The gov could figure out 98% of what you put down on the census using other means. I.e im trans. They can work that out by listing my perscriptions easy peasy.
I am guessing you have never actually worked for the government.
Data are heavily siloed and in broadly completely incompatible formats. If we take the pathological case then yes, a sufficiently determined actor could reconstruct most of the data which you submit.
This actor would however need several years, a team of data scientists, a large team of software developers, and a supply of xanax to handle the stress.
Thats true, but you can lie or prefer to not say (at least on that Question).
Also I meant the gov in general, the government has access to my health record albeit with presumably lots of privacy laws preventing random non consensual access.
There are also private companies data collection to worry about of course (which one should put a lot of effort in preventing).
My point is a census in terms of privacy is so low down on the list on privacy issues. If anything its very private, given the various laws preventing access.
Not to say you should out yourself because of that, and choosing prefer not to say or straight is ok, just making a general point on the census.
Census privacy to me seems most important within the household – they made it easy for any person to have their own form to fill in private and they tell you how to make sure your privately completed form is counted instead of the one your conservative father filled out on your behalf (“the most complete form will be used”)
A better argument is that this is how the government gets a sense for what the population is. For example, a growing percentage of “non-religious” or (to a lesser extent) non-Christian religious makes it harder for the government to continue justifying subsidies for religious schools and special status for religious organisations. A higher percentage of people saying they travel to work by bike or public transport helps justify increasing funding for those methods over continued motornormativity.
If you care so much you should swap answers with someone less secure than you.
I won’t paint a target on my head to make it easier for pollies to avoid leaving their office and meeting people. Entire branches of my family tree are missing because of censuses being used for evil.
So uh, good luck with guilting people about it. Maybe target the surveillance state and fash instead
harder for the government to continue justifying subsidies
I don’t think political parties will rely on census data for that. Once reference groups demonstrate that a policy of reducing those concessions has broad support it will be a policy. It doesn’t matter what the census says.
people saying they travel to work by bike
They measure this with direct observations - how many cyclists use pathways et cetera. There’s no city in Australia that’s going to look at census data and decide to invest in bike infrastructure.
Demand for public transport is measured by… the numbers of people using public transport.
The funding thing is a common argument but in almost all cases it seems that direct observations would be more useful.
The gov could figure out 98% of what you put down on the census using other means. I.e im trans. They can work that out by listing my perscriptions easy peasy.
I am guessing you have never actually worked for the government.
Data are heavily siloed and in broadly completely incompatible formats. If we take the pathological case then yes, a sufficiently determined actor could reconstruct most of the data which you submit.
This actor would however need several years, a team of data scientists, a large team of software developers, and a supply of xanax to handle the stress.
They don’t know I’m bi if I don’t tell them though. Also the ABS probably doesn’t have access to Medicare data
Thats true, but you can lie or prefer to not say (at least on that Question).
Also I meant the gov in general, the government has access to my health record albeit with presumably lots of privacy laws preventing random non consensual access.
There are also private companies data collection to worry about of course (which one should put a lot of effort in preventing).
My point is a census in terms of privacy is so low down on the list on privacy issues. If anything its very private, given the various laws preventing access.
Not to say you should out yourself because of that, and choosing prefer not to say or straight is ok, just making a general point on the census.
Census privacy to me seems most important within the household – they made it easy for any person to have their own form to fill in private and they tell you how to make sure your privately completed form is counted instead of the one your conservative father filled out on your behalf (“the most complete form will be used”)
That’s not really an argument in favor of the census though.
If they already have the information then they don’t need the census.
I agree that that isn’t a good argument.
A better argument is that this is how the government gets a sense for what the population is. For example, a growing percentage of “non-religious” or (to a lesser extent) non-Christian religious makes it harder for the government to continue justifying subsidies for religious schools and special status for religious organisations. A higher percentage of people saying they travel to work by bike or public transport helps justify increasing funding for those methods over continued motornormativity.
If you care so much you should swap answers with someone less secure than you.
I won’t paint a target on my head to make it easier for pollies to avoid leaving their office and meeting people. Entire branches of my family tree are missing because of censuses being used for evil.
So uh, good luck with guilting people about it. Maybe target the surveillance state and fash instead
You’re conspiracy bullshit doesn’t work on non-cookers.
Why not use your secure position to boost services for minorities if you think it works
wtf are you talking about?
I don’t think political parties will rely on census data for that. Once reference groups demonstrate that a policy of reducing those concessions has broad support it will be a policy. It doesn’t matter what the census says.
They measure this with direct observations - how many cyclists use pathways et cetera. There’s no city in Australia that’s going to look at census data and decide to invest in bike infrastructure.
Demand for public transport is measured by… the numbers of people using public transport.
The funding thing is a common argument but in almost all cases it seems that direct observations would be more useful.