upvote
deleted
reply
Surely any such foreign occupier would just demand the unredacted data?
reply
Exactly why a government may refrain from collecting such data, as it is not even relevant in any kind of policy decision.
reply
What, religious data? Are you serious? That's one of the most critical things they can track about their citizens.

Let's say your town has a lot of pig farmers. The pig farmers are afraid their business is diminishing. So they lobby the local government to put a tax on chicken and beef, to encourage more pork consumption. Which local officials might be inclined to do for economic reasons. But then you collect religious data, and it turns out 50% of the population is Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu. So half the population now has to pay a tax, which is effectively a tax on their religion, because their religious belief says they can't eat pork.

This is a made up example, but the point is that you need to know about your citizens so you can make just laws that respect those citizens (and encourage businesses, job training, etc based on demographics). It's why we have a census.

reply
Yes, which is why the government shouldn't have this data at all in the first place.
reply
Say you get your way, and, for fear of Mark Carney rolling the tanks in and taking over North America, the US stops collecting any data on its citizens. How is the IRS supposed to know how much tax to expect from you? How is SNAP supposed to determine your eligibility? How is unemployment supposed to know if you're ripping them off or not? Data privacy is a real concern, but you need PII to run government services effectively. Running a state without collecting PII is like running a hospital without collecting any.
reply
> How is the IRS supposed to know how much tax to expect from you? How is SNAP supposed to determine your eligibility? How is unemployment supposed to know if you're ripping them off or not?

How does knowing your religious affiliation help them with any of this?

reply
"Collecting data" is what helps them.
reply
They should follow the principle of least privilege. Why not use differential privacy?
reply
I don't know why you understood my comment as saying government shouldn't have any data. I specifically replied to the comment about religion - there's no reason for the government to collect any data about that from individuals. Churches can report how many members they have if they want to. But it shouldn't be a question on the census.
reply
That's where you hope people like Rene Carmille are around. S
reply
France used to make plenty of lists. We loved lists. Lists are good. Jews lists? Sure, it's maybe useful one day when we want to do something.

Boy were the Germans happy to find these.

The American obsession with asking for people their perceived origins (AAPI, AA, Latino, ...) is more than weird: it's downright dangerous. Don't fucking ask these questions, and never, ever write it down, especially not with names.

Thankfully, now they can just buy it from data brokers and let Palantir target, so that makes life easier for them

reply
"What is your religious affiliation" makes absolutely no sense in a census exercise. IMO.
reply
The U.S. Census Bureau collects tons of data unrelated to the decennial counting for Congressional apportionment.

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys.html

The American Community Survey is the most well-known, as it replaced the “long form” sampling that had been an extension to the Census.

reply
Unless you’re a government explicitly and openly aligned with Christian nationalists.
reply
It actually does. Religious affinity can absolutely be useful for longer trend studies, and census data is usually of much, much higher quality than other random sample studies.
reply
The point might be going over my head… why does it make no sense?
reply
why it makes sense? please try to answer. what action of the gov would change based on that data?

then, make it so your answer is more valid than if they asked what you usually have for breakfast.

i guarantee you more gov actions can be positively impacted by the breakfast question than the religion one.

the ONLY use for religious data is to get it for free for campaigns.

reply
Isn’t religion, for those who follow it (I don’t), one of if not the most important aspects of their identity and life’s purpose? I love breakfast food, but not that much.

Don’t some religions not get along very well?

Given your criteria, what should be asked? Check the boxes for the physical and mental illnesses you have? What’s your BMI? How much time do you spend online? What percent of your diet is highly processed foods?

Is gender/sex also nonsensical? Is languages spoken also nonsensical?

reply
Asking about your religion on the census is against the law in the US:

no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

https://www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-90/STATUTE-90-Pg...

reply
> compelled

Doesn't that mean they can ask that question with an option for "rather not disclose"?

reply
Religion is just an example. Don't dwell on it.
reply