Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Email this6:29 am
February 27, 2018
Offline
Video on this topic.
7:10 am
December 17, 2016
Offline
Having had 2 comments deleted on this thread, one can only assume the moderator has absolutely NO qualms whatsoever with the current government's furthering of citizen survellience.
7:21 am
May 15, 2007
Offline
Your comments were deleted because they were repeating the same thing you said several times previously.
7:22 am
August 10, 2018
Offline
Interesting to note that the mainstream CBC (liberal) media has had absolutely nothing to say on this very important matter. Global has been all over it.
9:02 am
August 4, 2010
Offline
A forlorn hope, but one could wish that people would make a good faith effort to understand things they disagree with, rather than jump straight to polemics.
For anyone familiar with statisticians and analysts, they are notoriously data hungry, from their desire to produce interesting (and often useful) knowledge. StatsCan has a mandate to provide insight into things like the economy and finances, and this proposal would have originated within StatsCan as an agency, for those purposes, not some nefarious "let's get a bunch of personal data to rule the world" scheme from the political administration (or the Trilateral Commission).
The upper levels of StatsCan aren't politically naive, and something of this nature almost certainly (one would hope) was run past their minister and perhaps the PMO. It may turn out that enough opposition will be aroused that this will get backed down. And it is certainly possible to argue that StatsCan is overreaching in this case.
Other points to remember is that personably identifiable data is not available to other government departments. For instance, the CRA does not have access to personal information Statistics Canada collects. The data reduction would likely be done on their "closed" network, and so this data would be very difficult to access via most "hacks".
Again, it is perfectly reasonable to argue against something like this, on various grounds. But dialog is better if everyone tries to engage with the questions thoughtfully.
9:14 am
February 4, 2017
Offline
As usual its all about the money. Government is always looking for more ways to top up the coffers.
Knowing how we spend and what we do with money opens up a plethora of new and exciting ideas for taxation or other.
9:14 am
December 17, 2016
Offline
"The upper levels of StatsCan aren't politically naive, and something of this nature almost certainly (one would hope) was run past their minister and perhaps the PMO."
And I'm going to say that this venture came from the top down and not pushed up as you believe.
9:16 am
May 24, 2016
Offline
Northern Raven said:
Again, it is perfectly reasonable to argue against something like this, on various grounds. But dialog is better if everyone tries to engage with the questions thoughtfully.
I agree
9:20 am
December 17, 2016
Offline
For instance, the CRA does not have access to personal information Statistics Canada collects.
BUT StatsCan does have access to CRA data or how else are they able to provide income levels at the Postal Code level?
9:50 am
December 17, 2016
Offline
A forlorn hope, but one could wish that people would make a good faith effort to understand things they disagree with, rather than jump straight to polemics.
That bold statement makes the assumption that only you know how the world and governments work within and without and I have enough experience both inside and outside of governments to believe otherwise.
9:50 am
August 4, 2010
Offline
Top It Up said
"The upper levels of StatsCan aren't politically naive, and something of this nature almost certainly (one would hope) was run past their minister and perhaps the PMO."And I'm going to say that this venture came from the top down and not pushed up as you believe.
Even taking this assumption on its own terms, it doesn't make a lot of sense. One would have to suppose the government saying something like (with a little excusable hyperbole): "We want a bunch of personal financial transaction data for nefarious purposes of our own. But to do this, we are going to work through StatsCan, secretly instruct them to come up with a legitimate (if perhaps overreaching) project that will obtain this data, but leave it locked inside StatsCan, where we can't actually get at because it is protected by strong, explicit black letter confidentiality laws."
9:54 am
December 17, 2016
Offline
NorthernRaven said
Even taking this assumption on its own terms, it doesn't make a lot of sense. One would have to suppose the government saying something like (with a little excusable hyperbole): "We want a bunch of personal financial transaction data for nefarious purposes of our own. But to do this, we are going to work through StatsCan, secretly instruct them to come up with a legitimate (if perhaps overreaching) project that will obtain this data, but leave it locked inside StatsCan, where we can't actually get at because it is protected by strong, explicit black letter confidentiality laws."
Well you were doing ok, until you said leave locked away . thats where naiveté sets in. The government's only interest is in the accumulation and movement and their proxy, StatsCan, can provide that massaged data in spades.
9:57 am
August 4, 2010
Offline
Top It Up said
For instance, the CRA does not have access to personal information Statistics Canada collects.BUT StatsCan does have access to CRA data or how else are they able to provide income levels at the Postal Code level?
This is the opposite case - Statistics Canada does indeed have (statutorily permitted) access to CRA data. But CRA (or other departments) does NOT have access to personal information collected by Statistics Canada; this is governed by the Statistics Act and I can assure you statistical agencies take this very seriously.
10:15 am
December 17, 2016
Offline
Chief statistician resigns over government's failure to 'protect the independence' of StatsCan
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/statscan-wayne-smith-resigns-1.3765765
10:50 am
August 4, 2010
Offline
Top It Up said
Chief statistician resigns over government's failure to 'protect the independence' of StatsCanhttps://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/statscan-wayne-smith-resigns-1.3765765
Partisans will note that the creation of Shared Services (the central government IT group at the heart of Smith's resignation) and its takeover of departmental and agency IT responsibilities dates back to Harper Conservative times, and merely continued when the Liberals came to power. Large IT project problems are fairly catholic in the circumstances they crop up in. SSC doesn't sound like as big a boondoggle as, say, the Phoenix pay system, more an inability to provide necessary service levels, and the loss of StatCan's ability to fully control the design of their data services.
How StatsCan (and a couple other special data cases like CRA) control and provide their IT needs is an interesting question. Given what I've read there are some points on both sides, but certainly there are issues with these sort of situations where the responsibility for something is separately located from the funding and delivery of it.
In any case, this has nothing to do with Statistics Canada's legal responsibilities - the government can't request protected information no matter what the IT regime is.
10:59 am
December 17, 2016
Offline
In any case, this has nothing to do with Statistics Canada's legal responsibilities - the government can't request protected information no matter what the IT regime is.
I have several relatives who lived on the eastern side of the wall for the full 28 years so I have a pretty fair understanding of just how preverse governments can be ... but keep holding that thought.
12:11 pm
July 10, 2011
Offline
The Liberals Want More Data!? 
No.
12:33 pm
August 10, 2018
Offline
This issue is a hill worth dying over. All people should voice their concerns at the Privacy Commisioners website, and your local MP. This cannot be allowed to proceed.
1:56 pm
October 17, 2018
Offline
NorthernRaven said
A forlorn hope, but one could wish that people would make a good faith effort to understand things they disagree with, rather than jump straight to polemics.For anyone familiar with statisticians and analysts, they are notoriously data hungry, from their desire to produce interesting (and often useful) knowledge. StatsCan has a mandate to provide insight into things like the economy and finances, and this proposal would have originated within StatsCan as an agency, for those purposes, not some nefarious "let's get a bunch of personal data to rule the world" scheme from the political administration (or the Trilateral Commission).
The upper levels of StatsCan aren't politically naive, and something of this nature almost certainly (one would hope) was run past their minister and perhaps the PMO. It may turn out that enough opposition will be aroused that this will get backed down. And it is certainly possible to argue that StatsCan is overreaching in this case.
Other points to remember is that personably identifiable data is not available to other government departments. For instance, the CRA does not have access to personal information Statistics Canada collects. The data reduction would likely be done on their "closed" network, and so this data would be very difficult to access via most "hacks".
Again, it is perfectly reasonable to argue against something like this, on various grounds. But dialog is better if everyone tries to engage with the questions thoughtfully.
Using this mandate they could then reasonably begin collecting personalized data from our cell phone providers , including GPS location data , automobile insurance data , all data your automobile computer aquires , your internet provider data , and data from utility companies now that everything is getting "Smart " . This could all be consolidated into your personal file and I am sure it would provide them with much useful data but I think they should have to obtain that data by other methods. I am sure most of this is already being collected but now they want to legitamize it .
And of course the Bildeburgers are just gathering for private chess tournaments
2:24 pm
August 4, 2010
Offline
StatsCan doesn't have a blank cheque; things like location tracking data isn't anything they are mandated for, and certainly wouldn't be proposed.
I know it is hard to believe, but statisticians aren't really that interested in you as an individual. They want to be able to put together a rich dataset, but the reduction and linking into the non-identifiable version is done by a small group, and the raw identifiable data generally isn't used even for internal analysis after that. It isn't as if they are sitting around looking at "personal files" or that sort of misconception. Unlike, say, CRA, where hundreds of agents in theory can pull up your individual data, for most of StatsCan there wouldn't even be a pathway to look at this stuff.
Some of the information they want may already be collected, in things like the Survey of Household Spending or the Survey of Financial Security. Those can have problems with non-response or data quality, and part of this initiative may have been an attempt to improve on that. We'll see what happens.
Please write your comments in the forum.