From: Zeb
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 5:51 PM
To: Sandra Finley
Subject: Re: Census Lockheed Martin Trial: court decision delayed to January 13. Moral argument.
Hi Sandra, Thanks for your bulletins. I am in regular email discussion with a private group of friends that meets monthly and in between debates by email. From time to time I bring up your Lockheed issue with them and other contacts. As you can see below, a question was put, as to whether your objection is solely to Lockheed being the active agent in the census, or if you have more general objections with both the long form and the short form. Could you answer that question? I will share it with our group.
Thanks, and best wishes, Zeb
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – — – — – –
Hi Zeb,
Thanks so much, I really appreciate your work on helping to clarify the situation with others.
Re: a question was put, as to whether your objection is solely to Lockheed being the active agent in the census, or if you have more general objections with both the long form and the short form.
Initially (2003-04), my objection was solely to Lockheed Martin’s involvement in the Canadian census. Since then I have learned a whole lot, both through information sent in by people in our network, and through being on trial for refusal to fill in the 2006 census.
My objection is no longer solely to Lockheed Martin’s role. And it goes beyond the census forms. A partial listing of my objections:
1. ANY AMERICAN CORPORATION BECAUSE OF THE AMERICAN PATRIOT ACT. The Patriot Act trumps all Canadian laws. Any American corporation, or subsidiary of an American corporation, if requested by the American Govt (military) to hand over access to a data base, is required to do so.
The most comprehensive data base on Canadian citizens will effectively be at the disposal of the American Government. And we will never know because the owner of the data base (Govt of Canada) does not have to be told that access to the data base has been handed over.
It is naïve to believe the reassurances given by the Government that Lockheed Martin will not have access to the data base. They will have access, if not today, in time. It is no different than what happened to CNR. To assuage public protest when CNR was privatized, they passed legislation to require that CNR would remain Canadian with head offices in Montreal. Today CNR is American owned.
You do not even need to guess at what the intentions of the American “security” forces (corporations) are. I have circulated newspaper reports from a security conference in Ottawa, etc. There are open and unequivocal statements: the Americans want the data on all Canadians and they want it by 2011.
(Zeb – I am working full tilt to have this information up on a website by Jan 13 when the decision on my trial is announced. That way people can access the details. They don’t need to take my word for it.)
2. FOREIGNERS IN THE CANADIAN CENSUS. Your email touches on this related aspect: if it is not Lockheed Martin (working with IBM, one of the sub-contractors), it could as well be one of the other large American corporations that are into the same games as Lockheed. For that matter, Lockheed could morph itself into some other identity and continue to carry on its work for StatsCan, but under a different name. Or, if it was a Canadian company it could be bought up later by a foreign corporation, as has happened to so many Canadian companies.
3. (This issue also identified in your email exchange). During my cross-examination of the StatsCan witness, Anil Arora, who was top man for the census operation, he confirmed that the INDIVIDUAL CENSUS RECORDS ARE NOW BY NAME. (Prior to Lockheed Martin’s involvement they were by a number. In order to associate a name with the electronic record you would have to take the number and go back to a microfiche record.)
4. So the individual records are by name. But also, StatsCan is BUILDING UP THE DATA RECORD ON INDIVIDUALS , not only during the censuses, but also now through ON-GOING WORK IN BETWEEN CENSUSES. They have been collecting this information using the threat of prosecution, jail and a fine, which is illegal. (INSERT: There are “censuses” every five years and “surveys” in between censuses. Section 31 of the Statistics Act (the penalties) does not apply to “surveys”. Please refer to 2011-01-21. )
5. The same corporations are behind the census work in Canada and the U.S. (and the U.K.). It is reasonable that they will be using the same tactics in the various countries because of the efficiency gains. In the U.S. they hired 100,000 extra census workers who started working a year before (2009) their census (2010). One of the things they are doing is going door-to-door, MARRYING GPS LOCATOR INFORMATION TO INDIVIDUAL CENSUS RECORDS . At my trial, the words used by Anil Arora to describe what StatsCan is doing were a perfect description of what they are doing in the U.S. Words to the effect that the census starts at the level of the individual building on each block. I am not skilled at cross-examination, and posed the question in a poor way, asking (words to effect) if StatsCan, in its next 5-year plan, will be collecting GPS locator information for each individual. Arora said no, but he also told some pretty bad lies misled the Court under oath, so I have little confidence that his statements are to be trusted.
6. Also alluded to in your email, and based on the testimony of Anil Arora at trial: STATSCAN BUNDLES AND SELLS CENSUS DATA. Some of that may be okay. However, they have corporations in their client base. There is more than one problem with that. And especially when they have been forcing people to supply data under threat of prosecution, jail and a fine. The census form I received asked for (among other questions on the 40 pages of 50 questions) the NAME of my employer, the number of bedrooms in my home, etc. I pointed out to the judge that if, as StatsCan contends, information is only used IN THE AGGREGATE, then why would they need to know the specific name of my employer? Darek Czernewcan’s reactions to the Canadian census (he immigrated to Canada from a communist country; he was found guilty for failure to comply with the census) are revealing.
7. There is most likely a real problem with the security of the census data base. I received an anonymous phone call from a person who had worked at StatsCan. His input pointed to some lines of questioning that I used in cross-examination. It seems to me that the answers should have been forthcoming from Anil Arora. But none of them were: If an individual logs onto the data base there will be a record of the name and time. That would be expected. “WHO has authority to access the census data base? Do you have a policy and procedures manual that spells out who can log onto the data base?” “If, for example I was a manager from the Saskatchewan region and at a meeting in Ottawa, would I be able to log on?” “If an individual record on the data base is changed, will there be a record of who made the change and when?” (the answer is yes). HOWEVER, “If an individual logs onto the data base and VIEWS a record, but does not make any changes to it, will there be a record that the individual has accessed that record?” According to the anonymous former StatsCan employee the answer to that question is “No”. The technology exists to establish this audit trail, but StatsCan is not using it.
I recommend the book “IBM and the Holocaust” by Edwin Black for people who wish to understand the role of detailed mechanized records on citizens, specifically CENSUS records on individuals, in a nazi/fascist regime.
I hope this is helpful to your discussion, Zeb.
Best wishes,
Sandra