Hacker News Reader

The federal laws regarding US Census privacy-breaching disclosures are stiff, being substantial felonies enshrined in statutory law, not just a nonbinding "policy" or an informally-binding "regulation" or a downright insulting backroom "interpretation". They may conflict with privileges people assume under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, but they were not repealed with the passage of the Patriot Act. They are explicitly and repetitively opposed to the contents of the Census surveys being used against the respondent in any law enforcement capacity. In a talk I attended, the ranking US official in charge of the Census at the time, Rebecca Blank, fielded questions incredulous of this point. The cost of being able to collect the data credibly is not being able to use it for any legal purpose in the context of the individual.

Census officials, employees, or associates who cooperate with the NSA on breaching privacy need to go to prison under these provisions for them to mean anything; They have always pitted the Census against other agencies that would like to feast on that data. The laws are not required to protect against Amazon marketting, they are required to protect against the IRS, FBI, DEA, ICE, NSA, et al, and ensure that the Constitutional duty to enumerate the populace cannot be contravened by the respondent's fear of repression. Perhaps the Patriot Act immunizes the FBI from asking, but if it immunizes the Census Bureau from answering, we might as well not have a Census Bureau at all.

An intelligence agency that keeps a list of demographic minorities for the purposes of spying & persecution is Holocaust-precursor-grade stuff, and something we have fought against for most of our existence since our inception as a country.

I fortunately (or unfortunately) was the target of one of the "extended survey" forms in the last US Census.

I ignored the mail. A Census worker came to my address and I would not let him in, multiple times (the first time, he was without any ID).

Fortunately for me, there is a way for the Census worker to complete each blank on his form with "declines to answer" (he did it by pressing Shift-F11 if that helps you).

Of course, that is at the whim of the Census Bureau, and is not the same as legal protection against Census surveys. In other words, I ultimately sat down with the Census worker and we went through the questions outside my address. I had him press Shift-F11 for each answer, he thanked me for my time, and that was that.

It helps to be courteous and considerate (I offered him a cold drink). It probably made the difference in getting him to admit there was a Shift-F11 option.

Out of genuine curiosity, why did you decline to answer? It seems that accurate census data would be really useful for planning many things.

Japanese internment camps. McCarthyism. Blacklisting. Post-9/11 legislation.

I would only be willing to grant a government more power under two conditions. It is independently verifiable at any time that it is both ethical and competent. The power could be revoked if it fails to be either ethical or competent.

Grant of personal information is a non-revocable act. And the current government structure appears to me to be either competent or ethical, and sometimes neither, but very rarely both. I often watch videos from independent blogger-journalists where a person will conduct a lawful request to view public records while recording, and be subjected to physical force or punitive arrest as a result.

You want me to disclose my personal information? Stop keeping nasty secrets about how you really run things. Stop stonewalling freedom of information act requests. Stop the "parallel construction" nonsense that turns the fruit of the poisonous tree into jelly and spreads it on justice's breakfast toast.

And perhaps be able to name a single thing I might consider to be good, that was made possible only through availability of long-form survey information. For all the supposed potential benefits, I have difficulty actually identifying any. Wait. Here's one.

Census survey income data were used to identify relatively poor areas for the Community Reinvestment Act. Fannie Mae was subsequently directed to buy more loans for mortgaged properties in those areas. So it lowered its standards for qualifying loans, particularly with respect to documented incomes. A lending boom resulted, followed by a fraud- and greed-driven bust that wiped out all the equity I had in my house (which was bought with a 25% cash down payment). THANKS, CENSUS.

No, I prefer not to encourage any "help" from the government. Ethics and competence first, please.

That would all be more reassuring if the Census Bureau hadn't assisted in rounding up Japanese Americans during WWII. Whether or not intelligence agencies track minorities now is irrelevant. If Congress ever decides all Arab Americans, or Japanese Americans, or Mexican Americans, or any other hated minority de jour, are a threat to National Security, they'll repeal the laws protecting census data again, and the FBI will have those records within days.

This threat is obvious to everyone who supports the Census. That's why the laws were created - to establish the principle and tradition that Census data is sacrosanct, and ensure that nothing short of overt repeal (such as interpretations, regulations, policies, executive orders, politely worded requests, or FISA orders) will unseal the files. If we breach those laws in the midst of a perceived crisis, especially without punishment for the violators, we are essentially giving up the opportunity to have honest Census responses for several generations.

> If we breach those laws in the midst of a perceived crisis, especially without punishment for the violators, we are essentially giving up the opportunity to have honest Census responses for several generations.

After seeing the hysteria after 9/11, and the power of propaganda, I don't think that what you mentioned will deter people.

> The federal laws regarding US Census privacy-breaching disclosures are stiff

So are those for torture, domestic spying, and many other things. It is well established at this point that the U.S. government will not hold its officials accountable, except for leaking information to the press. In other countries, presidents go on trial (Israel and France come to mind); it's unthinkable in the U.S. Even Nixon was pardoned.

> > The federal laws regarding US Census privacy-breaching disclosures are stiff

> So are those for torture, domestic spying, and many other things.

Not so much torture. The only US federal law on torture per se applies only outside of the United States, and expressly excludes civil liability (and, therefore, private action), and uses a limited definition of "severe mental pain and suffering" to limit the scope of prohibited torture (identical to those in the US reservations to the Convention Against Torture itself.)

> An intelligence agency that keeps a list of demographic minorities for the purposes of spying & persecution is Holocaust-precursor-grade stuff

Exactly. And that's how Jacob Appelbaum sees it too:

“There is just a very real historical awareness of how information can be used against people in really dangerous ways here,” Poitras says. “There is a sensitivity to it which just doesn’t exist elsewhere. And not just because of the Stasi, the former East German secret police, but also the Nazi era. There’s a book Jake Appelbaum talks a lot about that’s called IBM and the Holocaust and it details how the Nazis used punch-cards to systemise the death camps. We’re not talking about that happening with the NSA [the US National Security Agency], but it shows how this information can be used against populations and how it poses such a danger.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/09/berlins-digital...

There's a long-standing loophole in the census: there is no way they can make you reply to the questions accurately. Tens of thousands of women repeatedly lying about their age on census forms are an easy testament to that fact, several of them in my own family. And a long-form census form can be filled out by anyone in the household, not per-person. When I was in college, my off-campus house got the long-form for the 2000 Federal Census and God only knows what my roommate who got the mail that day wrote down for answers about the other three of us. Guess I'll find out details in 2072.

Do they have the mathematical power to say it's unidentifying information? Is it just that that information, on its own, isn't identifying, or is the test that, with all the other information on the internet, it's still not identifying?

> If you don't return it, a census rep will hound you until you do.

In theory.

And very much in practice. Census reps -- all those temp workers that provide a reliable employment spike -- are instructed to pay multiple home visits to anyone who hasn't completed a questionnaire, extended survey or not. They are also instructed to remind holdouts of criminal liability for not responding. And they do!

Also census reps must take an oath to not disclose individual information:

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/about_the_survey/oath_nondiscl...

How this comports with Section 215 access to individual data will be interesting to see.

    Do I have to respond to the American Community Survey (ACS)?[0]
    
    Yes. You are legally obligated to answer all the questions, as accurately as you can.
    
    The relevant laws are Title 18 U.S.C Section 3571[1] and Section 3559,[2] which amends Title 13 U.S.C. Section 221.[3]

As I read that, it's an infraction, with a fine of not more than $5,000 and/or imprisonment of five days or less.

[0] https://askacs.census.gov/faq.php?id=5000&faqId=7455

[1] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title18/html/USCODE...

[2] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/html/USCODE...

[3] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title13/html/USCODE...

After the fine/imprisonment are you free to not do it or will they still come after you for the information!

I imagine such sanction would be easy enough to evade by questioning the jurisdiction, if you do not live in Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, or on a military base, or work as a federal employee.

But in order to question jurisdiction, you will likely have to do so pro se, without an attorney (who is an officer of the court). And U.S. Attorneys can be tenacious, if needed "pour encourager les autres", so it's usually a better idea all around to just avoid their attention altogether.

The only question you really need to answer is the number of people domiciled at your mailing address on Census Day. I got the long form in 2010, and answered "four people live at this address" with no subsequent in-person harassment or prosecution.

The person who eventually arrived at my door was unaware that census data were used to place Japanese-Americans into concentration camps during World War 2, and subsequently declined to ask me my race again, or any other questions. I didn't even get to bring up post-9/11 legislation.

It turns out that the arguments I had planned on making back then were well-founded. I won't let it go to my head, on the off chance that I was checking a stopped clock at just the right time of day.

If the temp employee persists, it might be useful to ask how many people have actually been fined, since 1970, under the laws they threaten you with. You should already know the answer, so that your questions will be rhetorical. It's zero. In the last five censuses, no one has been fined for failure to respond, even though 2-3% are prime candidates.

Is your comment directly relevant to the posting or just tangentially?