cybercoma Posted October 11, 2013 Report Posted October 11, 2013 (edited) 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.Show me any evidence whatsoever that Lockheed Martin was "parsing data on Canadians." Please. They provided the data processing infrastructure. That doesn't mean they've kept the data. But more importantly, so what if they did? Are you worried that they're going to share it with the US government? The US government already has full access to confidential census data simply by making a request to StatsCan. More to the point, independent researchers at academic institutions in the United States also have access to the confidential data, so long as they apply for it with a proposal, submit to a background check, and agree to be bound by the Statistics Act of Canada, which threatens imprisonment for leaking confidential information that has not been vetted by a StatsCan analyst. Just to give you an idea of how this works, people do research with these data files and they're not allowed to discuss or publish their findings until an analyst from Statistics Canada "releases" the information. Why does it have to go through an analyst? Well he or she checks to make sure that certain criteria are met, so that the information released cannot lead individuals to be identified. For example, when making contingency tables on small samples, if there are 5 cases or less in one of the cells, you most likely would not be able to publish that information. It would be incredibly difficult for someone to find out who those 5 cases are, but it's possible and StatsCan does everything it can to protect people's privacy. Edited October 11, 2013 by cybercoma Quote
Bryan Posted October 11, 2013 Report Posted October 11, 2013 (edited) He knows what he's talking about. He clearly doesn't. His position on this subject is idiotic. Edited October 11, 2013 by Bryan Quote
GostHacked Posted October 11, 2013 Report Posted October 11, 2013 Show me any evidence whatsoever that Lockheed Martin was "parsing data on Canadians." Please. They provided the data processing infrastructure. That doesn't mean they've kept the data. The fact that the Canadian government allowed Lockheed-Martin to gather the data WTF do you think is done with this data? It is parsed, organized, categorized, analyzed, ect ect ect. Why? Our government does not know how. Why? They cannot communicate properly between departments. Why do we lack the capability of doing this ourselves? But more importantly, so what if they did? Are you worried that they're going to share it with the US government? The US government already has full access to confidential census data simply by making a request to StatsCan. More to the point, independent researchers at academic institutions in the United States also have access to the confidential data, so long as they apply for it with a proposal, submit to a background check, and agree to be bound by the Statistics Act of Canada, which threatens imprisonment for leaking confidential information that has not been vetted by a StatsCan analyst. You don't see an issue with a military contractor analyzing census data on Canadians? And how do you imprison or charge an American with crimes when they are in the USA and bound by their laws? Just to give you an idea of how this works, people do research with these data files and they're not allowed to discuss or publish their findings until an analyst from Statistics Canada "releases" the information. Why does it have to go through an analyst? Well he or she checks to make sure that certain criteria are met, so that the information released cannot lead individuals to be identified. For example, when making contingency tables on small samples, if there are 5 cases or less in one of the cells, you most likely would not be able to publish that information. It would be incredibly difficult for someone to find out who those 5 cases are, but it's possible and StatsCan does everything it can to protect people's privacy. So what is preventing us here in Canada from doing all this work? And I don't buy the privacy bit. We know in light of things like the NSA and the extent of their programs, and Canadian spying as well, that information is not secure or private anymore. Every week I see a company get hacked and data on people are stolen. Quote
Wilber Posted October 11, 2013 Report Posted October 11, 2013 He clearly doesn't. His position on this subject is idiotic. He does. Ever noticed on your tax return that there is a little box to tick off that allows them to give your name and address to Elections Canada to update their registered voter list. They can't even do that without your permission. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Big Guy Posted October 12, 2013 Report Posted October 12, 2013 So are you saying this is a bad law or that the courts should make arbitrary judgements as to who is allowed to break a law based on how it might look? The law should and is applied differently depending on the circumstances. Any good prosecutor decides which cases warrant prosecution and which are a waste of court time and money. It may even be precedent setting - the next time a 90+ year old, sympathetic and frail lady of principle decides as a matter of her conscience to not complete a census form then the defending attorney may bring this up as a precedent. Or maybe the next time a 90+ year old, sympathetic and frail lady of principle decides as a matter of her conscience to not complete a census form then the prosecuting attorney may decide to focus on important cases and not prosecute. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Wilber Posted October 12, 2013 Report Posted October 12, 2013 The law should and is applied differently depending on the circumstances. Any good prosecutor decides which cases warrant prosecution and which are a waste of court time and money. It may even be precedent setting - the next time a 90+ year old, sympathetic and frail lady of principle decides as a matter of her conscience to not complete a census form then the defending attorney may bring this up as a precedent. Or maybe the next time a 90+ year old, sympathetic and frail lady of principle decides as a matter of her conscience to not complete a census form then the prosecuting attorney may decide to focus on important cases and not prosecute. I don't disagree that they probably picked the wrong person to go after but much of our law is made by precedent, so maybe a little thought should go into what kind of precedent has been set here and who it will apply to in future. Is the particular contractor hired to compile data a valid reason to refuse to give information, or are 90 year old ladies exempt from obeying the law? I wouldn't be surprised if this goes to a higher court for clarification. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Argus Posted October 12, 2013 Report Posted October 12, 2013 Problem here was charging her in the first place. Common sense on the part of the crown prosecutor would have dictated that this whole process was a waste of time and taxpayer money. While I agree it was kind of dumb charging an 89 year old, the fact was she was guilty. There is no doubt whatever. The judge didn't convict her because he was protecting her from her own stupidity. She even said if she was convicted and fined she would go to jail rather than pay the fine. Personally, while I wouldn't have charged her, given the case went forward she should have been fined, and if she wanted to go to jail that wouldn't cause me any sleepless nights. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted January 22, 2014 Report Posted January 22, 2014 I'm not entirely sure what's up (appeal maybe), but the newswire is saying that she's now been found guilty of violating the Stats Canada Act. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 22, 2014 Report Posted January 22, 2014 Different woman apparently http://www.citynews.ca/2014/01/22/judgement-expected-in-case-of-woman-79-who-refused-to-fill-out-census/ Quote
Keepitsimple Posted January 22, 2014 Report Posted January 22, 2014 Haven't heard much about all of the disasters that would confront businesses and governments because of the changes to the census. Breathless stories (again) from the CBC about the Road to Ruin being paved with the new Census. As usual - weeks and months of bad-mouthing followed by.....crickets. Another tempest in a teapot. Quote Back to Basics
cybercoma Posted January 22, 2014 Report Posted January 22, 2014 Haven't heard much about all of the disasters that would confront businesses and governments because of the changes to the census. Breathless stories (again) from the CBC about the Road to Ruin being paved with the new Census. As usual - weeks and months of bad-mouthing followed by.....crickets. Another tempest in a teapot. You haven't heard much? Did you forget that the Head of Statistics Canada resigned over the census? Or that people who use this data to inform public policy have said that the new census data is even worse than they expected? Do you even have any idea what the census data is used for? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.