The campaign against the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ dramatic changes to the census ramped up further today with South Australian Senator Nick Xenophon vowing to refuse to provide his name in the most prominent act yet of census civil disobedience.
The national census is scheduled to be conducted tomorrow night and will commence a program of lifelong surveillance of each Australian as census data, personal information held by governments and future censuses are linked together with a personal identifier, enabling longitudinal study of every citizen. The ABS insists providing a name and address is compulsory, and they will be used as the basis for personal identifiers to track every citizens’ personal data.
Announcing he would not be providing his name, Xenophon, who now wields considerable power in the senate following the election of three NXT senators (and one House of Representatives member) said that the census had changed from a snapshot of the country to a “mobile CCTV” for every Australian that citizens would not be able to escape. Xenophon has previously been a strong critic of overreach by security agencies.
Xenophon’s announcement came amid a series of weekend developments undermining the ABS’ position and validating concerns about the census:
- Constitutional lawyer Caroline Henckels, writing for the Castan Centre, backed the argument of former ABS head Bill McLennan that the ABS may not have the legal power to demand names, and that citizens would only be in breach of the law if directed to provide their names after census lodgement;
- A senior privacy advocate and consultant, Anna Johnston, announced her concerns about the census were so great that she would be boycotting the census;
- Former Australian Privacy Commissioner Malcolm Crompton AM revealed he would be travelling overseas to avoid the census;
- More concerns emerged about the security of the ABS’ third-party IT systems provided by IBM that would be handling the census;
- The Australian Privacy Foundation wrote to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and current ABS head David Kalisch asking for information about security precautions being taken by IBM and whether information would move offshore during the process (thereby making it subject to US data retention laws); and
- News Corp tabloids reported the ABS planned to monetise “new products” produced by the census and links to other government data sources.
In response, the ABS has continued to threaten to fine anyone who fails to fully comply with the census, including providing name and address.
I so badly want to make a point regarding this attempt by the government to get access to our information, but who will pay the fine for me, should the ABS go ahead with it`s threat? Do I have the right to include my wife in this protest, as I am the one to be filling out the census? I may have to weaken, and I feel terribly guilty!
You can ask for separate forms.
They have to give you a warning before they do anything. You can safely protest in the first round and make it a huge media issue.
I don’t understand the kerfufle:
.) ATO has your name, address and how much you earn.
.) Medicare has your name, address and your health information
.) If you have a passport, the department has your name and address.
.) if you have a drivers licence, the department has your name and address.
If you are out of the country your information will be taken from the exit card you fill out when you leave.
Have fun avoiding the future.
‘Have fun avoiding the future.’
Or, put another way, have fun avoiding being a sheep.
So your argument is that if some departments have information on us then we should allow the census to collect even more.. and link it to all the other information held by other departments?
BTW, your driver’s licence is held by a state department
When photos were first put onto drivers licences back in the 90s it was loudly proclaimed by the NSW (and other States) that they would not used for other purposes or agencies.
Of course, that was bullshit – then, as now.
And all those things exist in separate databases, controlled by separate departments, accessible to different people, with different security and auditing controls around them.
There is no unifying back-end Government database. It’s not like the movies where someone says “tell me about Joe Bloggs” and everything from the name of his first goldfish through his last credit card statement to his first stillborn child’s name pops up on screen.
The ATO doesn’t ask your religion.
Medicare doesn’t ask how you got to work.
DFAT doesn’t ask how many other people were in the house when I filled out my passport application.
The DoT doesn’t ask for my income.
Etc.
You seem to think that all the information is already available. So why do we need to waste money on a census then?
Ah the justification of inevitability. You had it right in your first sentence: “I don’t understand…” You may be happy with increasing amounts of personal information being held, and that’s fine. However I am not.
Take heart, the peasants are revolting. There will be many thousands not responding to this census & it will take much time & effort by the ABS to prosecute even a fraction of them. There’s safety in numbers (pardon the pun).
The ABS has had five years to organise this poorly marketed/managed census. If this is indicative of their competency perhaps the chances of prosecution are less likely than one imagines.
It’s census today and I still have neither a form or my letter. If they can’t organize the distribution of the Census, how on earth can they be competent to keep it secure?
I see Fiona Stanley disagrees with you, Bernard. I still intend to complete the Census.
I’m Winston Smith…..