Census - the answer

Via Captain Ranty (to whom a big tip of the crash-hat), I got to this summary of the legal basis of the 2011 Census, and what should be done about it. I do urge you to go and have a read of it (too much to post here). And I have come to a decision.

Despite the shaky legal basis of the Census Act 1920, and despite the fact that:

• after the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, section 39, the absolute confidentiality of personal information is no longer guaranteed (thank you, Labour)
  
• census data will be classified as 'restricted', not 'confidential'
• forms will be processed by 1300 temporary workers, about whom the Government cannot give assurances regarding vetting or security, either before, during or after the census is completed
• data handling has been sub-contracted to an American company, Lockheed-Martin, who are subject to the US Patriot Act, which allows the US Government to have access to any data in their possession
• the UK Government and civil service have an appalling record of losing personal data on laptops and memory sticks, such as the 2007 loss of discs containing the personal details of 25 million Child Benefit claimants by HMRC
• our personal data will be available to 'approved' people, such as the police, intelligence agencies, immigration authorities, foreign governments, the private sector and approved academic researchers, which makes any claim to confidentiality 'for 100 years' highly questionable; none of those august bodies have ever had leaks of information, have they? The statement that "Census records are sealed for a hundred years" is a complete joke.
• the EU's Census Regulation is now law in the UK, and requires that personal information gathered in the UK is passed to Eurostat, an organisation with a history of corruption and fraud
• the Census is required so that "local services are properly planned", and of course the evidence of the success of the 2001 Census in providing that is all around us
• the questions on ethnic origin are far more detailed than in the previous Census, and may well be used to target resources at minority populations more than at present; the Census homepage says it is so that "the needs of all communities are identified", which confirms that the purpose of the question is allocation of resources along ethnic lines, which to my mind is divisive rather than inclusive
  
• the Census forms are being provided in more than 50 languages, and the cost of this is borne by me, the taxpayer, not the people involved, who might be expected to learn the language of their adopted country as a condition of living there
  
• the Census is an example of the people being answerable to the state, not the state answering to the people, which is fundamentally wrong
  
• it is an arbitrary intrusion in breach of my right to privacy, which is enshrined in the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• the 2011 Census was set in motion by the outgoing Labour government, and is only being carried through on the grounds that too much money had already been spent on it; the incoming Government should have simply scrapped it
• it will be the last Census of its kind, as the Government says that in future alternative methods of data gathering will be used; why not use those methods now?

In the light of all of this, and as an upright and law-abiding citizen, I am going to fill in my Census form to the minimum required by law. I am then going to post it off.

I just hope, after all that effort, that it gets there. The Royal Mail lose millions of items each year, and I am sure that handling tens of millions of census envelopes won't make their job any easier. I will have proof of posting, or course.

Logic Problem

Q19: How well can you speak English?

• Very well
• Well
• Not well
• Not at all

Will anyone ever tick the last box?

Computers Are Thick

And computers can't cope with:

• Ink other than black or blue (do you think a very pale blue counts?)
• Lower-case letters
• Answers that go outside the box
• Ticks that are the wrong way round
• Crossing-out and writing above the line
• Ticking all the boxes when told to "tick all that apply"
• Ticking several boxes when told to "tick one box only"
• Coffee stains
• Rips and tears
• Muddy pawmarks
• Religions with more than 17 characters in their description
• Responders who ignore navigation instructions (like answering questions 27 to 31 when told to go straight to question 32).

There's all sorts of ways this could go wrong.

Plop ...

... on the doormat this morning, a lovely lilac-and-white A4 envelope with a heavy document inside (of course, I had forgotten that here the form will be bilingual - in Wales, every document is twice as big as it needs to be*).

And, on the cover, that lovely, warm ain't-it-wonderful-to-live-in-a-free-society legend:

Your census response is required by law

"No pressure", then.

I think I might fill it in straight away and post it off this afternoon, like you do with credit card bills when you are feeling virtuous. They'd appreciate a prompt response, surely?

(*That is not to say that either language is unnecessary, just that every reader will only ever read half the document, and that's a lot of trees.)

Census Questions

For England can be found here, and for Wales here. As far as I can see, the only difference is in the order of nationalities in Q15, where Welsh comes first on the Welsh version, and vice versa on the English, and Q17 on facility with the Welsh language, which is 'intentionally blank' on the English version. I understand the Scots have their own version, but I couldn't find this on the ONS website.

Some of the questions, in fact many of them, seem quite legitimate, and I have no problem about answering them. My name, date of birth, and occupation seem inocuous enough, and a few basic facts about my house are hardly something I need to keep private. My real problem is where the questions seem to have a concealed agenda, and seem to relate to social engineering and political issues, rather than simple hard population data collection. Why on earth, for example, do they need to know if my house is heated by gas or wood? It couldn't be anything to do with a fantasy-driven energy policy, could it? Or my ethnic group - gathering the evidence for more 'special treatment' for supposed minorities?

One question I will be answering in thick black permanent marker is Q41, where I get to tell them how I get to work. 'Motorcycle' is a listed option. Yay!

I'm sure I can work some oppressed victimhood in there, somehow.

Intrusion

There's a good piece over at the Tellygiraffe by Philip Johnston on the intrusive nature of the census.

Most of all, the census has become far more than a simple reckoning of the size of the population and is now inquisitive to the point of prying. We will be required by law in March to provide more than 40 pieces of personal information, including religious belief and ethnic background. Questions about income and sexuality were originally proposed for inclusion but dropped as too nosey. Even so, there is a section to say whether you are in a civil partnership.

It is a far cry from the first UK census in 1801, when just five questions were asked, to establish the number of people in each household, their sex and occupation.

There's some interesting stuff on the history of the census, and how people have always been suspicious of government attempts to find out things. Go and have a read. The comments are worth a look too.

Ten Things about the Census

From NO2ID:

10 Census Lies

The propaganda push for the 2011 census has begun. NO2ID opposes this census because it represents the worst features of database state, the insatiable desire for ever more information, and the presumption that official purposes override privacy.
Here are the ten worst lies you will be told in the coming weeks:

1. The Census is essential for government and business planning

On the contrary, it is worse than useless because it is expensive, inaccurate, and quickly out of date.

One could also ask: what bloody planning?

2. Our Census data is trusted and respected worldwide

Even were this true, should we care? Most countries do have some sort of census, but would being respected at doing something essentially useless be worth more than £300 millio.

3. It's a great source for genealogy

100 or 200 years ago there was little record of most people's lives, and old censuses may be the only documents available. It is ludicrous to assume the same will apply in 100 years time, and outrageous to suggest it justifies spending public money.

4. It's 'good for employment', it provides jobs.

Temporary ones, Yet the money spent would otherwise be spent on something — probably something useful involving permanent jobs.

5. Census data is confidential for 100 years.

Not any more. Census forms are kept from the public for 100 years. But EU legislation allows the 2011 census to be shared with all 27 member states, and the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 created powers to share the information with public bodies, and "approved researchers".

6. The census results in high-quality information.

No one knows how many people lie in their return. The 2001 census is generally believed to have 'missed' around 900,000 men under 40.

7. Everyone should be proud of playing their part in the census.

There is no reason to be proud of being tallied like cattle. There is every reason to oppose the waste and the intrusion. There is a long history of public resentment of the census. In the 1800s census officers had to be given police protection; in 1911 the suffragettes boycotted it in protest; and in the 50s TV publicity told people it wasn't "another bit of snooping"

8. Communities can use census statistics to help gain recognition.

Whether a group is "officially recognised" is a political decision, not the same as individuals being located and categorised. 390,127 people recorded their religion as Jedi in 2001; they have yet to be officially recognised. More seriously, the Board of Deputies says the census underestimates British Jews, precisely because some of that community are nervous of officials knowing where they live.

9. Completing the census is straightforward, convenient and secure.

New questions are more intrusive than ever before, requiring details of employer's addresses, the details of any visitors to your house, and where they usually live. This is a direct danger to people who have sensitive occupations. The online version is a perfect cover for phishing attacks.

10. Your personal information is protected

Security is only as good as the shortest route to breaking it. Thousands of people will be involved, large commercial contractors and government agencies will process it, and the law newly provides that the data may be accessed for a variety of reasons, not just for making a statistical summary.
It cannot be guaranteed there won't be a security breach, or that data once captured will be used legitimately.

They cannot protect it; they shouldn't collect it.

I'm with the Jews on this one. If you have lived in a country where the State is actively hostile to you (for whatever reason), then the more they know about you, the more nervous you get. Old habits die hard. And while we have a nice, cuddly, caring-sharing, Centrist government now, who is to say what use future governments may make of the information? Can we guarantee that all future governments will be benign?

Point 8 is, I think, the main purpose. They want to get us all labelled and categorised so that, at some future time, certain approved groupings can claim recognition and funding. We won't be people, we will be 10% gay, 80% straight, and 10% other, or something. And then we will be asked why 10% of public funding isn't going to gay issues. Or that 60% claim that they are nominally Christian, so that my taxes can go to create faith schools (for, after all, if you allow Christian schools, you must allow all the others too).

That is the bit I won't co-operate with. They can have my name, address and date of birth, and nothing else. The rest is absolutely none of anyone else's business.

The only question is whether to leave those bits blank or get creative. I think I'm leaning towards creative at the moment.

That Sexuality Question ...

... which may, may not, be included in the 2011 Census.

Thirty years ago, the worry would have been that people were being forced to reveal if they were gay.

Today, the worry is that they are being forced to reveal if they are not.

What to do about the Census...

Complete it, refuse to complete it, lie?

A lot of people are planning a boycott of the 2011 Census because of the involvement of Lockheed Martin in the planning and data handling. The fact that Lockheed is an arms company doesn't bother me, but the fact that they are American, and therefore subject to the Patriot Act, does. (That is not an anti-US comment, by the way. I just don't like the idea of my personal data being handled by a foreign company with a duty to reveal it to their government if required, and the UK government doesn't exactly have a glowing reputation over standing up to American demands.)

But I object to the census on the grounds of intrusiveness. I have religious views, and political views, and a unique sexuality (only in the sense that everyone's is unique, you understand), and none of these is the business of the State. I can accept that the state needs to know how many people there are, and where they live, and perhaps even what they do for a living. But beyond that, it is no concern of theirs.

Refusing outright to complete the census could result in a £1000 fine or imprisonment. I can't afford a fine, and I don't want to go to prison, so unless everyone boycotts it I doubt if I will. But I'm thinking of the 'Jedi Knight' campaign for the last census. If I say I am, under 'religion', a Pastafarian, who are they to disagree? If I call my sexuality 'fixated on goats, but only pretty ones', how can they question that? Can they prove I am lying?

The questions are not in the public domain yet, and for all I know some of these may not be included. And they are a massive intrusion into my private life. I can accept all the arguments about planning public services and so on, and I don't mind letting the State know I am here, and that I am unlikely to be requiring a primary school place any time soon. But as to whether I am gay or straight, or Catholic or Seventh Day Adventist, I won't be telling. The origin of the calories that run my central heating system will remain untold. As to any 'overnight guests', their sexuality, name, date of birth, address and shoe size, there will be one answer:

MYOFB.

H/t to Longrider who, as usual, has some sensible points to make.