YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW
January 27, 2006 5:14 PM Subscribe
I just opened my mailbox to find a large envelope from the U.S. Census Bureau stamped with this friendly notice: The American Community Survey Form Enclosed - YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW
What's the worst that could happen if I don't respond?
Further investigation reveals that enclosed is a 23 page survey asking for all sorts of personal information about my roommate and I. While the literature says that 'my answers are confidential,' I'm not so sure if I believe that. It's not like I have anything to hide, just that I'd rather not tell The Man any more than I have to.
The form doesn't have my name on it, but it does have my address, and I will be filing my taxes from the same address this year. Can I be penalized? Reprimanded? Tarred and feathered? Labeled an 'evildoer'?
Has anyone here defied such a strong, bold, and ALL CAPS order from the Census Bureau and lived to tell about it?
Further investigation reveals that enclosed is a 23 page survey asking for all sorts of personal information about my roommate and I. While the literature says that 'my answers are confidential,' I'm not so sure if I believe that. It's not like I have anything to hide, just that I'd rather not tell The Man any more than I have to.
The form doesn't have my name on it, but it does have my address, and I will be filing my taxes from the same address this year. Can I be penalized? Reprimanded? Tarred and feathered? Labeled an 'evildoer'?
Has anyone here defied such a strong, bold, and ALL CAPS order from the Census Bureau and lived to tell about it?
Wow, that was fast Matt. I am guessing it is an example of the utility of tags.
posted by caddis at 7:46 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by caddis at 7:46 PM on January 27, 2006
This is the crucial comment to read in that thread. Please, do fill out the form.
posted by nixxon at 7:47 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by nixxon at 7:47 PM on January 27, 2006
And I say again, fill it out. It's important.
You know all those studies you see in the news that are about important and private things?Well guess what, they had to ask people personal questions to do those studies. That research has benefitted all of us (including you) and now it's your turn to do your share.
See also.
posted by duck at 7:55 PM on January 27, 2006
You know all those studies you see in the news that are about important and private things?Well guess what, they had to ask people personal questions to do those studies. That research has benefitted all of us (including you) and now it's your turn to do your share.
See also.
posted by duck at 7:55 PM on January 27, 2006
This is the crucial comment to read in that thread. Please, do fill out the form.
Part of that comment:
What is that question useful for? Not my area, but I would guess that there is concern that disorders involving learning and concentration can correlate with high levels of frustration and depression *under some conditions*. Understanding what these conditions are can show where money should best be spent to alleviate problems associated with those disorders. Without the research, you'd just be throwing money into the wind.
Most comments in that previous thread that support filling out the form agree that it is important to find out how the government can better spend money on different programs.
The census was created to count people, not to find out the most efficient way to spend tax dollars.
I didn't fill mine out, and I didn't get any calls.
posted by bh at 7:56 PM on January 27, 2006
And hey, as civic duties go, it's better than jury duty.
Oh and:
The census was created to count people, not to find out the most efficient way to spend tax dollars.
This isn't the census.
posted by duck at 7:59 PM on January 27, 2006
Oh and:
The census was created to count people, not to find out the most efficient way to spend tax dollars.
This isn't the census.
posted by duck at 7:59 PM on January 27, 2006
No, but the form is being sent out by the Census Bereau, which was created to count people. Like every other federal organization, they have grown to the point where their original mission is nothing more than an afterthought.
The problem isn't the form, it is that people have been threatened with fines and/or arrest for not filling it out. It is not much different from the IRS being able to take you to tax court where you are assumed to be guilty, the DEA arresting people that never cross state lines, the NSA listening to phone calls "just in case".
It is just another example of the federal government being a pain in the ass without having any authority to do so. Other than the threat of putting your ass behind bars.
posted by bh at 8:15 PM on January 27, 2006
The problem isn't the form, it is that people have been threatened with fines and/or arrest for not filling it out. It is not much different from the IRS being able to take you to tax court where you are assumed to be guilty, the DEA arresting people that never cross state lines, the NSA listening to phone calls "just in case".
It is just another example of the federal government being a pain in the ass without having any authority to do so. Other than the threat of putting your ass behind bars.
posted by bh at 8:15 PM on January 27, 2006
Well, not that I would suggest not filling it out (since if you're worried the government will use the census information against you, imagine what being marked a census troublemaker is going to do for a judge deciding whether the FBI may wiretap your home or not) but according to how stuff works, if you just flat out refuse, you may be fined $100.
Lying fines are $500.
Purposely trying to ruin the census costs a $1,000 fine and possible jail time.
posted by shepd at 8:15 PM on January 27, 2006
Lying fines are $500.
Purposely trying to ruin the census costs a $1,000 fine and possible jail time.
posted by shepd at 8:15 PM on January 27, 2006
Oh, I'd be happy to do jury duty. For some reason, I've never once been summoned.
posted by bh at 8:15 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by bh at 8:15 PM on January 27, 2006
The problem isn't the form, it is that people have been threatened with fines and/or arrest for not filling it out. It is not much different from the IRS being able to take you to tax court where you are assumed to be guilty, the DEA arresting people that never cross state lines, the NSA listening to phone calls "just in case".
I think it's different because in this case you'd be being fined for something you actually *did* do (not filling out the form), not "just in case you did something" as in your examples.
Non-response harms the accuracy and utility of the data. It does active harm to a purpose that does you and everyone else good. That's why it's illegal.
Whatever the original purpose of the census bureau, it's current mandate is to collect data and statistics about the economy and population of the country. Yes, that may be different than it's original mandate, but that doesn't make the current mandate less important. If this is really about the original mandate, would it be better if instead of having the census bureau collect stats they had just started up a separate "Department of Statistics"?
Strange, I'd also love to do jury duty, and I've never been called, and a lawyer friend told me if they ever called me they would never pick me to be on a jury, so I'll never be able. But we don't always get to pick which civic duties to do -- some do jury duty, some fill out surveys, and some people get asked to do both or neither.
posted by duck at 8:23 PM on January 27, 2006
I think it's different because in this case you'd be being fined for something you actually *did* do (not filling out the form), not "just in case you did something" as in your examples.
Non-response harms the accuracy and utility of the data. It does active harm to a purpose that does you and everyone else good. That's why it's illegal.
Whatever the original purpose of the census bureau, it's current mandate is to collect data and statistics about the economy and population of the country. Yes, that may be different than it's original mandate, but that doesn't make the current mandate less important. If this is really about the original mandate, would it be better if instead of having the census bureau collect stats they had just started up a separate "Department of Statistics"?
Strange, I'd also love to do jury duty, and I've never been called, and a lawyer friend told me if they ever called me they would never pick me to be on a jury, so I'll never be able. But we don't always get to pick which civic duties to do -- some do jury duty, some fill out surveys, and some people get asked to do both or neither.
posted by duck at 8:23 PM on January 27, 2006
I got the long form in 2000. I filled out question 1, and then wrote that the Constitution mandates an actual enumeration of persons, not an actual enumeration of my bathrooms and I have no intention to fill out the rest of the survey.
I never heard from them again.
If you feel it is your civic duty, then of course, you should fill it out, but do be aware that a lot of this is for marketing and business analysis,not strictly for government use. While helping American businesses is a laudable goal, I don't think I need to be impressed under penalty of fines to help their demographic research.
posted by xetere at 8:32 PM on January 27, 2006
I never heard from them again.
If you feel it is your civic duty, then of course, you should fill it out, but do be aware that a lot of this is for marketing and business analysis,not strictly for government use. While helping American businesses is a laudable goal, I don't think I need to be impressed under penalty of fines to help their demographic research.
posted by xetere at 8:32 PM on January 27, 2006
Whatever the original purpose of the census bureau, it's current mandate is to collect data and statistics about the economy and population of the country. Yes, that may be different than it's original mandate, but that doesn't make the current mandate less important. If this is really about the original mandate, would it be better if instead of having the census bureau collect stats they had just started up a separate "Department of Statistics"?
Fair enough. However, I don't see how they have that power in the first place, much like I disagree with quite a few things the federal government does. I was very offended to get a form from the Census Bureau that threatened me, as I would be from any other federal agency. So I simply didn't fill mine out, as I would advise anyone else to do. If they had established the "Department of Statistics", there would have to be some excuse for the department to be able to threaten you, which I think would have caused some debate. Under the guise of the Census Bureau, they escape most scrutiny, at least by the public.
Strange, I'd also love to do jury duty, and I've never been called, and a lawyer friend told me if they ever called me they would never pick me to be on a jury, so I'll never be able.
Mentioning Jury Nullification will get you kicked out very quickly, too. Maybe that is why I never get called.
But we don't always get to pick which civic duties to do -- some do jury duty, some fill out surveys, and some people get asked to do both or neither.
I'm up for the civic duty, I just don't see why filling out an invasive form from a government agency with no reason to collect such information as a civic duty. I actually see it as my duty to avoid filling out any such forms, or, barring that, filling them out so incorrectly as to skew the data as much as possible.
On preview, xetere brings up something I hadn't thought about in years. I was a paperwork monkey at a small electronics firm years ago, and I was given a 30-40 page form to look over that had much the same tone as the census form. Number of employees, cost of materials, amount of product shipped each year, average salary, ad infinitum. It had much the same tone as the census form, and from my rudimentary searching back in 1995 or so, just as much legal authority. I don't think it ever got filled out.
posted by bh at 8:36 PM on January 27, 2006
Fair enough. However, I don't see how they have that power in the first place, much like I disagree with quite a few things the federal government does. I was very offended to get a form from the Census Bureau that threatened me, as I would be from any other federal agency. So I simply didn't fill mine out, as I would advise anyone else to do. If they had established the "Department of Statistics", there would have to be some excuse for the department to be able to threaten you, which I think would have caused some debate. Under the guise of the Census Bureau, they escape most scrutiny, at least by the public.
Strange, I'd also love to do jury duty, and I've never been called, and a lawyer friend told me if they ever called me they would never pick me to be on a jury, so I'll never be able.
Mentioning Jury Nullification will get you kicked out very quickly, too. Maybe that is why I never get called.
But we don't always get to pick which civic duties to do -- some do jury duty, some fill out surveys, and some people get asked to do both or neither.
I'm up for the civic duty, I just don't see why filling out an invasive form from a government agency with no reason to collect such information as a civic duty. I actually see it as my duty to avoid filling out any such forms, or, barring that, filling them out so incorrectly as to skew the data as much as possible.
On preview, xetere brings up something I hadn't thought about in years. I was a paperwork monkey at a small electronics firm years ago, and I was given a 30-40 page form to look over that had much the same tone as the census form. Number of employees, cost of materials, amount of product shipped each year, average salary, ad infinitum. It had much the same tone as the census form, and from my rudimentary searching back in 1995 or so, just as much legal authority. I don't think it ever got filled out.
posted by bh at 8:36 PM on January 27, 2006
If they had established the "Department of Statistics", there would have to be some excuse for the department to be able to threaten you, which I think would have caused some debate. Under the guise of the Census Bureau, they escape most scrutiny, at least by the public.
The "excuse" is basically that it's a freerider problem. The benefits of the data are a public goods. From Wikipedia:
Non-rivalrous — its benefits fail to exhibit consumption scarcity; once it has been produced, everyone can benefit from it without diminishing other's enjoyment.
Non-excludable — once it has been created, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to prevent access to the good.
The problem with this public good, like all others, is that you can benefit whether you contribute or not, and the fact is that no one person can do any real damage to the quality of the good. But if enough people shirk, it's no longer possible to produce the good. But from the point of view of any one individual whether you contribute or not has no effect on your personal outcome -- the damage done by your own decision not to contribute is so small that you'll have essentially the same amount of the good regardless. So the rational (cost/benefit analysis) thing for any individual person to do is not bother. But if everyone does a cost-benefit analysis and doesn't bother, the public good will no longer exist. Hence the freerider problem.
How do you solve a freerider problem? Penalties. When you come up with a better solution, I'm sure the census bureau, the environmental groups, and any number of other people would be interested to hear it.
And yes, sometimes data is used for marketing and business (for example to find locations to situate businesses). No, I don't feel any duty to "donate" my time and information to that. But for the most part the data is used in ways that benefit just about everybody and why cut off your nose (and your neighbours' nose) to spite your face?
posted by duck at 8:51 PM on January 27, 2006
The "excuse" is basically that it's a freerider problem. The benefits of the data are a public goods. From Wikipedia:
Non-rivalrous — its benefits fail to exhibit consumption scarcity; once it has been produced, everyone can benefit from it without diminishing other's enjoyment.
Non-excludable — once it has been created, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to prevent access to the good.
The problem with this public good, like all others, is that you can benefit whether you contribute or not, and the fact is that no one person can do any real damage to the quality of the good. But if enough people shirk, it's no longer possible to produce the good. But from the point of view of any one individual whether you contribute or not has no effect on your personal outcome -- the damage done by your own decision not to contribute is so small that you'll have essentially the same amount of the good regardless. So the rational (cost/benefit analysis) thing for any individual person to do is not bother. But if everyone does a cost-benefit analysis and doesn't bother, the public good will no longer exist. Hence the freerider problem.
How do you solve a freerider problem? Penalties. When you come up with a better solution, I'm sure the census bureau, the environmental groups, and any number of other people would be interested to hear it.
And yes, sometimes data is used for marketing and business (for example to find locations to situate businesses). No, I don't feel any duty to "donate" my time and information to that. But for the most part the data is used in ways that benefit just about everybody and why cut off your nose (and your neighbours' nose) to spite your face?
posted by duck at 8:51 PM on January 27, 2006
The "excuse" is basically that it's a freerider problem. The benefits of the data are a public goods.
I consider the entire collection process freeriding. I'd be interested in data on where hot, loose, disease-free women hang out, but I don't expect the government to pay to collect that data.
On the other hand, I don't think the government needs to collect that data, as I get at least 10 e-mails a day trying to sell me this sort of information.
posted by bh at 9:11 PM on January 27, 2006
I consider the entire collection process freeriding. I'd be interested in data on where hot, loose, disease-free women hang out, but I don't expect the government to pay to collect that data.
On the other hand, I don't think the government needs to collect that data, as I get at least 10 e-mails a day trying to sell me this sort of information.
posted by bh at 9:11 PM on January 27, 2006
Our household received one of the 2005 ACS forms, and not wanting to spend the time required to send to fill out the entire thing, it was never filled out.
After a couple of weeks, we got a letter urging us to fill it out, followed by another letter soon after.
Eventually, a representative of the Census Bureau came to our down and took the information orally. YMMV.
posted by Hot Like Your 12V Wire at 9:15 PM on January 27, 2006
After a couple of weeks, we got a letter urging us to fill it out, followed by another letter soon after.
Eventually, a representative of the Census Bureau came to our down and took the information orally. YMMV.
posted by Hot Like Your 12V Wire at 9:15 PM on January 27, 2006
I consider the entire collection process freeriding.
How so?
I'd be interested in data on where hot, loose, disease-free women hang out, but I don't expect the government to pay to collect that data.
There's no reason for the government to collect data for the purposes you probably have in mind. However, knowing where the disease-free women are is the converse of knowing where the disease-full women are, and that of course is an important question for epidemiology and public health. So there is surely data on that. It may or may not be collected by the government (it would probably be public health, not the census bureau).
See if you can get hold of the data used here. The primary data was not collected by the government, but it was surely merged with data from the census bureau (a lot of social science data is merged with census bureau data aggregated by cenus tract, block or SMA -- for example you might want to include the poverty rates, the local unemployment rate, the population density, the age structure, crime rates, or any number of other things). What that means is that when census data is damaged by non-response (and non-response doesn't just make the data smaller, it damages the quality), the quality of lots of other academic research in the social sciences, epidemiology, economics, public health, education, criminology and other areas suffers as well.
posted by duck at 9:33 PM on January 27, 2006
How so?
I'd be interested in data on where hot, loose, disease-free women hang out, but I don't expect the government to pay to collect that data.
There's no reason for the government to collect data for the purposes you probably have in mind. However, knowing where the disease-free women are is the converse of knowing where the disease-full women are, and that of course is an important question for epidemiology and public health. So there is surely data on that. It may or may not be collected by the government (it would probably be public health, not the census bureau).
See if you can get hold of the data used here. The primary data was not collected by the government, but it was surely merged with data from the census bureau (a lot of social science data is merged with census bureau data aggregated by cenus tract, block or SMA -- for example you might want to include the poverty rates, the local unemployment rate, the population density, the age structure, crime rates, or any number of other things). What that means is that when census data is damaged by non-response (and non-response doesn't just make the data smaller, it damages the quality), the quality of lots of other academic research in the social sciences, epidemiology, economics, public health, education, criminology and other areas suffers as well.
posted by duck at 9:33 PM on January 27, 2006
I don't see how they have that power in the first place, much like I disagree with quite a few things the federal government does.
You're dead flat wrong, though. Congress has always had the power, inherent in a power to legislate, to call witnesses about potential laws and compel testimony (except where it might be incriminating, of course). This goes all the way back to the Constitutional Convention, for crying out loud.
There are a multitude of federal concerns dealing with accurate information about demographics, economics, the incidence of various Bad Things, the ways these covary, and links between these factors and federal programs and federal money. Gathering this information is for real and no-shit important.
As with other information that Congress wants to gather, it has the power to compel you to provide it; it has the power to subpoena you. If Congress had wanted, they could have simply classed these mailings as congressional testimony, and the first step after you decided not to fill it out could be for a federal marshal to put you in a nice little cell until you felt like giving your testimony. A small fine as potential penalty is playing very nice indeed.
It is important, even if you will only be one datum in a sea of data. The Census Bureau are good guys. If George W and his band of evil cronies wanted to know how much money you made or your mental state or how large your genitalia were, they wouldn't slyly use the Census Bureau to do it; they'd just tap your phone or send you to Gitmo for a large number of beatings. The Census Bureau are not these cronies, they are pointy-headed dorks who care about helping get the laws to actually help the people they're supposed to help and who, from all reports, actually for real and true give a shit about keeping your private data private.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:48 PM on January 27, 2006
You're dead flat wrong, though. Congress has always had the power, inherent in a power to legislate, to call witnesses about potential laws and compel testimony (except where it might be incriminating, of course). This goes all the way back to the Constitutional Convention, for crying out loud.
There are a multitude of federal concerns dealing with accurate information about demographics, economics, the incidence of various Bad Things, the ways these covary, and links between these factors and federal programs and federal money. Gathering this information is for real and no-shit important.
As with other information that Congress wants to gather, it has the power to compel you to provide it; it has the power to subpoena you. If Congress had wanted, they could have simply classed these mailings as congressional testimony, and the first step after you decided not to fill it out could be for a federal marshal to put you in a nice little cell until you felt like giving your testimony. A small fine as potential penalty is playing very nice indeed.
It is important, even if you will only be one datum in a sea of data. The Census Bureau are good guys. If George W and his band of evil cronies wanted to know how much money you made or your mental state or how large your genitalia were, they wouldn't slyly use the Census Bureau to do it; they'd just tap your phone or send you to Gitmo for a large number of beatings. The Census Bureau are not these cronies, they are pointy-headed dorks who care about helping get the laws to actually help the people they're supposed to help and who, from all reports, actually for real and true give a shit about keeping your private data private.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:48 PM on January 27, 2006
Of course, it would be nuts to actually subpoena a whole sample.
But bh's idea that somehow the federal government doesn't have the legitimate power to compel people to reveal nonincriminating information is, likewise, nuts, or at least deeply ignorant of American government.
Refusing to fill out a Census Bureau questionnaire isn't striking a brave stance for civil liberties or drawing a line in the sand against a federal government gone beyond its authority, it's just being an ass and making it harder for those people who are actually involved in trying to help the government be more efficient, responsive, and useful to do so.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:40 PM on January 27, 2006
But bh's idea that somehow the federal government doesn't have the legitimate power to compel people to reveal nonincriminating information is, likewise, nuts, or at least deeply ignorant of American government.
Refusing to fill out a Census Bureau questionnaire isn't striking a brave stance for civil liberties or drawing a line in the sand against a federal government gone beyond its authority, it's just being an ass and making it harder for those people who are actually involved in trying to help the government be more efficient, responsive, and useful to do so.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:40 PM on January 27, 2006
Literally two days after moving to a new state a census worker stopped by. I told her my name, she indicated that there were many more questions, I indicated I had no desire to answer any of them. She indicated that I would receive a letter about that, and I indicated that would be just swell. I never received the letter. So for all of those other white males who were counting on some sort of federal assistance for our plight, well, I done let you down.
posted by user92371 at 11:16 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by user92371 at 11:16 PM on January 27, 2006
So for all of those other white males who were counting on some sort of federal assistance for our plight, well, I done let you down.
This only shows ignorance of the damage that non-response does. You see, it doesn't just get the number of wrong, or overestimate the proprortion of .
It messes up the ability to find relationships between different variables. So the larger the problem of non-response, in the relevant survey the more wrong are answers to questions like:
How does the widower effect work? (and consequently, what can be done to reduce it?)
How and when do characteristics of the neighbourhood affect school success?
What is the effect of social support and neighbourhood characteristics on an elderly person's likelihood of hospitalization?
Immigrant health always declines with time in the US, what accounts for this?
What will be the economic effect of increasing college enrollments? (but steady graduations?)
If the bird flu arrived at LAX tomorrow, what would happen?
How does divorce affect the long-term emotional health of children?
What would be the effect of a category 4 hurricane in New Orleans?
Why did the unemployment rate drop/rise?
Note that your not answering damages the ability to answer these questions regardless of whether or not you think they apply to you -- it doesn't matter if you're not an immigrant or not unemployed, or not divorced and not a child of divorce, not a widower, not elderly etc. Your answers are still needed for accurate answers to those questions, and answering those questions correctly benefits us all.
It's not just about the plight of the white male.
If you want to take a stand for your privacy, do what I do, don't give your SSN to your credit card company, phone company, bank, health insurance provider, etc. etc. That's surely a much bigger risk to your privacy than providing confidential data that is ultimately used for your benefit.
posted by duck at 7:20 AM on January 28, 2006
This only shows ignorance of the damage that non-response does. You see, it doesn't just get the number of
It messes up the ability to find relationships between different variables. So the larger the problem of non-response, in the relevant survey the more wrong are answers to questions like:
How does the widower effect work? (and consequently, what can be done to reduce it?)
How and when do characteristics of the neighbourhood affect school success?
What is the effect of social support and neighbourhood characteristics on an elderly person's likelihood of hospitalization?
Immigrant health always declines with time in the US, what accounts for this?
What will be the economic effect of increasing college enrollments? (but steady graduations?)
If the bird flu arrived at LAX tomorrow, what would happen?
How does divorce affect the long-term emotional health of children?
What would be the effect of a category 4 hurricane in New Orleans?
Why did the unemployment rate drop/rise?
Note that your not answering damages the ability to answer these questions regardless of whether or not you think they apply to you -- it doesn't matter if you're not an immigrant or not unemployed, or not divorced and not a child of divorce, not a widower, not elderly etc. Your answers are still needed for accurate answers to those questions, and answering those questions correctly benefits us all.
It's not just about the plight of the white male.
If you want to take a stand for your privacy, do what I do, don't give your SSN to your credit card company, phone company, bank, health insurance provider, etc. etc. That's surely a much bigger risk to your privacy than providing confidential data that is ultimately used for your benefit.
posted by duck at 7:20 AM on January 28, 2006
You see, it doesn't just get the number of wrong, or overestimate the proprortion of .
Oops...I used those greater than/less than brackets. This should be "It doesn't just get the number of [your group] wrong or overestimate the proportion of [not your group]."
posted by duck at 7:21 AM on January 28, 2006
Oops...I used those greater than/less than brackets. This should be "It doesn't just get the number of [your group] wrong or overestimate the proportion of [not your group]."
posted by duck at 7:21 AM on January 28, 2006
"If you feel it is your civic duty, then of course, you should fill it out, but do be aware that a lot of this is for marketing and business analysis,not strictly for government use. While helping American businesses is a laudable goal, I don't think I need to be impressed under penalty of fines to help their demographic research."
Marketting and business analysis? No. That's not why the questionaires are designed, though private businesses do pay for census data (most of it is available for free, since it's public domain, but there's a fair amount of analysis and data correlation that the census department does which is purchased by companies).
Oh, and for you folks worried about confidentiality violations, the penalties for giving info to people not cleared are MUCH stiffer than the penatlies for not giving the data to the census: up to $10,000 and 10 years in jail. I used to work at the Census (in 2000) and they drilled this into us. Also, one of the fun stories from orientation was how the Census Bureau stood up to an FBI seige under Nixon for hours before sneaking someone out to get an emergency injunction. The office director had even barricaded the doors with file cabinets. When we got told that story, part of it was that we all had to pledge to protect the data from anyone outside of the department, even if it meant holing up in an office building.
posted by klangklangston at 3:45 PM on January 28, 2006
Marketting and business analysis? No. That's not why the questionaires are designed, though private businesses do pay for census data (most of it is available for free, since it's public domain, but there's a fair amount of analysis and data correlation that the census department does which is purchased by companies).
Oh, and for you folks worried about confidentiality violations, the penalties for giving info to people not cleared are MUCH stiffer than the penatlies for not giving the data to the census: up to $10,000 and 10 years in jail. I used to work at the Census (in 2000) and they drilled this into us. Also, one of the fun stories from orientation was how the Census Bureau stood up to an FBI seige under Nixon for hours before sneaking someone out to get an emergency injunction. The office director had even barricaded the doors with file cabinets. When we got told that story, part of it was that we all had to pledge to protect the data from anyone outside of the department, even if it meant holing up in an office building.
posted by klangklangston at 3:45 PM on January 28, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by mathowie at 5:15 PM on January 27, 2006