You might want to hand this to that census taker

Status
Not open for further replies.
Look on the bright side, at least by one rumor the Government isn't authorizing higher taxes to pay for the Census. It is comming out of Foriegn Aid funds that would have gone to foriegners. So keep being stubborn! The extra hours each Census worker spends collecting info on you means that the extra money will stay here instead of going to Somalia to give the Warlords who dragged American bodies through the streets money for guns!

------------------
Find out just what the people will submit to and you've found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows or with both.
The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
Frederick Douglass, Aug 4 1857
 
Well, this has been another interesting thread. I am a crew leader for the census and want to dispel a few misstatements here. First, neither the long nor the short forms asks for an SS number, nor do the questionnaires.
Second, this is the nation's 22nd census, the first one being authorized in 1790, not beforehand.
Next, statistical information is disseminated to federal, state and local governments, businesses and organizations. These stats are not released in conjunction with your name or address. The entire census is sent to the National
Archives to be made public in 2072.
Some things you may not be aware of include the use of statistics for placement of new schools, fire departments, infrastructure necessities, battered women's shelters, soup kitchens, mass transit facilities and the like. And you would be wrong about the feds not indulging in the senior citizen aspect. They maintain and run programs to give away surplus staples such as cheese and bread and peanut butter (no name brands, mind you) to seniors.
Now to the privacy act. Before a census enumerator even asks the first question, they must give each respondant household a copy of the privacy act. Privacy is protected by Title 13 of the US Code. No one other than Census Bureau officials can see your form or find out what you tell us - no other government agency, no court of law. Any Census official revealing any Census information is subject to immediate dismissal, no further government jobs, a $5000 fine and 5 years in the federal pen. Title 13 also authorizes the enumerator to collect this information.
Now to the very touchy race part. Your Congress of the United States enacted this stuff, the enumerator can't change it, we are told to deal with it. We are also expected to talk with your neighbors if you refuse to answer the minimum required information and then document that we tried our best before we send in the questionnaire. Otherwise, the local census office will send the incomplete questionnaire back to the crew leader, who is then directed to reassign it to yet another enumerator. If you still refuse, the crew leader will probably be the next in line to visit you. Another refusal and the next project of re-interviewing will send another crew out. Now think of this in terms of 2.4 million enumerators going out 40 hours a week and having to revisit so many people to try again. Do the math because your tax dollars are footing the bill. Of course, it is also your right to refuse any information you wish. And we try to be pleasant. It usually works out that the enumerator gets the brunt of your anger, they dump on me and I dump on my field office supervisor. And so it goes. Incidentally, after the initial visit, we are permitted to conduct the interview for the questionnaires over the phone at your convenience!
 
6forsure-

you wouldn't by chance be from stafford, ny would you?

By chance I would indeed! Horseshoe Lake Road. You in the area? 344-8668
 
Nancy Siebern -

You're really missing the point.

Ok, so there's some confusion about SS#s and some technicalities. That's not the real issue.

Issue #1 is privacy. You (and other census folks) keep referring to "Privacy is protected by Title 13 of the US Code." That's nice, but guarantees nothing. As repeatedly demonstrated by this government (and all others), such "restrictions" are easily overcome by changing the law, or even just plain violating the law (see the Clinton/FBI-files issue). Most notably, "confidential" census info has been used not all that long ago to put tens of thousands of innocent Americans in US concentration camps. That action has permanently destroyed any credibility for "confidentialy" keeping the info. History has repeatedly shown that when a government has the capability for evil (such as having detailed lists of people and their defining characteristics), that capability is eventually abused and lives are subsequently destroyed. If the gov't doesn't have the info, they can't abuse it.

Issue #2 is taxation. The current census is blatantly being used to divide up taxes among potential voters. "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." (Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler) What is the driving goal of this census other than to take money from few taxpayers and give that money to people in a way that will encourage them to vote in certain ways? The Constitutional point of a census is to simply identify how many people live where to properly define representation districts; all other info inquired is used to gerrymander districts and to determine how best to buy votes with taxpayer money.

Don't snivel about "census workers are people too" and correct minor technical misunderstandings. Stand up and explain - with fundamental Constitutional principles - why the government is intruding on privacy for the profit of the elected, and to the inevetable persecution of "undesirable" classes of citizens.
 
Italics mine.
http://www.nandotimes.com/nation/story/body/0,1037,500202016-500279393-501487245-0,00.html

Some Census forms included Social Security-number experiment

Copyright © 2000 Nando Media
Copyright © 2000 Christian Science Monitor Service

By LAURENT BELSIE, The Christian Science Monitor

ST. LOUIS (May 9, 2000 1:25 a.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - This spring, while most Americans were filling out the short census form, 21,000 households received a special form with an extra question. It was a test to see if Americans would voluntarily write in their Social Security numbers.

Supporters call the experiment a worthy trial of new data-gathering methods. And many Americans, who regularly give their Social Security numbers to store clerks and government officials, may see nothing ominous in such requests.

But critics charge it's another bureaucratic step toward a national identity tag. While some say that Washington already has a great deal of information about its citizens, critics say the bureaucracy is so convoluted that it's difficult to access it.

A national ID could make tracking someone's history frighteningly efficient, especially in an age when disparate private and government databases can be linked and mined so easily. This year, with privacy concerns already swirling around the census, critics' warnings could attract widespread attention.

"It certainly is a move toward a national ID requirement, which we seem to be moving toward in tiny bureaucratic steps," says Robert Ellis Smith, publisher of Privacy Journal in Providence, R.I. The Social Security number "has become akin to a domestic passport that we decried in places like South Africa."

"It's a bigger issue than many people think," adds Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas Republican. "Because of the nature of big government, to operate and be efficient ... (it) has to keep tabs on people. The concern over privacy is a reflection of the kind of government we have."

The Census Bureau is interested in the Social Security number as a classification system because it's more accurate than names and addresses. And Census officials say the number could serve as the key to unlock information held by other government agencies.

The Social Security number could broaden dramatically the use of administrative records in all levels of government. For example, if someone refused to answer Census questions on income, the bureau could look up Social Security records.

"Administrative records could be used to get more complete information," says Steven Jost, the bureau's associate communications director. Although this technique could be used in the 2010 census, "it's not a likelihood," he adds.

This spring's test - officially, the "Social Security Number, Privacy Attitudes, and Notification Experiment" - tried various wordings to see how citizens would react. In each case, the letter accompanying the form did not explain that the form was experimental, but did state the Social Security information was voluntary. It also pointed out that the bureau sometimes used the records of other agencies.

In each case, the accompanying letter directed people with questions to a special toll-free number in Tucson, Ariz. There, Census officials logged calls to see whether Americans would object to the request.

Most didn't. Of the roughly 2,600 calls the facility received regarding the experiment, fewer than 10 involved people protesting the use of Social Security numbers, officials say.

The experiment comes at a time when privacy is moving to the top of the public's agenda. "We've seen it explode over the last three years," says Beth Givens, director of Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in San Diego. In a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll last fall that listed eight problems Americans might face in the new century, loss of personal privacy topped the list. "The notion of a national ID is highly unpopular with the American public."

The Social Security Administration also opposes the use of its numbers by other agencies. "The Social Security card was never meant to be used as a form of identification," says Angel Neris, public affairs specialist with the agency. "It's one of the most important numbers you have. Before I would put my number on something, I would want to know why they need it."

It's not clear how quiet the Census intended the experiment to be. Some congressmen familiar with the census say trial use of the Social Security number was fully disclosed during the planning phase.

"This wasn't hidden," says Ben Chevat, chief of staff for Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat ranking member on the House subcommittee on the Census. "Congress knew what (the bureau) was doing."

But Chip Walker, communications director for that subcommittee, says staff members only stumbled on the experiments after investigating reports that thieves were posing as Census workers and asking for Social Security numbers in order to bilk credit-card accounts. "It was a surprise to us," he says.

Paul, who last year led the fight against an immigration provision that would have required a national ID, is pushing to prohibit the use of Social Security numbers in this manner. "It's something I strenuously object to," he says. "If they can get away with it, they'll keep pushing it."







------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
 
ctdonath,IMO, you're using this issue as an excuse to act like an $%^*hole, safely hidden behind a monitor.T'were but air between us, and a mere few inches of that, my guess is you'd be a whole lot more civil and co-operative.Since enumerators tend to be students, or retirees,and unarmed, they're nice, safe targets for your aggressions.
Show you've got a set, ct, display this attitude and lack of manners to the next cop you run across. After all, he/she's an agent of the gummint too...

If you've got such a problem with the census, either work to change the setup or move to where censuses aren't taken. I suggest Cambodia, Somalia,Columbia,Iran, or some such.

In a little more than half a century of living, I've spent 24 years in uniforms, after taking oaths to "Protect and defend the Constitution and People of these United States", and "Protect and Serve". I've got honorable scars,a shoulder that sets o9ff metal detectors at airports, more war stories than a USMC NCO club, and a nice set of pretty ribbons in a trunk in the attic.

If I thought this info would be used for nefarious purposes,I sure wouldn't be collecting it. And since we've been collecting it for over 200 years, if all you can point to is the Japanese thing for misuse,sounds like less misuse than most govt activities. BTW, Betty Akiyama, a friend who was interned as a child, states that her family was located through the phonebook. Families with names like Akiyama, Yamora,and Watenebe have a greater chance of being Japanese than those named,say, Cohen, Levine or Wojohowitz.

Another thing. Even on that tortuous long form, there's no queries about politics, affiliations, guns, religion,etc. Believe me, anyone who lives to maturity in the US today either has some sort of file on them, or was raised by wolves in the forest.Care to wager a flagon of mead that this exchange will go un-noticed by an agent of the Govt? THAT's what you need to worry about, not us enumerators.

Thanks for the backup, Nancy,but here it's useless. Ol' ct too busy ventilating to be either nice or realistic.

Dave, AKA

Lt Blake David McCracken, Md Dept of Public Safety(Ret).

PS, ct,you know what you can kiss...
 
Dave, Nancy--you still haven't explained the main point. Where is the authorization for the government to turn the census into a "cost-effective" way of giving out public funds?
And doesn't it bother you even a little bit that you live in a country where people are bullied into giving out personal information by telling them that they're so dependent on the federal government that they MUST give out the info so they can get the gifts and "free" services? It bothers me a lot.

But to be fair, Nancy had no way of knowing about that frightening "test" with the Social Security numbers. It's disgusting, but none of the census workers on this forum are from St. Louis as far as I know so they wouldn't know about it.


Oh, and Oatka, "American" isn't a race! That's why I put down "human."
 
ctdonath,IMO, you're using this issue as an excuse to act like an $%^*hole, safely hidden behind a monitor.

No, in fact I'd say the same thing in person. I may say some rough or annoying things, but they are a not unreasonable way to state the issue. When a census taker comes to inquire about the answers I did not give beyond "1", I will make the same points in a similarly firm & blunt way.

Since enumerators tend to be students, or retirees,and unarmed, they're nice, safe targets for your aggressions.

What aggressions? The gov't is invading my privacy beyond the allowances of the Consitution, and I will politely and firmly point that out, refuse to answer, offer to pay the fine on the spot, and invite them to leave my property - whether or not they're armed.

Was there anything actually incorrect in what I wrote before? Was there anything particularly rude beyond observing that you, as an agent of the government, are acting outside the Constitutional framework?

Show you've got a set, ct, display this attitude and lack of manners to the next cop you run across.

If the cop is doing his job within the allowances of the Constitution, I will cooperate. If he exceedsd his Constitutional authority, I will not cooperate. I don't care if he's armed, because I trust that he won't harm me without good Constitutional reason.

If you've got such a problem with the census, either work to change the setup

I am, through civil disobedience. I believe the "answer private questions or get fined" form is unConstitutionally intrusive, and by refusing to answer beyond Question 1 and being thoroughly prepared to pay the fine, I am joining many thousands of others who also are not cooperating. Such non-compliance may persuade the feds to roll the intrusion back next time.

or move to where censuses aren't taken. I suggest Cambodia, Somalia,Columbia,Iran, or some such.

So thoughtful of you.

In a little more than half a century of living, I've spent 24 years in uniforms,
<snip>

And I do indeed appreciate and thank you for your service. Really.

In this _particular_ instance, though, I believe you are crossing the line. Is it rude to tell you that?

If I thought this info would be used for nefarious purposes,I sure wouldn't be collecting it.

Privacy intrusion for the purpose of arranging the forced redistribution of wealth for the ultimate purpose of buying votes. Acquisition of data commonly misused throughout history. Looks like nefarious purposes to me. Sure, it might not happen this time, or it might be really subtle...but it's still going too far.

Gun control advocates will happily tell you that they're not reducing 2nd Amendment rights for nefarious purposes either. Go figure.

And since we've been collecting it for over 200 years, if all you can point to is the Japanese thing for misuse, sounds like less misuse than most govt activities.

"The Japanese thing" was only one step away from equalling one of the most horrible events in 20th century history: the Holocaust.

Sure, other gov't activities have been misused. I choose to start my opposition by opposing this particular one. Gotta start somewhere.

BTW, Betty Akiyama, a friend who was interned as a child, states that her family was located through the phonebook.

Just because there were other methods does not lessen the horror of the abuse of one method. I have the option of removing my name from the phone book; you, as a census taker, do not give my any such choice.

Another thing. Even on that tortuous long form, there's no queries about politics, affiliations, guns, religion,etc.

You evade the point.

Believe me, anyone who lives to maturity in the US today either has some sort of file on them, or was raised by wolves in the forest.

Just because there are other methods does not justify this one.

Most of my info in files exists because I _chose_ to give out that info. Will you, Mr. Census Taker, give me a _choice_ to not give the info? I don't have to give out info to most other places...there may be business or social consequences, but that's my choice.

Care to wager a flagon of mead that this exchange will go un-noticed by an agent of the Govt?

You ARE an agent of the government. Obviously you noticed. You may not care, but you noticed.

Thanks for the backup, Nancy,but here it's useless. Ol' ct too busy ventilating to be either nice or realistic.

Ah. Just blow me off because you don't like my concerns. Neither of you are addressing the primary issues that others are expressing, just telling us that you're doing your job, "it's confidential" and "census takers are people too". Would you PLEASE address the real issues with substantial material? We are seriously concerned, and when we express these concerns, you actual census agents answer with warm fuzzies, insults and blow-offs - is that _really_ supposed to quench our fears?

You still COMPLETELY FAILED to answer my question, which you solicited. I'll repeat it: where does the government get the right to spend my tax money to ask me how many toilets I have, and threaten me with a $100 fine if I don't answer? (Yes, the fine has been, um, suspended, but the questions are still asked, the tax money still spent, the harrasment continues, and the forms all threaten a fine and there's no formal mention of the fine suspension.) I'm asking for a coherent legal answer.

PS, ct,you know what you can kiss...

Thanks. I'm trying to have an interesting (albeit a bit heated) conversation, referring to legal issues, historical precident, reasonable objections, and serious questions. Your response is "I don't like your tone; kiss my a**".

Look: I asked a serious, relevant question at your request. Will you answer it?

[This message has been edited by ctdonath (edited May 13, 2000).]
 
You see, Mr. Donath, you would not work out well dealing with the public. If you want to refuse any information you feel is intrusive, then it is your right to so do. It has been my tack in life to try not to speak harshly to anyone because I might have to eat my words at a later date. You failed to ask me a single thing about how I personally feel about the census, so you can only assume I like it, find nothing wrong about it, and am an advocate of socialism.
I have no idea how old you are. I have been working for 41 years now, during not a one of which I have ever snivelled. In fact, I spent 33 of those years listening to approximately 36,000 people run the gamut from fear to whining to complaining. Some were very kind. Few ever thanked me for protecting them and preventing them from dying. In all those years only 5 people died on my watch. And after those 33 years, I have left that part of my life behind to look for another career. This time I want one that is not all giving and no receiving. So in the interim, while I am looking for what you might refer to as a "real job," this is the first one I could find that would enable me to earn a minimally sufficient wage so I can collect my thoughts and find that "real job".
I daresay, while it is remotely possible you may have been able to do what I have HAD to do, I'll wager my life experiences and accomplishments have far exceeded yours. But thank you for your words anyway. I won't have to eat them.
 
In reading the ctdonath / Nancy S / Dave McC thread, my take is that ctd is making principled, Constitutionally-based arguments against providing more information than necessary, and questioning the underlying socialist basis of the "it's so we can divvie up the loot from the producer class" argument for the Census-as-invasion-of-privacy.

Meanwhile, NS and DMc attack ct for holding to priciples because he's not being "nice" and that we should provide this information to be good little citizens, always doing what the government says we should.

I'm sure that Ms. NS and Lt. DMc are upstanding, nice people, and I appreciate the fine work I'm sure that NS performed in her career (in nursing?) and that the Lt did in his in the military and law enforcement. Nevertheless, being "nice" sometimes takes a subordinate role to principle. ct is asking some hard questions, and neither NS nor LtDMc are doing anything other than responding with emotionalism and "do as your told". Which is exactly what has taken us so far down the socialist/statist road: emotionalism used to manipulate the masses to "do as they're told".
 
I think you should read my original posts again before you misinterpret what I said. I did not resort to emotionalism, nor did I defend everything about the census. I merely stated some facts and alluded to the fact that Mr. Donath assumes everything without even bothering to ask me about my opinions re: the census. And you have taken up that tack in that you assume I am a statist-socialist adherent.
 
I did not resort to emotionalism,

That's sure what the off-topic "I've helped lots of people" and "I'm changing careers" comments look like. You sure didn't resort to legal explainations of the issue.

nor did I defend everything about the census.

Frankly, it seems your not defending anything about the census. I've asked some very specific questions, and you two census takers have gone out of your way to not answer them. You've told me I'm nasty, you've told me about your careers, you've told me about the people you've met, you've told me how nice and normal census takers really are...but you haven't defended the legality of the census itself or the potential for misuse, which are the issues that I and many others are terribly concerned about.

I merely stated some facts and alluded to the fact that Mr. Donath assumes everything without even bothering to ask me about my opinions re: the census.

Feel free to correct me. The fact that you are working as a census taker very strongly implies that you support the current census; I assume you're principled enough to reject a job that involves doing something that you object to.

And you have taken up that tack in that you assume I am a statist-socialist adherent.

Frankly, it's really starting to sound like it, at least tacitly. I ask questions about the constitutionality of the privacy invasions and how you can actively support such socialistic endeavors, and in return I get irrelevant "you're nasty I'm nice" responses.

<sigh> I will ask the question AGAIN:
where does the government get the right to spend my tax money to ask me how many toilets I have, and threaten me with a $100 fine if I don't answer? I'm asking for a coherent legal answer.
 
Seems to me that we have someone rationally questioning the system, and a couple of others saying, 'but I was only following orders', and 'it's for the good of the children'
 
If you've ever applied for credit, financed a car or house, or have a credit card, then all of your personal information, SS#, date of birth, lineage, relatives, and purchase history is already freely available to the government and anyone else who wants to obtain your credit report.

To remain truly anonymous, you'd have to live a cash life, work for cash, use public transportation, refuse public or private education, forget about a driver's license or I.D., running a business, obtaining a permit, etc.
 
do you have permits for your firearms in ny ctdonath?

[This message has been edited by 6forsure (edited May 15, 2000).]
 
It seems that there will be no coherent legal answer to questions asked in this thread, what a surprise...

Is anyone else concerned about the "ask your neighbors for this information" aspect?

paull
 
I quit my job as a census enumerator this week because of the conflict within myself regarding the very question that cdonath has asked.

It is my understanding that the purpose of the census is to determine the number of representatives that a state is entitled to. Nothing more.

Anything else is to determine the redistibution of wealth that has been extorted from us though the federal income taxes that we pay. In other words, how much money that was stolen from us gets returned, not to us personally, but to the state with the federal conditions of its use.

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
 
I sent in a Spanish short form instead of the long form they sent me. I'm still waiting for someone to show up so I can practice my Italian on them: "Non parlo inglese!" It ought to be fun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top