Lady gets away with not filling out the Census

[GostHacked]

Whats to be outraged about? She didn't fill out her census so got charged (a good thing) and the judge let her off the charge because he had reasonable doubt about her intent. (also a good thing).

Nothing to see here folks

There is a lot to see here. It's important to note that the Canadian gov has been giving this data to a US military contractor. I should not have to go into any detail to see how that can be considered an issue.

In light of the NSA and all the other stuff south of the 49th, this is a great move at protecting the privacy of Canadians. What do you think a military contractor would do with the information of a population in another country?

Edited October 10, 2013 by GostHacked

[Boges]

There is a lot to see here. It's important to note that the Canadian gov has been giving this data to a US military contractor. I should not have to do into any detail to see how that can be considered an issue.In light of the NSA and all the other stuff south of the 49th, this is a great move at protecting the privacy of Canadians. What do you think a military contractor would do with that information?

Her opposition wasn't really because of privacy reasons. She just doesn't like Lockheed-Martin because they also make instruments of death.

[GostHacked]

I don't see what the big deal is. I've never filled out a census form either. I always just throw it in the trash. There has never even been a threat of consequences. Why did they pick this woman to go after?

The elderly are a great target for this kind of thing. Easy prey, less risk/potential of the elderly fighting back against anything.

[GostHacked]

Her opposition wasn't really because of privacy reasons. She just doesn't like Lockheed-Martin because they also make instruments of death.

And that in my view is more than legitimate. Why would we not give this information to a Canadian company to parse through?

[Boges]

And that in my view is more than legitimate. Why would we not give this information to a Canadian company to parse through?

Dunno.

Maybe Lockheed Martin is really good at tabulating numbers and much cheaper.

Either way it appears her opposition was because she's a peacenik. I seriously doubt Lockheed-Martin is going to use census data to do targeted air strikes in Canada. They just make the instruments of death, they don't actually decide how they're used.

[GostHacked]

Dunno.

Maybe Lockheed Martin is really good at tabulating numbers and much cheaper.

Either way it appears her opposition was because she's a peacenik. I seriously doubt Lockheed-Martin is going to use census data to do targeted air strikes in Canada. They just make the instruments of death, they don't actually decide how they're used.

They will collect the data, and may not actually decide in how it is used. The US will use this information. That much you can be sure of.

So why was not a Canadian company approached for this type of work?

[Boges]

They will collect the data, and may not actually decide in how it is used. The US will use this information. That much you can be sure of.So why was not a Canadian company approached for this type of work?

I don't know. Ask Stats Canada.

Good news is, you can use that excuse to get out doing the next census. Unless it only applies to old women.

[GostHacked]

I don't know. Ask Stats Canada.

Good news is, you can use that excuse to get out doing the next census. Unless it only applies to old women.

Possibility is that now it sets a precedent. All others can refuse for the same reason. Could pressure the Canadian gov to do heir own work. Not only that, I am sure the cost of having Lockheed-Martin is quite high and could be cheaper done in Canada by Canadians.

[Wilber]

Possibility is that now it sets a precedent. All others can refuse for the same reason. Could pressure the Canadian gov to do heir own work. Not only that, I am sure the cost of having Lockheed-Martin is quite high and could be cheaper done in Canada by Canadians.

That's why I think this may be appealed. Maybe they are getting a deal because of the F-35 contract.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Wilber

[The_Squid]

Failure to fill out the census shouldn't be brought to court and spend thousands to fine someone hundreds or thousands... the penalty doesn't fit the crime.

Everyone does taxes... add $100 to the tax bill for not filling out the census.

There. Incentive to fill it out and appropriate (we can argue the $$$ penalty) punishment for failing to do so. No need to take hundreds or thousands of people to court for such silliness. Also leads to more revenues to government to beef up education on the importance of filling out the forms.

If 1000 people fail to fill it out that's $100,000 to government for census-promoting pamphlets.

Edited October 10, 2013 by The_Squid

[cybercoma]

They will collect the data, and may not actually decide in how it is used. The US will use this information. That much you can be sure of.

So why was not a Canadian company approached for this type of work?

So you're arguing that Lockheed-Martin is selling Canadian Census data to the US Government?

You know that the US Government can ask the Canadian Government for census data at any time and skip the middle man, right?

Hell, researchers in the US, without the government's involvement, can get access to the confidential census data by submitting a research proposal and being legally bound by the confidentiality agreement through StatsCan.

The alternative is nobody (or an extremely limited amount of people) has access to the information and social policy research doesn't get done.

Edited October 10, 2013 by cybercoma

[Moonlight Graham]

Failure to fill out the census shouldn't be brought to court and spend thousands to fine someone hundreds or thousands... the penalty doesn't fit the crime.

Everyone does taxes... add $100 to the tax bill for not filling out the census.

There. Incentive to fill it out and appropriate (we can argue the $$$ penalty) punishment for failing to do so. No need to take hundreds or thousands of people to court for such silliness. Also leads to more revenues to government to beef up education on the importance of filling out the forms.

She won't pay the fine. What makes you think she'll pay all her taxes? ie: she'd likely pay all her taxes minus the fine. At the end of the day, she pretty much deserves to go to jail. It's a shame she's 89 years old, but even the elderly have to obey the law. Granny still has to pay parking and speeding tickets too.

[Boges]

She won't pay the fine. What makes you think she'll pay all her taxes? ie: she'd likely pay all her taxes minus the fine. At the end of the day, she pretty much deserves to go to jail. It's a shame she's 89 years old, but even the elderly have to obey the law. Granny still has to pay parking and speeding tickets too.

The CRA doesn't exactly allow people to choose. If they want money they'll just take it.

[The_Squid]

The CRA doesn't exactly allow people to choose. If they want money they'll just take it.

Exactly. I'm sure they can get a hundred bucks in a census tax for people who don't fill it out. How do they collect money now? There doesn't need to be any difference with collecting this.

[Bryan]

You guys obviously have no idea the amount of research that is done with the census and subsequent public policy suggestions that are made on that research. Your complete disregard for the society that you live in is sad and pathetic.

That's ridiculous hyperbole. There's nothing they need to know about me that could in any way be a factor in public policy they don't already have on record in multiple places.

[cybercoma]

That's ridiculous hyperbole. There's nothing they need to know about me that could in any way be a factor in public policy they don't already have on record in multiple places.

Shut up with your, "ridiculous hyperbole" nonsense. You're completely clueless about how these records are used, but you come on public forums shooting off your uninformed opinions as though they're pearls of gold. You've said it right in your post what the problem is: the information is in multiple places. That means searching, collecting, and compiling the data, then cleaning it for use in any kind of informative research. Moreover, it means that the questions and data may not be in the same format. Separate data sets might not even be compatible with each other. Having to pull crap from all over the place then trying to smash it all together is an insanely huge task. Even then the results are usually a clusterflock. And more importantly for you austerity types, it costs A CRAPLOAD of money in extra time and bodies to do that legwork.

So you know what happens? Of course you do. The research doesn't get done. But that's exactly what Harper's Conservatives and their fanboys like you want. Completely uninformed decisions, based entirely on ideological garbage. Well excuse me for wanting the government to actually make informed decisions.

Edited October 10, 2013 by cybercoma

[jacee]

So you know what happens? Of course you do. The research doesn't get done. But that's exactly what Harper's Conservatives and their fanboys like you want. Completely uninformed decisions, based entirely on ideological garbage. Well excuse me for wanting the government to actually make informed decisions.

Ya that would be nice ... but they wouldn't anyway.

They prefer political polls.

It's pretty clear that the judge twisted himself into a pretzel to avoid convicting this woman.

Could be a precedent though.

[Bryan]

Shut up with your, "ridiculous hyperbole" nonsense. You're completely clueless about how these records are used, but you come on public forums shooting off your uninformed opinions as though they're pearls of gold. You've said it right in your post what the problem is: the information is in multiple places. That means searching, collecting, and compiling the data, then cleaning it for use in any kind of informative research. Moreover, it means that the questions and data may not be in the same format. Separate data sets might not even be compatible with each other. Having to pull crap from all over the place then trying to smash it all together is an insanely huge task. Even then the results are usually a clusterflock. And more importantly for you austerity types, it costs A CRAPLOAD of money in extra time and bodies to do that legwork.

So you know what happens? Of course you do. The research doesn't get done. But that's exactly what Harper's Conservatives and their fanboys like you want. Completely uninformed decisions, based entirely on ideological garbage. Well excuse me for wanting the government to actually make informed decisions.

As usual, you're spouting nonsense. You're a cartoon at this point. The census is an added expense to obtain redundant information. They already have it, all they have to do is compile it. You know, they very thing that StatsCan already does?

What questions specifically are on the regular census that can further critical research in a way that existing records can't? What earth shattering research is being done based on how many nights a week my oldest son sleeps at home?

[cybercoma]

I told you exactly what the problem is with trying to compile data from various sources and why it's a problem. That you don't understand or don't care is not my problem. But don't sit here and say the census is useless when you have absolutely no idea what it's used for and have to ask me to tell you. In short, I will point to something that is absolutely meaningless to you, but multivariate analysis is practically impossible compiling data in the way that you suggest.

Edited October 11, 2013 by cybercoma

[Bryan]

Translation: you actually have no idea, but like to repeat things you're heard others say.

[jacee]

Translation: you actually have no idea, but like to repeat things you're heard others say.

He knows what he's talking about. It's a very EXPENSIVE nightmare collating info collected in various ways for various purposes.

Not to mention, it's illegal for government agencies/ministries to release info to 3rd parties for uses different than the purpose for which it was intended. Protection of privacy issues.

[Wilber]

He knows what he's talking about. It's a very EXPENSIVE nightmare collating info collected in various ways for various purposes.

Not to mention, it's illegal for government agencies/ministries to release info to 3rd parties for uses different than the purpose for which it was intended. Protection of privacy issues.

Tis true.

[waldo]

Shut up with your, "ridiculous hyperbole" nonsense. You're completely clueless about how these records are used, but you come on public forums shooting off your uninformed opinions as though they're pearls of gold. You've said it right in your post what the problem is: the information is in multiple places. That means searching, collecting, and compiling the data, then cleaning it for use in any kind of informative research. Moreover, it means that the questions and data may not be in the same format. Separate data sets might not even be compatible with each other. Having to pull crap from all over the place then trying to smash it all together is an insanely huge task. Even then the results are usually a clusterflock. And more importantly for you austerity types, it costs A CRAPLOAD of money in extra time and bodies to do that legwork.

So you know what happens? Of course you do. The research doesn't get done. But that's exactly what Harper's Conservatives and their fanboys like you want. Completely uninformed decisions, based entirely on ideological garbage. Well excuse me for wanting the government to actually make informed decisions.

what? Why don't they just compile it!!! The WisdomOfBryan simply needs to be expounded upon - what say you Bryan; can you speak more precisely to your declared "redundancy", where all "that data" is, where all "that data" came from, how "all that data" has been gathered, how "they"... "StatsCan already doing it"... already do it? Be clear now, be precise now! Start with the sheer simplicity of your summary assessment... start with "compile". Just define the word and speak to the mechanics of it's utter simplicity. Start there... and work your wisdom back. Just compile it!

The census is an added expense to obtain redundant information. They already have it, all they have to do is compile it. You know, they very thing that StatsCan already does?

[GostHacked]

what? Why don't they just compile it!!! The WisdomOfBryan simply needs to be expounded upon - what say you Bryan; can you speak more precisely to your declared "redundancy", where all "that data" is, where all "that data" came from, how "all that data" has been gathered, how "they"... "StatsCan already doing it"... already do it? Be clear now, be precise now! Start with the sheer simplicity of your summary assessment... start with "compile". Just define the word and speak to the mechanics of it's utter simplicity. Start there... and work your wisdom back. Just compile it!

The issue is with a US military contractor parsing data on Canadians, not the census itself. That is what she objected to, and that is what the judge ruled on. Regardless of compiling and sorting through the data, this is the kind of thing that needs to be done in Canada and not outsourced to a third party in another country.

[cybercoma]

He knows what he's talking about. It's a very EXPENSIVE nightmare collating info collected in various ways for various purposes.

Not to mention, it's illegal for government agencies/ministries to release info to 3rd parties for uses different than the purpose for which it was intended. Protection of privacy issues.

That's another problem that you just reminded me about. Government can't give info to 3rd parties, but they also rarely give info to other government agencies. People think that "the government" is some singular thing. It's not. And communication between the departments is less than satisfactory. Often times the only communications departments have with each other is through universities and the researchers using their data.