Chronopolitics, et al
Locked
12
12
 
|
What an exchange! It got me thinking... The value we presently attribute to certain tools or policies (2B) can no longer be asserted as good in the now, and that future dangers will simply be dealt with as they arrive. These dangers will arrive before the future does, indeed they are already here. As things everywhere press toward merger, we have to honestly ask: how are we in the present guarding against our future selves? persons who only know a digitized world, ever-connected, all other rationales denied?
Opposers to current changes should consider that omniscience near always augments omnipotence, and that no rulers ever delimit knowledge to increase power, though they may change the flow of knowledge in order to preserve the possibility for certain types of power. It is in the interest of the politicians to delimit (flows to the State of) direct knowledge of people, for increasingly the State will know everyone and play subtle roles in determining its own representation.
"man is evermore the maker of what he has made and the doer of what he can do, and most of all the preparer of what he will be able to do next. But who is 'he'? Not you or I: it is the aggregate, not the individual doer or deed that matters here; and the indefinite future, rather than the contemporary context of the action, constitutes the relevant horizon of responsibility. This requires imperatives of a new sort. If the realm of making has invaded the space of essential action, then morality must invade the realm of making, from which it has formerly stayed aloof, and must do so in the form of public policy. Public policy has never had to deal before with issues of such inclusiveness and such lengths of anticipation. In fact, the changed nature of human action changes the very nature of politics." \\\ in other news /// In the informational state, the panspectron has replaced the panopticon The concept of the panopticon refers to surveillance practices in which the individual subject of surveillance is first identified and then multiple techniques and technologies of observation are directed upon the subject. The use of surveillance techniques as a means of control under modernity is often described as panoptic, and this accurately summarizes the cumulative effect of many of the practices of the bureaucratic state. In the informational state the panopticon has been replaced with the panspectron, in which information is gathered about everything, all the time, and particular subjects become visible only in response to the asking of a question. The panspectron is also a control mechanism, with the additional features that it can manage many more subjects at once, and that the subjects of surveillance never know when, how, or why they might become visible on the panspectral screen.
Braman, 2006
|
the census: money vs. information
|
|
|
Re: the census: money vs. information
|
|
Traditionally data that each department held about you, taxes etc. would be held on paper in a filing cabinet. There was simply no way t go through the records and add up all the data, hence the separate Census.
The legal requirement has its origins in Stats Can's desire for data quality. Quite simply the number of refusals on a survey is higher for ones without a legal requirement. Unfortunately those people who generally refuse tend to be clustered. They may for example have lower reading skills etc or in other words the very people you'd like to include in your survey the most. It is very rarely enforced. The state knows exactly where I live etc. Yes and today technically computer systems could correlate the data. Stats Can actually does use data from other departments such as Taxation to supplement its surveys. There are privacy concerns, one large database that the Government used to have was broken up over privacy concerns. It is occasionally reassembled by joining different databases for specific projects but has to have permission for each project. The Economist magazine had an article recently on the US Census, it cost about $66 per person in the US, and compared that to Finland where the government just assembles its data from tax records etc. cost 22 cents per person. European data collected in this way tends to be more up to date and useful for planning purposes besides being cheaper. Do we need a seperate Census? Difficult to say but Stats Can might not be the ideal people to ask, they get a lot of cash from the Census and it makes a lot of people's careers. Cheerio John On 21 July 2010 14:14, Jennifer Bell <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
Re: the census: money vs. information
|
|
What is Finland collecting for its 22Cents?
A cost benefit analysis was referred to in the 1985 Nielsen Task Force Report which demonstrated that it is more costly to collect bits of pieces of data from administrative program data from different departments, divisions and levels of government and their divisions and departments. Also, when done this way, it is also to compare the data as the samples are different. Also, did you tick off the box of your tax return that says you can share your data with the census? Overall more costly and way less efficient to have other jurisdictions sorta collect sorta the same data at sorta the same scale at sorta the same time. Makes for bad science really! There is just no replacing the census. Also with this cut, we loose baseline data. So 2011 becomes ground zero and all that came before cannot be compared nor analyzed. Remember, the Short Form and the Ag Census remain mandatory! Only our ability to do social analysis disappears! On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:44 PM, john whelan <[hidden email]> wrote: Traditionally data that each department held about you, taxes etc. would be held on paper in a filing cabinet. There was simply no way t go through the records and add up all the data, hence the separate Census. -- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 |
Re: the census: money vs. information
|
|
This is a bit surreal. Let's call it how it is: the original motivation was to diminish StatsCan. A pesky, semi-independent department that can show government isn't doing a great job, numbers in hand. And besides... The proposed changes will cost more, not less. The legal obligation backed by fines and possible jail time also apply to the short-form.
This whole privacy thing is a canard, used by a minister that was shot down on every other flimsy argument (Statscan wanted it, they suggested it...). Clement would have flunked a first year stats course: increasing sample size does not control for sampling bias. That level of incompetence should be grounds for immediate dismissal, same as a science minister defending creationism. These guys are clowns.
All Clement's got left is some populist, watered-down imitation of a libertarian argument. For the record: I'm a libertarian, and it burns me that these authoritarian ministers use those arguments whenever it's convenient.
If we can't kvetch about data gathering being cancelled - if that's off-limits for our ideological discussions - then we let our government have an easy out. People asking for notes from meetings? Stop taking notes. People want census data? Stop gathering it. Etc, etc.
The census may not be the cheapest way to gather comprehensive data. Until there's a replacement, messing with its accuracy reveals a staggering, gobsmacking failure of leadership and governance.
/rant On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Tracey P. Lauriault <[hidden email]> wrote: What is Finland collecting for its 22Cents? |
Re: the census: money vs. information
|
|
In reply to this post by Jennifer Bell
Jennifer Bell wrote:
I've noticed recently that Tony Clement, Maxime Bernier and other people who publicly oppose the long-form census keep bringing up the point about governments incarcerating citizens who don't comply with the census. While I can certainly appreciate the effectiveness of tapping into that sort of emotion, I'm worried that its distracting the wider public from a fact-based discussion about the merits of the long-form census data . The short-form census still has the same legal threats attached to it so it seems like an odd point to try to make for why the long-form should be optional. Are there any numbers available on how many people have been incarcerated for refusing to complete the census? If the government doesn't actually follow through on the threats, do we still need them to guarantee a proper random sample? Shawn |
Re: the census: money vs. information
|
|
In reply to this post by Jennifer Bell
Money is merely a liquid representation of labour and ideas. Paying taxes is tantamount to acknowledging that the state owns a percentage of your labour and ideas.
One of the reasons information is collected every so often in census instead of being collected at birth and maintained and shared is because if it were done in the latter manner, the state would necessarily have to maintain and share personally identifiable records about you throughout your life, which would actually be a much greater invasion of privacy and subject to far greater potential abuses and discriminations. Also, information sharing is locked down amongst departments for this same reason. The irony is that the census maintains individual privacy much more than the alternatives. ~Drew On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Jennifer Bell <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
Re: the census: money vs. information
|
|
In reply to this post by Daniel Haran
> If we can't kvetch about data gathering being cancelled - if that's
off-limits for our ideological discussions - then we let our
> government have an easy out. People asking for notes from meetings? Stop taking notes. People want census data? Stop > gathering it. Etc, etc. Yeah really, I reckon this is pretty on-topic and even central to the core issue. What good is open data if there is no data? ~Drew |
Re: the census: money vs. information
|
|
In reply to this post by Shawn Simister
Shawn wrote:
I've noticed recently that Tony Clement, Maxime Bernier and other people who publicly oppose the long-form census keep bringing up the point about governments incarcerating citizens who don't comply with the census. While I can certainly appreciate the effectiveness of tapping into that sort of emotion, I'm worried that its distracting the wider public from a fact-based discussion about the merits of the long-form census data . The short-form census still has the same legal threats attached to it so it seems like an odd point to try to make for why the long-form should be optional. Are there any numbers available on how many people have been incarcerated for refusing to complete the census? If the government doesn't actually follow through on the threats, do we still need them to guarantee a proper random sample? Question: There is a tendency to social bias with any survey instrument, even when participation is purely voluntary. Why the assumption that threatening people with incarceration leads to accurate responses? best, Heather Morrison [hidden email] |
Re: the census: money vs. information
|
|
|
Re: the census: money vs. information
|
|
In reply to this post by Daniel Haran
+5
On 22 July 2010 05:44, Daniel Haran <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- - |
Re: the census: money vs. information
|
|
In reply to this post by Heather Morrison
Heather Morrison wrote:
> Shawn wrote: > > I've noticed recently that Tony Clement, Maxime Bernier and other > people who publicly oppose the long-form census keep bringing up the > point about governments incarcerating citizens who don't comply with > the census. While I can certainly appreciate the effectiveness of > tapping into that sort of emotion, I'm worried that its distracting > the wider public from a fact-based discussion about the merits of the > long-form census data . > > The short-form census still has the same legal threats attached to it > so it seems like an odd point to try to make for why the long-form > should be optional. Are there any numbers available on how many people > have been incarcerated for refusing to complete the census? If the > government doesn't actually follow through on the threats, do we still > need them to guarantee a proper random sample? > > Question: > > There is a tendency to social bias with any survey instrument, even > when participation is purely voluntary. Why the assumption that > threatening people with incarceration leads to accurate responses? > that a mandatory census will get a higher response rate than a voluntary one and more importantly a statistically rigorous sample of the population that can be compared to past results and data from other countries. For all I know, prison may be a very good motivator for people to do their civic duty (many of the government's "tough on crime" policies seem to be based on a similar assumption), but I don't think its as intuitive as the need for a truly random sample. If this is really just about the government throwing people in jail for not completing the census then we could easily resolve the whole controversy by finding a more reasonable penalty. However, I suspect that its mostly a diversion from the real issue of whether or not the long-form census data is an important component of fact-based decision making and good governance. Shawn |
Economist: the traditional census is dying, and a good thing too.
|
|
In reply to this post by Tracey P. Lauriault
|
Re: Economist: the traditional census is dying, and a good thing too.
|
|
Britain can do this as the rest of their institutions which gather data are exceptional and are integrated and they do not have a federal and provincial split and then a municipal split like we do.
Each country has its own systems and the norwegian countries have had other processes in place for quite some time. They did not change based on an ill informed decision coming from a minister who does not understand how his administration works. If we want change, then we develop an intelligent process to change, and we go through channels and consultations to do that. Something like how the National Science Foundation does in the US. We do not arbitrarily kill a system that is ranked the top in the world, that has delivered reliably and accurately for 150 or so years, because a minister 'feels like it" and suddenly a story was framed in a way that we suddenly care. The current Canadian government and multiple unstandardized program and mandate specific processes we have to gather administrative data is not comparable to those examples you provided. If we gathered data well from these other places in government at all levels then we could adjust the census. At the moment the census is the best instrument we have, particularly for long term comparability and neighbourhood scale. See the list of those who have submitted letters etc. regarding the census. These groups have not done so for partisan reasons, they have done so because they are data users and know what the repercussions are http://datalibre.ca/census-watch/. Cheers t On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Jennifer Bell <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 |
Re: Economist: the traditional census is dying, and a good thing too.
|
|
In reply to this post by Jennifer Bell
Great article. The system that the British are building sounds pretty
exciting and I think it could be a huge improvement over the existing
format but until they build it there's no way to know for sure. The
current census may not be perfect but its certainly the best system
that we have so far.
If the government had made census reform an issue while parliament was still in session and had consulted with the public about how to collect census data more often and at less cost I would probably be much more in favor of it. However, the current approach of crippling the long-form census over the summer holidays while nobody is paying attention doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in me that this is being done for the right reasons. Also, as Drew pointed out, these large consolidated databases are arguably a bigger privacy concern than the current census so I wonder whether people who oppose the long-form census over privacy concerns would really embrace this sort of system. Shawn Jennifer Bell wrote:
|
Re: Economist: the traditional census is dying, and a good thing too.
|
|
|
Re: Economist: the traditional census is dying, and a good thing too.
|
|
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Jennifer Bell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Really, the whole uproar seems to be resting (as Heather points out) on the assumption an > un-enforced 'mandatory' data collection process is more accurate/better than a voluntary > one. I don't think 'assumption' is fair here. That a more-or-less-mandatory census sample and a voluntary sample have very different characteristics is a basic empirical result in social sciences that's been demonstrated over and over again. And not only is one type of sample indeed more accurate, but you just can't do reliable time-series comparisons between the two types of samples. There's also no reason to think that this will cease to be the case. 'Jedi' and so on have had essentially no effect on data quality in countries where that's happened ('Jedi' maps quite nicely to either 'No religion' or 'Declined to respond', for example), and I don't see any reason to suspect that a movement will arise that would lead a significant number of Canadians to give misleading answers. |
Re: Economist: the traditional census is dying, and a good thing too.
|
|
In reply to this post by Jennifer Bell
If it did not bother you then why now?
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Jennifer Bell <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 |
Re: Economist: the traditional census is dying, and a good thing too.
|
|
In reply to this post by Morgen Peers
Whether or not Bill Sparkman was murdered for being a Fed, the case is illustrative. Resentment exists aimed toward the State which appears through its representations to live upon normal people, as do parasites.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Bill_Sparkman Rationally speaking, the State provides. But its representations seem to allot (too) much for 'itselves', as if it's a society separate from 'society', something which aims to support and promote the aims of ITS members. This causes distrust, and at the heart of the matter is the divulging of information. We say it's for "better program design." Ideally, yes. But rationally we (and they, those in Kentucky) know otherwise. Information is used to instrumentalize populations in the mid-level macro machinations of non-virtuous schemers who seek to implement their programs, which unlike campaign platforms are not 4 years, but rather a quieter 10, 20 years. The idea of beefing up dispersed collection will likely gain, but then it becomes more insidious, an all-pervasive aggregating/matching. At least the census is straight forward about it. Open Data is about accountability and innovation. yes. But it is also about legitimization. Our age's phenomenon: The State knows ever more about each of us while we know ever less about it. Open Data/Gov is an attempt to tip the balance toward the middle, but admittedly never fully. Impractical. It is about making Gov legitimate. I think this debate is crucial. The census IS fully delegitimized when I/we make it but then only THEY (controlling knowledge workers/the monied) can access it. It must be absolutely free. Of course Halifax fisherman won't play with the XML feed. But it is his province to learn, view stories, explore. Actually it's not his province yet. it's Hers. And the redefinition of the Head Magistrate to the people, and then to the Cabinet marks the tasks ahead. If the Gov serves Her or Him, then what if Their program was education, inclusion, empowerment? The GG needs Viagra. What if the Minister's intent was to get this conversation going? We all know census/StatsCan needs a bit of a re-think. Is it better to do all that consultation? Why? Why is it his job? Ministers only act as freely as civil society is weak. The onus is ours, not theirs. In lieu of an emergent program with popular consensus, Ministers contrive on their own. Problem is our civ soc has been kept small, broken up, uncoordinated. We're sort of like children, wanting our own way but deferring responsibilities. Lucky we have great tools just as adolescence is arriving. Seems that Open Data is: Gov cleaning data, making it anonymous, opening it up, then it will be civil society's job to form novel massive consortiums for statistics. Impossible? Canada sort of sucks at philanthropy. Lucky philanthropy is changing. Google: open data + philanthropy + manifesto. Americans are seeing data as the heart of philanthropy, uniting players, solving dilemmas. How does Canada see things. Whoever is not in power needs to stop wasting our fucking time and their party's by tracing the routes of the current rulers. Their actions are designed to be wasteful. We need to demand that the Greens, Dems, Libs, and Bloc begin openly developing real platforms for adaptive growth to thrive in what will/is the craziest fucking century of our lives. Maybe in the Information Age/Century an agency dedicated to information will be central Maybe Maybe now is the time. Let's get a real plan for a renewed StatsCan from any one of them. If Open Government is too forward, maybe they've heard of Open Space Technologies? Morgen |
Re: Economist: the traditional census is dying, and a good thing too.
|
|
In reply to this post by Tracey P. Lauriault
I also think that Jennifer is rightfully suspicious that these are mostly empty threats which in my mind makes it intellectually dishonest for the government to be using them as the reason for crippling the long-form census. This is a decision that will affect Canada for decades to come. We should be basing it on facts rather than fear. Shawn Tracey P. Lauriault wrote: If it did not bother you then why now? |
«
Return to CivicAccess
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |