered death and was buried,

and rose again on the third day

in accordance with the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory

to judge the living and the dead

and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son,

who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,

who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins

and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead

and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Q: Do Christians really believe that stuff?

A: Yes, I am afraid they do.

LMAO, at the very least atheists are way fucking funnier

Edited July 29, 2011 by Alice

[ballzac]

Don't forget that the athiest movement has its own agenda and is as capable of misrepresenting the facts as other religions, but if what is stated on that website is true, then it may be better to put "no religion" than something like "Santo Daime", even if you actually hold religious beliefs aligned with the latter.

[7baz]

whats to say the cops use the census as a guide before doing a 4 am morning raid ?

what better way to know and get a idea of possible tenants , rooms , and what shit they get up to etc etc.

heck i would not be surprised if the ATO gets a glimpse too.........

i just don't trust this shit any more.

they lie about everything else.........

[Seldom]

whats to say the cops use the census as a guide before doing a 4 am morning raid ?

it is about making peoples habits calculable but i don't think the police look at individuals' particular papers as a way to pinpoint suspected felons.

[Quill]

food for thought tripsis, cheers

[qualia]

Background

For many decades, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) was highly trustworthy. The data that it collected in the Census was quickly de-identified and quickly aggregated into statistics, and the Census did not involve significant risks to people's privacy. Unlike other agencies, the ABS has had a strong reputation of not leaking personal data.

Unfortunately, a significant change occurred in 2005.

Commencing with the 2006 Census, the ABS is now keeping personal data, which can be associated with the person's real-world identity, without the person's consent. Some information about what the ABS calls the SLCD program is provided at the end of this document.

In 2005-06, the ABS was forced to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA), and made adjustments to its (originally, extraordinarily privacy-invasive) plans, following considerable efforts by APF and some other organisations.

The APF is not aware of any PIA being conducted in 2010-11, and can see no evidence anywhere on the ABS site of any such activity. This is despite the Privacy Commissioner making abundantly clear that the importance of doing a PIA is indicated by "the significance or scope of a project, and the extent to which a project involves the collection, use or disclosure of personal information", and expressly recommending "the introduction of a statutory requirement on public sector agencies to undertake a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for [major] projects". Nor was the APF briefed, nor invited to provide any submissions, about the 2011 Census.

The APF's strong impression is that:

the same privacy-invasive process is being used in 2011 as it was in 2006

yet worse, the 2011 data will be linked to the 2006 data

Why So Many People are Concerned

Most people consider it to be a good idea to count people within geographical areas, and very few consider such counting to be an invasion of privacy.

On the other hand, a great many people consider it not to be reasonable for personal data to be forcibly collected, kept identifiable, and linked from one Census to the next. And some people find the whole idea completely unacceptable.

Here are examples of approaches that the APF is aware of that such people are adopting in order to avoid their personal data being captured and abused during the 2011 Census:

Being absent from all households on the night of Tue 9 Aug 2011. (Although it may be cold that night)

If others in the household are submitting a return, telling them to leave you off it. (This may be a concern to one or more of the other people in the household)

Getting an envelope and a form, and sending a blank form in. (This will very likely result in successive re-visits from the collector, followed by threatening letters from the ABS. But if enough people were to do it, the volume might be such that the ABS may not be able to follow everyone up)

Getting an envelope and a form, and filling in nonsense data, at least in response to the questions you object to. (This is not appropriate for people who do not like to be forced to lie in order to protect their privacy)

If all persons in the household object to providing data, avoiding being at home when the Collector calls. (This will require great persistence, because Collectors and their supervisors are paid to chase, chase, and chase again)

Asking a series of questions about the security of the data, and saying that you'll provide the data once you have satisfactory answers. (The ABS is likely to eventually reply with carefully-composed and vague text that does not answer your questions. Ask the questions again. You may need to sustain your patience over many months until one side or the other gives up)

Refusing to provide the data. (The ABS has the power to prosecute, and to seek fines that the magistrate could choose to apply once, or for every day that the data is not provided)

The APF neither encourages nor discourages any of these approaches. (And it would be unwise for anyone to actively encourage their use, because that might be interpreted as an incitement to break the law).

But the APF believes that the information should be widely published, so that people are informed about the situation.

The Possible Consequences of Not Providing Data

The APF is aware that:

a number of people have adopted various of these approaches in the past

some of them have received successive follow-ups and letters

some of them have been threatened with prosecution

The APF is not aware of any cases in which people have actually been taken to court, let alone fined, let alone subjected to high fines, let alone jailed for refusal to pay the fines.

On the other hand, this is a matter for magistrate's courts, and a great many cases in magistrate's courts go unreported; so perhaps there have been cases that we don't know about.

In addition, the APF is a voluntary association that works to achieve privacy protections and combat privacy-invasive practices. It does not have the resources to handle complaints. So it only has limited exposure to information about prosecutions.

Here are samples of the kinds of letters that are sent to people who refuse, called in order a 'passive refusal letter', an 'active refusal letter', a 'pre-NOD (Notice of Direction) letter' and a 'NOD (Notice of Direction)' letter, mirrored here.

The Number of People Who Decline to Provide Data

It does not appear that the ABS publishes any clear data about refusals. The following is available, however.

"Refusal by householders to complete the [1986] census form [was] not a significant cause of underenumeration and account[ed] for less than 0.012 per cent of households [c. 6.75m?, so c. 800 in 1986, long before the abuses began in 2006]. in about 70 per cent of these cases the number of occupants was able to be estimated by the collector from information obtained orally from a member of the household or other persons, and this estimate was included in the census count [but presumably what was made up was a count, not data about the missing people. Note that very few people would be likely to object to merely being counted. The privacy concern is primarily about the data collection and retention]" (ASSDA ?1986).

" ... System Created [i.e. dummy] Records are created where the collector has not been able to make contact with the household, yet believes that the dwelling was occupied on Census Night. Smaller numbers of System Created Records are due to situations where people indicate a desire to mail back a census form but do not do so, and where people refuse to complete a census form. The term 'non-contact' dwelling is used in this paper to refer to all these situations ...

In 1996, non-contact-dwellings were 62,234 (0.9%) [missing 1-3 people each = 125,000]

In 2001, non-contact-dwellings were 156,460 (2.0%) [missing 1-3 people each = 300,000]

[A search of the ABS site unearths no such figures for 2006, so everyone is free to draw their own conclusions, and extend their own extrapolations] (ABS 2970.0.55.019 - 2001)

"Refusal by householders to complete the Census form is not a significant cause of undercounting"

[but 'significant' has a meaning in statistics. If the undercounting is evenly spread, it can be quite large but not significant] (2901.0 - Census Dictionary, 2011)

The Retention of Personally-Identified Census Data

There are two programs under which identified Census data is kept.

1. The Forms Only, Stored With Consent, Inaccessible for 99 Years

If the ABS receives a form with all of the Yes boxes at the end of the form ticked (Q.60. on p.17) – whether or not everyone in the household has actually agreed – the whole form will be kept at Australian Archives and released after 99 years. ABS says that many forms are ticked in this way.

The UK has kept all forms, securely, for 100 years, since 1841. On the other hand, the data collected up to 1911 was very limited, and nothing like as detailed and intrusive as forms in recent decades.

The UK recently compromised the 100-year rule a little, by releasing one set of forms a few years early. It's unclear whether that may turn into the thin end of the wedge, with shortened disclosure times.

The APF considers that a program of this kind is appropriate, provided that it is carefully-controlled, and only to the extent that the consent of each adult individual actually is free and informed (which in the present situation, we very much doubt).

2. All Data, in Electronic Form, Without Consent

A project commenced in 2006, called the Statistical Longitudinal Census Dataset (SLCD).

This applies to "a random sample of 5% of persons in the 2006 Census of Population and Housing".

You have no choice, and you don't know whether you're in the 5% sample or not.

"Wave 2 of the SLCD will endeavour to bring together the wave 1 records with their corresponding records in the 2011 Census".

The data is identified. Expressed in bureaucratese (by the ABS, not the APF): "in the absence of name and address, inclusion of a non-identifying grouped numeric code when linking records can improve accuracy and efficiency".

The Census Form glosses over this with a constructively misleading statement.

It says "A person's name-identified information will not be kept ...".

That statement obscures (and appears to have been devised in order to obscure) the following:

the data is rich enough to enable correlation with the person's name

the ABS is doing precisely that, in order to link all of each person's data through time

the fact that the data is not "name-identified" is irrelevant

http://www.privacy.org.au/Resources/CensusAdvStmt-2011.html

Edited August 3, 2011 by qualia

[Moses]

it is about making peoples habits calculable but i don't think the police look at individuals' particular papers as a way to pinpoint suspected felons.

 

why not?

there is no reason they should need the exact address of my work place a suburb name would be sufficient yet they ask for street no, name, suburb, building name, their excuse of transport considerations is bullshit as the major industrial area of adelaide is still unserviced by public transport and has been all my working life.

laws can and will be broken or changed.

i for one will go "camping" on census night.

[qualia]

i was thinking last night if doing it online they probably record your ip address as well. so probably best to use an anonymiser if you don't want them to record that data about you as well.

[synchromesh]

What is to stop the collectors looking at people's forms?

[toasty]

well i put " smoke weed" as part of my occupational training lol

 

your occupation should be uni student then

[7baz]

lol , i refuse to even let them know i exist under there radar.

i don't fill out census forms , i don't vote any more , i don't do alot of things.

i sincerely think people are more concerned about the economy and there well being then worrying about a census form.