The Census is Here. Oh Crap.

[Bruce Clemens]

I recall in 2000 I got one of the relatively rare "long forms". Apparently this time around, there will be no "Long Forms" and the Census has been pared down to a relatively innocuous set of 10 questions (which are still 9 too many).

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/how/in...e-form.php

But...now there is a Census Spin Off called the "American Community Survey." This is where it begins to get freaky. And absolutely diverges from even a charade of constitutionality.

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2009/changesin2010.aspx

In every decennial census since 1940, two questionnaires have been used to collect information: a "short form" with only basic questions such as age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin; and a "long form" with the basic short-form questions plus about 50 additional questions on socioeconomic and housing characteristics. Only a subset of households received the long-form questionnaire—about one in every six in 2000. However, for the first time since 1940, the 2010 Census will be a short-form-only census. This is because the decennial long form has been replaced by the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is a nationwide, continuous survey designed to provide reliable and timely demographic, housing, social, and economic data every year. The ACS will replace the long form in 2010 and thereafter by collecting long-form-type information throughout the decade rather than only once every 10 years.

[Bruce Clemens]

He wrote this in 2004 about the ACS...

None of Your Business!
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
[size=12]by Rep. Ron Paul, [/SIZE]

You may not have heard of the American Community Survey, but you will. The national census, which historically is taken every ten years, has expanded to quench the federal bureaucracy’s ever-growing thirst to govern every aspect of American life. The new survey, unlike the traditional census, is taken each and every year at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. And it’s not brief. It contains 24 pages of intrusive questions concerning matters that simply are none of the government’s business, including your job, your income, your physical and emotional heath, your family status, your dwelling, and your intimate personal habits.
The questions are both ludicrous and insulting. The survey asks, for instance, how many bathrooms you have in your house, how many miles you drive to work, how many days you were sick last year, and whether you have trouble getting up stairs. It goes on and on, mixing inane questions with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. One can only imagine the countless malevolent ways our federal bureaucrats could use this information. At the very least the survey will be used to dole out pork, which is reason enough to oppose it.
Keep in mind the survey is not voluntary, nor is the Census Bureau asking politely. Americans are legally obligated to answer, and can be fined up to $1,000 per question if they refuse!

I introduced an amendment last week that would have eliminated funds for this intrusive survey in a spending bill, explaining on the House floor that perhaps the American people don’t appreciate being threatened by Big Brother. The amendment was met by either indifference or hostility, as most members of Congress either don’t care about or actively support government snooping into the private affairs of citizens.
One of the worst aspects of the census is its focus on classifying people by race. When government tells us it wants information to “help” any given group, it assumes every individual who shares certain physical characteristics has the same interests, or wants the same things from government. This is an inherently racist and offensive assumption. The census, like so many federal policies and programs, inflames racism by encouraging Americans to see themselves as members of racial groups fighting each other for a share of the federal pie.

The census also represents a form of corporate welfare, since the personal data collected on hundred of millions of Americans can be sold to private businesses. Surely business enjoys having such extensive information available from one source, but it’s hardly the duty of taxpayers to subsidize the cost of market research.
At least the national census has its origins in the Constitution, which is more than one can say about the vast majority of programs funded by Congress. Still, Article I makes it clear that the census should be taken every ten years for the sole purpose of congressional redistricting (and apportionment of taxes, prior to the disastrous 16th amendment). This means a simple count of the number of people living in a given area, so that numerically equal congressional districts can be maintained. The founders never authorized the federal government to continuously survey the American people.
More importantly, they never envisioned a nation where the people would roll over and submit to every government demand. The American Community Survey is patently offensive to all Americans who still embody that fundamental American virtue, namely a healthy mistrust of government. The information demanded in the new survey is none of the government’s business, and the American people should insist that Congress reject it now before it becomes entrenched.

July 13, 2004

Here is the 2009 version:
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/SQuest09.pdf

[Bruce Clemens]

Would you feel good providing answers to questions like these...at the threat of fines and imprisonment for non-compliance?

[Peter Lemkin]

Relax, Next census they'll have everyone chipped and it will continuously send information and location. Removal of the chip will result in a prison sentence of no longer than a few years....:motz:

[Bruce Clemens]

Department of Homeland Security Obtained Data on Arab Americans From Census Bureau

On July 23, 2004, EPIC obtained documents revealing that the Census Bureau provided the Department of Homeland Security statistical data on people who identified themselves on the 2000 census as being of Arab ancestry. The special tabulations were prepared specifically for the law enforcement agency. There is no indication that the Department of Homeland Security requested similar information about any other ethnic groups. The tabulations apparently include information about United States citizens, as well as individuals of Arab descent whose families have lived in the United States for generations.


One tabulation (pdf) shows cities with populations of 10,000 or more and with 1,000 or more people who indicated they are of Arab ancestry. For each city, the tabulation provides total population, population of Arab ancestry, and percent of the total population which is of Arab ancestry.


A second tabulation (zip), more than a thousand pages long, shows the number of census responses indicating Arab ancestry in certain zip codes throughout the country. The responses indicating Arab ancestry are subdivided into Egyptian, Iraqi, Jordanian, Lebanese, Moroccan, Palestinian, Syrian, Arab/Arabic, and Other Arab.


The heavily redacted documents show that in April 2004, a Census Bureau analyst e-mailed a Department of Homeland Security official and said, "You got a file of Arab ancestry information by ZIP Code Tabulation Area from me last December (2003). My superiors are now asking questions about the usage of that data, given the sensitivity of different data requests we have received about the Arab population."


The same day, a Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection official e-mailed (pdf) the analyst to explain, "At U.S. International airports, U.S. Customs posts signage informing various nationalities of the U.S. Customs regulations to report currency brought into the US upon entry . . . . My reason for asking for U.S. demographic data is to aid the Outbound Passenger Program Officer in identifying which language of signage, based on U.S. ethnic nationality population, would be best to post at the major International airports."


During World War II, the Census Bureau provided statistical information to help the War Department round up more than 120,000 innocent Japanese Americans and confine them to internment camps.
The tabulations were produced using data from the 2000 census long-form questionnaire, which goes to only a sample of the population. The tabulation figures, therefore, do not provide an entirely accurate representation of the Arab American population.


As a result of the revelation, EPIC joined a coalition of more than 20 civil liberties groups to call upon the Department of Homeland Security to better explain its acquisition and use of the census data.
In addition, the Census Bureau revised its policy on sharing statistical information about "sensitive populations" with law enforcement or intelligence agencies. Customs and Border Protection also changed (pdf) its policy on requesting "information of a sensitive nature from the Census Bureau."


EPIC has filed additional FOIA requests with the Census Bureau, Department of Homeland Security and other agencies to learn more about law enforcement and intelligence use of census information.
FOIA Documents

• E-mail Correspondence Between Census Analyst and DHS Officials (pdf)
  
• Tabulation 1: "Places with 10,000 or More Population and with 1,000 or More Persons of Arab Ancestry: 2000" (pdf)
  
• Sample of Tabulation 2: "People of Arab Ancestry by ZIP Code Tabulation Area: 2000" (pdf)
  
• Full Tabulation 2: "People of Arab Ancestry by ZIP Code Tabulation Area: 2000"; assorted other tabulations performed for other agencies (5 MB zip)
  
• U.S. Customs and Border Protection Talking Points on Request for Census Information (pdf), July 12, 2004.
  
• Statement of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert C. Bonner on Census Data (pdf), July 30, 3004.
  
• U.S. Customs and Border Protection Memorandum, "Policy for Requesting Information of a Sensitive Nature From the Census Bureau" (pdf), August 9, 2004.
  

Related EPIC Policy Pages

• EPIC Census Privacy Page
  

[Bruce Clemens]

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/margo/www/go...apaper.htm

At these finer levels of disagregation the operational value of mesodata in locating a target population was clear to both the users and producers of 1940 Census mesodata on Japanese Americans. For example, during the January 1942 Census Advisory Committee meeting the following colloquy took place between Dr. Leon Truesdell, Bureau’s chief population statistician, Dr. Virgil Reed, the Bureau’s assistant director, and Director Capt:

Dr. Truesdell: ... We got a request yesterday, for example, from one of the Navy officers in Los Angeles, wanting figures in more or less geographic detail for the Japanese residents in Los Angeles, and we are getting that out....

Dr. Reed: [Commenting on all the hard work occasioned by numerous requests for data on the Japanese, Germans, and Italians] ... and some of them wanted them by much finer divisions than States and cities; some of them wanted, I believe several of them, them by census tract even.

Dr. Truesdell: That Los Angeles request I just referred to asked for census tracts.

The Director: We think it is pretty valuable. Those who got it thought they were pretty valuable. That is, if they knew there were 801 Japs in a community and only found 800 of them, then they have something to check up on....
[Census Advisory Committee, January 1942: 20-21]1
[URL="https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/margo/www/govstat/Seltzer-AndersonPAA2007paper3-12-2007.doc"]
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/margo/www/go...2-2007.doc[/URL]

[size=12]After we documented the information available as of early 2000 on the Bureau’s involvement in the roundup of Japanese Americans (Seltzer and Anderson, 2000), the then Census director Prewitt (2000, cited in US Census Bureau, 2005, p.16) wrote,[/SIZE]
The historical record is clear that senior Census Bureau staff proactively cooperated with the internment, and that census tabulations were directly implicated in the denial of civil rights to citizens of the United States who happened also to be of Japanese ancestry.

http://www.toad.com/gnu/census2.japanese.1943.png

[Bruce Clemens]

...from the Wall Street Journal no less.

HONESTY MAY NOT BE YOUR BEST CENSUS POLICY
[size=12]By James Bovard [/SIZE]
Wall Street Journal, 8-Aug-89

Next year, the Census Bureau will conduct the nation's 21st decennial census. Ironically, while the bureau collect masses of information partly to justify expanding various welfare programs, many poor people will be victimized by the answers.



While many liberal groups are worried about how the census will count the homeless, no one is paying attention to how the census could create new homeless. The census forms next year will ask up to 59 compulsory questions per household, depending upon whether it receives a long or short form. They will include up to 26 questions on housing -- type of building, approximate number of units in the building, monthly rent or mortgage payments, whether solar energy is used, etc.



Anyone who refuses to answer any question can be fined $100. Each household will receive an official notice with its census form next March: "Although your answers are required, the law guarantees privacy ... The only people allowed to see your answers to the census are Census Bureau employees. No one else -- no person, government agency, police officer, judge, welfare agency -- can see them. It's the law." Federal law states that "in no case shall [census] information be used to the detriment of any respondent or other persons to whom such information relates." Yet, people have been evicted for giving honest census answers.



Though the Census Bureau does not release data on each household, it does release information on each block -- and a block can have as few as six houses on it. The average block contains 14 houses. According to the General Accounting Office, one of the most frequent ways city governments use census information is to detect illegal two-family dwellings.



An American Planning Association survey reported that housing code enforcement was a key benefit of census data for local governments. For instance, Montgomery County, MD, and Pullman, Washington, use census data on the nubmer of housing units in a structure to check compliance with zoning regulations.



The Long Island Planning Board uses census "block counts ... to estimate the extent of illegal two-family home conversions," according to a June 27, 1986 board letter. Such "illegal" two-family dwellings are pervasive on Long Island, according to Anthony Downs of the Brookings Institution. Such crackdowns are especially unfortunate because, as George Sternlieb of Rutgers University notes "The biggest source of good-size rental apartments in America is the illegal conversion of single-family houses."



Census data help housing inspectors zero in on violators. Bruce Stoffel of the Community Services Department of the City of Urbana, Illinois, declared in an Aug 24, 1987 letter to the Census Bureau that he "routinely used census data to analyze the developmental stage of neighborhoods to determine the most appropriate public intervention strategies (e.g., code enforcement).



Obviously, the people most likely to live in overcrowded situations are poor people, especially immigrants, who often cluster in the same neighborhood. Housing codes have long been used as a means to "keep out undesirables" and to exclude waves of newcomers. William Tucker, author of the forthcoming "The Excluded Americans" notes: "code enforcement has always been a very counterproductive way of trying to help the poor. It usually sacrifices the adequate in favor of the ideal.



The Census Bureau denies responsibility for the eviction of poor people because the bureau does not release the precise names and addresses of housing code violators. It makes a similar argument about events that occurred in 1942, when the Census Bureau provided the Army with a list of exactly how many Japanese-Americans lived in given neighborhoods, making it easy to round them up for internment during World War II.


Census Bureau spokesman Ray Bancroft insists that this was not a breach of confidentiality because the Bureau did not give out the names or exact addresses of Japanese-Americans. This is like someone claiming he bears no responsibility for setting loose on your block a wolf that just happens to gnaw on your leg -- simply because he didn't set the wolf free at your doorstep and tell the wolf to bite you personally.



The IRS in 1983 attempted (largely unsuccessfully) to combine census data with private mailing lists in order to track down people who don't file income taxes. As computer technology advances, the ability of the IRS to "abuse" census data will increase. As David Burnham, author of the forthcoming "The IRS: A Law Unto Itself", says: "The IRS will try it again. As marketing lists become more complete and accurate, the IRS will become more able to combine them with census information to track people down."



Information on race and home ownership is used to discover allocations of housing units that are discriminatory under the Civil Rights Act of 1984. Oxnard Park, California, uses census data to discover areas where landlords illegally discriminate against families with children.



Information on occupations is used by corporations and government attorneys to construct affirmative-action quotas for different industries. Information on "place of birth" is used by the Civil Rights Commission as a baseline for determining discrimination by national origin.


Even though the census is especially innaccurate with regard to minorities, (who often prefer not to be counted), census data are increasingly being used to construct proofs of prejudice and discrimination.
But the more intrusive government becomes, the less information it will get. The Census Bureau is expecting a sharp decline in the percentage of households that voluntarily mail back their census forms -- from 83% in 1980 to 78% in 1990.



A lower response rate will sharply increase the costs of doing the census. The cost per capita of the census has increased from $121 in 1970 to $1040 in 1990 -- a cost spiral that almost makes the Pentagon look good. (The total census cost next year is expected to weigh in at $2.6 billion).


While most information-intensive industries utilize computers to sharply lower their costs of operation, the Census Bureau has repeatedly botched its operations and squandered millions. The bureau will need to recruit 300,000 census takers next year to go around and knock on doors. But, unless the nation has a major recession between now and then, the efforts to recruit temporary help could be a big failure, and the entire census effort could run aground. Recruitment is already running into difficulty in many areas.



The more information the government collects on people, the more control the government will have over people. When there are hundreds of thousands of pages of federal, state and local rules and regulations, almost every citizen must be guilty of something. And will millions of government employees in this nation, there are too many people with an incentive to abuse government information to fill their quotas of citations, arrests and investigations.

[Bruce Clemens]

Forgive my commentary (in red) but when I saw this I felt like I did when I first learned about how the income tax was enacted...

Judge flip-flops on Census finding
[size=12]Strikes down own earlier challenge to federal snooping
[/SIZE]By Sarah Foster
© 2010 WorldNetDaily.com

In a stunning reversal of her earlier decision, a federal judge has dismissed a case that would have prevented the federal government from taking criminal action against those who refuse to answer questions demanded by the U.S. Census Bureau, beyond what is required by the U.S. Constitution.

When judges have "stunning reversals" you have to wonder who got to them.



Judge Melinda Harmon of the U.S. District Court in Houston, Texas, wrote in a 35-page statement, "The Court finds that there is no basis for holding Census 2000 unconstitutional."

As WorldNetDaily reported in March, five Houston, Texas, residents had filed a lawsuit in federal district court. The basic question the suit addressed was: What kind of information may the United States government demand of its citizens and compel them to provide under threat of criminal penalties should they not do so?

The five -- Edgar Morales, Laique Rehman, Nouhad Bassila, George Breckenridge and William Jeffrey Van Fleet -- are American citizens.
"At theheart of this claim," the plaintiffs claimed in their suit, is the threat to prosecute as criminals -- with stiff fines and possible imprisonment -- those persons who refuse to answer the Census Bureau's questions.

There are "virtually no limits to the intrusiveness of census questions propounded by the government," they noted. The penalty for non-compliance is up to $100 for each question not answered. A false answer can cost up to $500.

Judge Harmon appeared to agree with the plaintiffs when on March 25 she granted attorney Mark Brewer, of the Houston-based firm of Brewer and Pritchard, a temporary restraining order against the Census Bureau.

Speaking from the bench, the judge ruled that the bureau did not have an automatic right to ask questions felt to be personal or intrusive and that it cannot threaten or prosecute citizens who refuse to answer such questions.

"Far-reaching" is how Brewer described that first ruling.
"For the moment, this will prevent prosecution against any American who chooses not to answer questions other than the number of people living at their address -- that's all that's required by the Constitution," he said.

It was expected the case would go to a three-judge panel, but the Fifth Circuit denied that request. It fell on Harmon to issue a final summary judgment either for the plaintiffs or the Census Bureau.

Rather than expand or restate her earlier decision, the judge sided with the bureau over issues the plaintiffs raised -- about privacy, the possibility that federal agents might use collected information (particularly that dealing with race and ethnic background) to engage in illegal activities against citizens, and that the penalties for refusing or neglecting to answer the questions are particularly harsh.

What happened here???

Specifically, the plaintiffs had argued that the questions asked in both the eight-question "short form" or the 53-question "long form" go far beyond what is required by Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. There, Congress is directed to conduct a count every 10 years of the number of people throughout the country for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives.

That's true, the judge ruled, but "... from the first census taken in 1790, the Congress has never performed a mere headcount. It has always included additional data points, such as race, sex, and age of the persons counted."
She observed that decades before the turn of the 20th century, the census had become a process for collecting statistical data the government thought necessary to function.

[size=12]"This [the Constitution] does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if 'necessary and proper,' for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the Constitution,"
[/SIZE]
But does it allow the Census Bureau to punish citizens for not complying with it's additional forays? NO!

Despite assurances to the contrary, plaintiffs Edgar Morales, Laique Rehman, and Nouhad Bassila -- all naturalized citizens -- are particularly concerned that information about their origins and ethnicity could at some point be used against them. They argued that census data of this type was used during World War II to identify Americans with Japanese ancestry who were placed in internment camps for the duration of the war.

Harmon essentially agreed with the plaintiffs.

Then why in Hell did she rule on the side of the Census Bureau?

The internment represented, in her words, "a startling example of how census data, collected for proper purposes, has been illegally used by the government for improper purposes." She even drew upon Filegate as an example of misconduct by government officials having access to confidential files. Having gone that far, however, she tossed the problem to Congress to make the necessary corrections.

"Recent non-World Wide Web incidents made this fact tangible, one involving hundreds of FBI files that were sent to low-level White House functionaries who had no need to know, and others involving confidential government personnel file information on controversial government employees, or would-be employees, sent to the media," the judge stated in a footnote.

"The plaintiffs thus cannot be faulted for questioning whether the census data, so carefully and anonymously compiled, will not be misused by the government. The horrors of the 20th century do not allow one comfortably to accept the notion that the Japanese-American experience during the Second World War was an isolated incident in the history of the United States.

We all can envision other ethnic groups who could be treated in a similar fashion given the 'proper' emergency. Nevertheless, a solution to this problem is one properly addressed by Congress, not by a court dealing with a purely hypothetical situation," she said.

WTF not? She passed the frickin' buck.

William Jeffrey Van Fleet is the plaintiff who has the most to lose in refusing to answer. Van Fleet is the only one of the five who received the long form, which has 53 questions, most of them intensely personal. Additionally, each member of a long form recipient's household is assigned an additional 33 questions. As head of a family of four, Van Fleet is expected to answer 152 questions -- each with its own separate penalty for non-response.
If he chooses not to answer, he faces a potential fine of as much as $15,200. Had he received the short form of eight questions, his fine would not exceed $300.

He is a hero.

Van Fleet argued that this subjected him to an "egregiously unequal" risk of prosecution in violation of his equal protection and due-process rights, and his rights to privacy under the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In the words of the court, "He is required to disclose information about his medical history and condition, his ancestry and ethnic background, his income, his work habits, including how long it takes him to drive to work, and detailed information about his home, including the number of bedrooms, the nature of his plumbing, whether he owns or rents, even whether he pays his rent in cash."

Said Harmon, "Questions about the medical conditions of the members of Van Fleet's household would, in other contexts be considered private, but Census 2000 is not the first census to ask such questions." Far from it. "Asking questions well beyond the constitutionally mandated headcount is far from a novel idea of 20th century big-government bureaucrats," she said.

This makes no sense. You sold out. Who got to you? I want to know!

Mark Brewer expressed disappointment with the ruling, stating that in his view, the judge didn't come to grips with certain key points.
"The court neglected two things," he said. "One is the issue of privacy. It's not private when I am forced to tell the government particularly intimate details of my life. That argument was really ignored by the court.

"Furthermore, the court failed to address the various due-process, equal-protection, anti-discrimination claims that I raised, and instead relied on the fact that historically, it's always been done that way before. But that doesn't make it right, and, more importantly, it ignores the fact that the portion of Article I dealing with the census was specifically changed by constitutional Amendment XIV, and was also impacted by Amendments XIII and XVI. Directly impacted," he added.

"It used to be legal to have separate but equal facilities for blacks and whites, but that's not legal anymore. It used to be legal to sexually harass your secretary. It's not legal anymore. The fact that something like the census has been done a certain way for 200 years doesn't mean that it was right. Essentially, the court whitewashed a substantial part of the challenge to the census by saying, 'it's always been done this way.'

She had the opportunity to slap down the other branch of the government and tell them they were out of line, but she backed off," he said.
Brewer said he plans to file an appeal on behalf of the Census 2000 challengers, and will also ask the trial court to extend the temporary restraining order through the appeal of the case.

"We're going to the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans to ask for a review by the entire court instead of one of the panels," he said. "We believe our case has a great deal of merit and deals with issues that have to be addressed."

Shit.

[Bruce Clemens]

Use of word Negro on 2010 census forms raises memories of Jim Crow

BY Katie Mcfadden and Larry Mcshane
DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Wednesday, January 6th 2010, 7:13 AM

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/01/...z0e2ZTmhZx

Question No. 9 on this year's census form asks about race, with one of the answers listed as "black, African-Am. or Negro."
Census Bureau spokesman Jack Martin said the use of "Negro" was intended as a term of inclusion.

[Magda Hassan]

The most recent census in Canada attracted much non compliance in part because the Canadian government had outsourced the Census to Lockhheed Martin the US arms manufacturer which upset many. The following are some of their suggestions for remaining within the letter of the law but applying minimal compliance. Many have to do with making it difficult for the scanners to read the answers which will result in the form having to be manuall processed by a human which is a) more expensive b) more time consuming. Others involve protecting privacy or personal information. I am inspired by the spirit of resistance to comply :playingball:

Minimum Cooperation with the May 2006 Canada Census

Minimum cooperation with the Census is the foundation of the CountMeOut project. If we are to be successful, Canadians must buy into the MINIMUM COOPERATION strategy. First, it must be stated that CountMeOut.ca is not advocating outright refusal to provide census data. The Statistics Act, rightly or wrongly, makes it an offence to refuse to provide the information, or to provide false information. And, as StatsCan goes to great length to assert, consolidated aggregate Census data is useful for determining transfer payments to provinces and other social programs. Refusal or not to provide information is a personal decision, that each Canadian can make.
However we believe that, fortunately, Canadians can effectively register their opposition to free trade and the jeopardizing of personal privacy, through MINIMUM COOPERATION with the Census, rather than outright refusal. If even 50 percent of Canadians apply minimum cooperation with one or more of the techniques discussed in this website, the efficiencies which were supposedly to be achieved by contracting out part of the Canada Census to Lockheed Martin (Canada) will be more than nullified. At the end of the process, you will have met the legal requirement to provide your Census information, but you will have exercised several of the options offered you by Statistics Canada, or otherwise available to you. By doing this you have the empowerment to impress on Statistics Canada and the Government of Canada that Canadians will not tolerate the sellout of their sovereignty and the compromising of their personal privacy.
This sort of opportunity to easily, yet effectively register your opposition to NAFTA and loss of privacy does not happen every day. Let's all use this opportunity!
[ This is the MINIMUM COOPERATION MAIN PAGE. Use the navigation bar at the BOTTOM of the page to continue to the other minimum cooperation pages. ]


Don't hesitate to use the many options provided by StatsCan

Information provided by Statistics Canada mentions several options that citizens can exercise. Every single option on this page is offered by Statistics Canada, so you have a right to exercise those options.We encourage you to use those that in your judgement are appropriate for you.

• you have the option to file your census return on-line, or on paper. WE STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU AVOID ONLINE FILING, developed by Lockheed Martin. We feel that the privacy of online data is more easily compromised in this new
  technology
  
• you can request a replacement form if you lose the original form that Statistics Canada mailed you.
  
• StatsCan encourages one census return per household, covering all household members. BUT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST AND FILE INDIVIDUAL CENSUS RETURNS FOR EACH MEMBER OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD.[Important update, 03 May] When a viewer called the StatsCan 1-800 number and requested separate forms, he was advised that the separate forms would not be mailed to him until at least May 26. Because that is after the Census deadline, he was given a reference number to quote to any StatsCan people pestering him for his return. THIS CLEARLY IS A SUPERB MINIMUM COOPERATION TECHNIQUE, AS IT GENERATES CONSIDERABLE WORK FOR STATSCAN, AND ALSO PROVIDES A TOTALLY LEGITIMATE STALLING TACTIC. WE SHOULD ALL USE IT!
  
• You can request the census form in easy to read, large-print format. Very helpful given the amount of strain that our eyes endure in this day and age. Also helpful for anyone who ever gets headaches We are not sure yet, but think that the large-print forms may not be readable by the Lockheed Martin
  scanners. [ 02 May Update:] Some viewers have found StatsCan reluctant to provide large-print forms.
  
• You can be busy at the time that a census worker calls at your door, or on the phone. You can politely suggest another time when you are not busy
  
• you can choose not to answer your doorbell if you are busy at the time..
  

Other Options

There are several other options and events that may apply in connection with the May 16 2006 Canada Census

• You may like to have a cup of coffee or hot chocolate, while you are completing your census form. Careful not to spill. But if you do, don't worry--your form can still be processed manually instead of by the Lockheed Martin scanning software system.
  
• You may like to add a sticker or two on your census form, perhaps a sticker with your name and address, or a sticker to promote your favourite charity. Try not to completely cover over the bar-code on your census form, especially the large bar-code on the first page. But again, if you do happen to cover the barcode, your return can still be processed manually instead of with the Lockheed Martin designed scanning/tracking
  system.
  
• Maybe you like light blue pencils for filling in forms. Maybe you generally write very lightly, and very small. While this may be unreadable by the Lockheed Martin designed scanning equipment, you will be helping Canadian data-entry StatsCan employees keep their jobs and not join the ranks of the
  unemployed.
  
• When writing words or numbers within the census form boxes, you could turn the page upside down and then enter your letters or digits.
  
• on multiple choice answers, you could not mark an "X" in any of the circles, but instead simply write beside the question "Choice number three", if your answer is the third option of those presented. Here's an example.
  
• You may have a preferred way of folding correspondence that you revert to absent mindedly, by habit.
  
• You may have lost the mailing envelope that the Census provided, but not the forms themselves. You might opt to use your own envelope to mail in your form. Perhaps the envelope is a different size and shape than the standard census reply one..
  
• [suggested by a viewer] When you mail in your form in your own odd-sized envelope, it won't be postage-prepaid. No problem. Simply address your envelope to the Hon. Maxime Bernier, Minister of Industy, House of Commons, Ottawa Ont., K1A 0A6. Now it can be sent postage-free! Bernier is the minister responsible for Statistics Canada.
  
• another way to handle multiple choice answers is to "X" several options, then handwrite "this one" beside your actual answer.
  
• You may decide to separate the 40-page long-form census questionnaire booklet into separate loose sheets, and rearrange the order of the sheets, perhaps in the order of your most recent Loto 649 numbers. It might make you lucky. Remember to blacken the barcodes at the bottom of each page; they contain the page numbers.
  
• [suggested by a viewer] Perhaps you are a traditionalist, and prefer to state dates in Roman Numerals. In case your were wondering, Census Day is: XVI V MMVI
  
• You may get part way through filling in the replacement census form that you got after losing the original, before you realize that it is hard on your eyes and you would like the large-print census form instead that is offered by the Census..
  
• [suggested by a viewer] You might place your completed census in the envelope and set it aside. A few days later, you see it, and forgetfully mistake it for junk mail. You crumple it up into a small ball and stomp on it a few times before you realize that it's the census. Oh well, straighten it out and mail it in. If the Lockheed Martin developed software can't handle it, real live Canadian data-entry employees can.
  
• [suggested by a viewer] Your non-dominant hand could use a little extra practice. If you are right-handed, fill out your census form using your left hand. And vice-versa
  
• [suggested by a viewer] Wait for a day when it is pouring rain, and take a nice leisurely walk to the post office to mail in your census return, soaking wet but intact. As a helpful service to our viewers, CountMeOut presents for your convenience a link to Environment Canada, where you can obtain a 5-day weather forecast for your region, to assist in planning your census
  outing.
  
• [suggested by a viewer] Some of your answers may be written on little post-it notes which are affixed to your census return.
  
• [suggested by a viewer] Numbers can be written as simple arithmetic expressions. Example: (3+2) persons in household; (25-6 September, 1939+4); (89+3) Sunshine Street, Apt.
  (112+2)
  
• [suggested by a viewer] Part E Question 3, Date of Birth, says if exact date unknown, enter best estimate. Since you have no first-hand recollection of you exact birth date, you can print the words "best estimate" in the date box, as per instructions---get it?.
  
• [suggested by a viewer] In Step B: Leave Person 2 column blank. Skip to Person 3 column. Include dog; relation: Other--Pet.
  
• [suggested by a viewer] Change the order of the persons you enter in the columns of Step E from the order of persons you entered in Step B
  
• Perhaps there is an artist hidden within you. You could take a pair of scissors and make one-half inch cuts into the census form all around the edge, making a most attractive fringe that not only enhances the appearance of your census form, but also makes it difficult to feed into the Lockheed Martin scanning system.
  
• [suggested by a viewer] For Step A, Question 2 --Phone Number: You can unplug your phone(s), and then truthfully write in the phone number boxes "NONE FUNCTIONING RIGHT
  NOW"
  
• [suggested by cat-owning viewer] Get your cats involved in completing your census form. Click here for all the details
  

Check out the rest of the site too: http://www.countmeout.ca/