2011-01-27 input from former StatsCan employee, “The issue of L-M was huge within the department”. Breaking of the social contract.
“ … The issue of L-M was huge within the department. … For many of us it was a multi-faceted issue:
1) contracting out,
2) contracting out to a foreign firm,
3) contracting out to a foreign firm involved in producing WMD and (INSERT: WMD = “Weapons of Mass Destruction”)
4) a betrayal of our confidentiality assurances.”
I have also received information from an anonymous former StatsCan employee by telephone, provided to me while the trial was in progress:
2010-01-17 From anonymous person “ .. the rate of non-compliance with the long form doubled between the 2001 and the 2006 censuses.”
StatsCan witness Arora’s testimony was that there was no difference in the levels of non-compliance between the 2001 and 2006 censuses.
“If an individual logs onto the census 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 cannot quote Anil Arora’s responses in cross-examination on this question. He skated around. Is there an audit trail if a person is accessing (viewing) but not changing records? I understood him to say, yes there is.
The same anonymous person phoned me in March 2010 to say that Anil Arora was or has moved out of Statistics Canada. Arora had been the main StatsCan witness at my trial in early January 2010. He had been a long-time employee of StatsCan.
MOVING ON! This is recent input initiated on the blog and by email:
You may want to read this thread from the bottom up (1,2,3).
(3) From: (name removed)
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Subject: Re: Census Lockheed Martin.
Thanks for your response re L-M and the Census. Having worked at Stats Can and knowing the importance of the data and how seriously the issue of maintaining confidentiality used to be taken, I don’t have much patience for people who will not complete the Census because they feel it is an invasion of their privacy and the government doesn’t need to know how many bathrooms they have etc. I believe that if confidentiality is taken serious, that it is a civic duty. But with contracting out to WMD L-M that social contract has been broken.
I answered the last Census but did not put my name (they do not need it) , and crossed out my address and the last 3 digits of the questionnaire ID. The last 3 digits of the questionnaire ID are the number of the block that you live on. They do not produce data at that level – basically it is just a sort of accounting tool. (INSERT: see information following this input. There is another interpretation. /S) I also scrawled on the questionnaire my reason for doing so – contracting out to L-M. I read the info on IBM and the Holocaust – very thought provoking.
Harper’s cancellation of the long form Census is another matter. Harper is a dangerous ideologue who does not need information because he plans to go ahead with his agenda no matter what the facts are. Ironically I found myself blogging on CBC and G&M websites last summer defending the need for the Census. What a messed up country.
Re us public servants here in Ottawa. I will be brief. We are normal people and a varied lot. Some are lazy, stupid and lack a conscience but for the most part we are just regular Canadians who take pride in what we do and joined the P.S. because we wanted to do something for our country. Next time someone bitches at a public servant, remember that we pay taxes too and don’t like to see our money wasted any more than you do. Furthermore, those of us who work for the government suffer twice as much as the regular tax payer because we have to take up the slack for the lazy sobs that don’t do their job.
Good luck with you case.
– – – – – – – – — – –
NOTE RELATED TO: “ The last 3 digits of the questionnaire ID are the number of the block that you live on. They do not produce data at that level – basically it is just a sort of accounting tool.”
The StatsCan witness at my trial, Anil Arora, described that “ . .. the census starts with “the dwelling”, “maps and locations”.” which happens to be the same jargon around the U.S. census that Lockheed Martin is also involved in. Because the wording of Arora’s testimony was so close to what I’d read about the promotion in the U.S. related to the Census Bureau adding GPS locator information to their census records, in cross-examination I questioned Anil Arora about the plans at StatsCan for the same programme (marrying GPS locator information to individual census records) in Canada.
There is more information on this at: 2010-01-17 Canada: the census starts with “the dwelling”, “maps and locations”. Is this the same as in the U.S. where they are marrying GPS locator information to individual census records?
That posting begins:
(1) FROM STATSCAN WITNESS AT MY TRIAL REGARDING GPS LOCATOR INFORMATION FOR CENSUS FILES.
(2) DOOR-TO-DOOR COLLECTION OF CENSUS DATA FROM IBM AND THE HOLOCAUST.
This is further to 2009-01 The IBM/Lockheed Martin Census: GPSing Your Home (U.S.). And what to do about it.
= = = = = = = = = =
|(2) (EMAIL THREAD CONTINUED) MY RESPONSE TO COMMENT
— On Mon, 1/24/11, Sandra Finley wrote:
Subject: Census Lockheed Martin.Hi (name removed),Thanks very much for your input. I know there are excellent people working inside Government in service to Canadians. We too seldom hear – almost never – that side of the story. It is reassuring to know that StatsCan employees also objected to the involvement of Lockheed Martin.
I will be brief in reply.
Did you refuse to answer the Census because Lockheed Martin was involved in the processing?
Would you have responded if the information had been processed by Stats Can employees?
RESPONSE: I would not have been alerted to the fact that there is ANY problem with the census, had it not been for the involvement of Lockheed Martin Corporation. So, no – – I might have cringed at the amount of information requested, but I would have responded in some fashion.
In closing: I have run an activist email network for 10-11 years. People submit information related to the topics we are working on. The book “IBM and the Holocaust” was recommended to me.
If you haven’t read it, you might want to read about it at http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=185 . People who have worked with censuses have a special interest.
Today I would not comply with the long-form census because of the state-of-the-world. It is all in media articles. “The Americans want the data” on all Canadians (Ottawa Citizen reporting on a security conference). “President of the Americans for Lockheed Martin” describes to Macleans Magazine (Sept 2006) how they are going to get what they want – and not through legislative changes because they can’t get it that way. They’ll get what they want by working through the bureaucracy, outside democratic control. And so on. I posted the information (too much of it!) to the blog so that people will know I didn’t dream this all up. It’s there, but it has to be pieced together in order to see the larger picture.
All the best to you in this next phase of your life.
= = = = = = = = = =
(1) COMMENT POSTED TO www.sandrafinley.ca ):
I just discovered your blog and the outcome of your case. I don’t have time to spend hours reading so could you answer one question for me. Did you refuse to answer the Census because Lockheed Martin was involved in the processing? Would you have responded if the information had been processed by Stats Can employees?
I am a former Stats employee (retired last year). The issue of L-M was huge within the department. Stats Can has always sold itself by assuring iron clad confidentiality – and I can vouch that security is tight and confidentiality taken extremely seriously. To contract out Census processing to war mongering L-M was a big issue among many of us. For many of us it was a multi-faceted issue: 1) contracting out, 2) contracting out to a foreign firm, 3) contracting out to a foreign firm involved in producing WMD and 4) a betrayal of our confidentiality assurances.