Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
869 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 186

Trusted

  Reply # 2157786 10-Jan-2019 22:07
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic: ... There is no good reason to retain personally identifiable information to the end of time. Any value the data has is not dependant on that. 

 

Your point is valid and I believe Stats NZ agrees with you. During the previous census discussions held here, I read a lot about how Stats NZ manage that data. Their processes for accessing, viewing & manipulating data were very detailed & impressed me sufficiently to believe them. While I can't find the exact passages right now, their policies on who can access the data, what data can be accessed, how the data is stored & separated from other daily Stats NZ business stuff is policies that I'd like all businesses that have customer data to implement. Addressing your point specifically, they say they do destroy data when it is no longer needed. Older data will be scrubbed out IIRC, meaning that for older censuses, the info will be at a lower resolution. Eventually, after 100+ years, the data will be made public

 

Stats NZ have published principles for the safe & effective use of data. They are data stewards and driving the process for all government departments to also manage data wisely & safely. Have a look at their privacy page. & survey charter.

 

A good starting point is their "data leadership" page.





Please keep this GZ community vibrant by contributing in a constructive & respectful manner.


1749 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 859


  Reply # 2157901 11-Jan-2019 08:44
Send private message quote this post

IcI:

 

... During the previous census discussions held here, I read a lot about how Stats NZ manage that data. Their processes for accessing, viewing & manipulating data were very detailed & impressed me sufficiently to believe them. While I can't find the exact passages right now, their policies on who can access the data, what data can be accessed, how the data is stored & separated from other daily Stats NZ business stuff is policies that I'd like all businesses that have customer data to implement. Addressing your point specifically, they say they do destroy data when it is no longer needed. Older data will be scrubbed out IIRC, meaning that for older censuses, the info will be at a lower resolution. Eventually, after 100+ years, the data will be made public

 

Stats NZ have published principles for the safe & effective use of data. They are data stewards and driving the process for all government departments to also manage data wisely & safely. Have a look at their privacy page. & survey charter.

 

A good starting point is their "data leadership" page.

 

 

 

 

Sure!  But reading those policies, procedures and guidelines is nowhere near as satisfying for people as it is to vent their paranoia and conspiracy theories on internet forums and social media.tongue-out





The universe consists of protons, neutrons, electrons...and morons.


 
 
 
 


Glurp
8980 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4160

Subscriber

  Reply # 2157917 11-Jan-2019 09:11
Send private message quote this post

As I have repeatedly stated, I am not opposed to the collection of data. I see the point and value of it. I am only opposed to the lack of anonymity. I have read the policies, procedures and guidelines and nowhere have I found any explanation, or discussion at all, as to why the data collected has to remain personally identifiable. Plenty of bla bla about how wonderful the security is and how carefully it is protected, but not a word on why the data cannot be completely anonymised after it is collected. This is my issue and my question. I don't care about the protection measures. I want to have it explained to me why the information provided has to continue to be linked at all to those providing it. Once it has been verified, there is no reason to continue to store it with personally identifiable details. 

 

 

 

   





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


1749 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 859


  Reply # 2157928 11-Jan-2019 09:22
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

As I have repeatedly stated, I am not opposed to the collection of data. ....

 

 

 

 

smile Which is why I trimmed the quote to remove your earlier comment and made a more general tongue in cheek statement.





The universe consists of protons, neutrons, electrons...and morons.


4751 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2234

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2157948 11-Jan-2019 09:49
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

I have read the policies, procedures and guidelines and nowhere have I found any explanation, or discussion at all, as to why the data collected has to remain personally identifiable.

 

 

 

 

I believe that aspect of it is for the traditional historical value. After a century when the identifiable data is publicly released it provides valuable insight for historians, genealogists and others researching the lives of their ancestors. Arguably though in 2019 (side note: is anyone else freaked out that we're nearly 20 years into the 21st century already? Where's my robot butler!?) the risks associated with data theft outweigh the eventual benefits of keeping identifiable information.

 

So personally I agree with you: I believe the demographic data the census provides is worth the invasion of privacy, but I would prefer the data were anonymous. I'm not sure whether anonymous results would help though - de-anonimising data with high certainty has been demonstrated to be quite feasible in multiple studies.





iPad Pro 11" + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

 

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.




6 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 1


  Reply # 2159615 12-Jan-2019 11:08
Send private message quote this post

Doctrox, in the nicest way possible - you sound like a tinfoil hat nutcase. Just fill out your census.

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

…Any additional questions operate under the same requirement with the sames provisions (Section 43) for you to be prosecuted if you won't comply.

 

 

Because of your insults and non sequiturs, your demands are now forfeit. It’s obvious that you enjoy inciting and arguing. But until you can post relevant primary or secondary documentation, as I have done, you will henceforth be ignored.

 

 

I'm surprised a serious medical researcher would try to use an unprofessional emotional argument like this. The census does not provide any information that isn't already available. It just improves the resolution a little. 

 

 

 

Every time I hear about strict security standards and how excellently privacy is ensured and how much it is valued, I think of all the breaches that occur around the world on an almost daily basis. Even the CIA gets hacked. No organisation anywhere can give an absolute guarantee of privacy and any one that claims to is just blowing smoke.

 

 

 

There is no good reason to retain personally identifiable information to the end of time. Any value the data has is not dependant on that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now that is fair discussion, but not everyone is clear yet on what legally constitutes a census. The myriad of additional questions tacked onto the NZ census share nothing with the definition of “census.”  Point:  No one is legally bound to answer those riders.  Rather, what does the NZ Statistics Act legally require of its citizens re the census?

 

 

 

As I have repeatedly stated, I am not opposed to the collection of data. I see the point and value of it. I am only opposed to the lack of anonymity. I have read the policies, procedures and guidelines and nowhere have I found any explanation, or discussion at all, as to why the data collected has to remain personally identifiable. Plenty of bla bla about how wonderful the security is and how carefully it is protected, but not a word on why the data cannot be completely anonymised after it is collected. This is my issue and my question. I don't care about the protection measures. I want to have it explained to me why the information provided has to continue to be linked at all to those providing it. Once it has been verified, there is no reason to continue to store it with personally identifiable details. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now that is an excellent treatment of merely one very alarming issue re the NZ census. Does history give us any clues as to what is, or what will be, done with that personal info?

 

I believe the demographic data the census provides is worth the invasion of privacy,

 

Is this another slippery slope?


8003 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2658

Subscriber

  Reply # 2159626 12-Jan-2019 12:10
Send private message quote this post

slippery slope to what?


Glurp
8980 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4160

Subscriber

  Reply # 2159633 12-Jan-2019 12:32
Send private message quote this post

Extreme and not entirely fair example, but also not entirely without merit: After the Germans invaded Holland in WWII, they used the excellent and detailed population registry of the Dutch to identify all the Jews for deportation. I am not suggesting anything like that could ever happen here, but it does vividly illustrate how data collected for one purpose can be used for another. It is the principle that is objected to.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 




6 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 1


  Reply # 2159634 12-Jan-2019 12:33
Send private message quote this post

... data collected for one purpose can be used for another.

 

and

 

slippery slope to what?

 

Once we've agreed to allow our privacy to be invaded, where might such an imposition end?

 

 

 

 


3057 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 481

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2159685 12-Jan-2019 13:22
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

doctrox:

 

Now that is fair discussion, but not everyone is clear yet on what legally constitutes a census. The myriad of additional questions tacked onto the NZ census share nothing with the definition of “census.”  Point:  No one is legally bound to answer those riders.  Rather, what does the NZ Statistics Act legally require of its citizens re the census?

 

 

The Statistics Act requires you answer any and all questions asked of you by the Chief Statistician, end of. You don't get to decide "that question is invalid because I say it is", the Statistician decides what questions are in the Census, not you. Your argument is totally invalid.


8003 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2658

Subscriber

  Reply # 2159730 12-Jan-2019 14:08
Send private message quote this post

doctrox:

 

slippery slope to what?

 

Once we've agreed to allow our privacy to be invaded, where might such an imposition end?

 

 

still haven't answered the question


500 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 319


Reply # 2159793 12-Jan-2019 16:32
Send private message quote this post

doctrox:

 

Doctrox, in the nicest way possible - you sound like a tinfoil hat nutcase. Just fill out your census.

 

Because of your insults and non sequiturs, your demands are now forfeit. It’s obvious that you enjoy inciting and arguing. But until you can post relevant primary or secondary documentation, as I have done, you will henceforth be ignored.

 

That's alright, I get the feeling there's a lot of things in this life that you ignore. I do like how you use lots of big words to try to make yourself feel important :)


500 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 319


  Reply # 2159798 12-Jan-2019 16:36
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Hey, @doctrox, you're not one of those 'sovereign citizen' types by any chance?


1874 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 481

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2159814 12-Jan-2019 17:58
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Journeyman:

 

Hey, @doctrox, you're not one of those 'sovereign citizen' types by any chance?

 

I doubt it very much because the references to "Caesar" and  "man's ungodly government" suggest that this is linked to the New Testament accounts supporting good government and, also, the paying of taxes:

 

doctrox:

 

It always bothers me when I see people being taken advantage of by Caesar (i.e. man’s ungodly government).

 

"Sovereign citizens" tend to be more extreme and often oppose any government authority.

 

 

 

I'm sure that the law is clear: current census data gathering is not outside of the intent or limits of the legislation.

 

What is not so clear is whether it is entirely good government. I'm much more sympathetic to such views:

 

  • When informed consent is increasingly the basis for social research but maybe not so much for censuses.
  • While NZ governments have been relatively benign, a malevolent government could easily abuse the legislation to unfairly target individuals and groups. In Biblical times, the Roman census was generally imposed under direct Roman rule and it was an instrument of domination because the data was used by state functionaries to steal from their citizens.
  • The history of census often involves a newly ceded or conquered territory (e.g. the Romans had censuses for new territories) and, sometimes, a misuse of the data (e.g. the Nazis attacking Jews).

 


818 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 191


  Reply # 2160673 13-Jan-2019 22:15
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

doctrox:

 

Notice the two words above that I have bolded. Subsection (1), pertaining to the “census,” states “shall.” And subsection (2), pertaining to “additional matters,” states “may”... and may denotes permission!

 

 

Err, read more than one word. The "statistician may" gives the power of discretion to them, not you. Like in the Crimes Act: "A constable... ...may arrest...". You don't get the discretion in your arrest, the police officer does...

 

You funny.


1 | 2 | 3 | 4
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Geekzone Live »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.