Did anyone else receive one of these? According to their web site, US Code Title 13, sections Section 141 and Section 193 your response is required by law.
In reality, those sections outline that The Secretary (who is presumably defined elsewhere) can take surveys as a part of their census process. It is Section 221 that requires you to respond:
Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided…
That’s just a crock.
Oh, sure, census information is useful and all that. It’s just the principal of it. I guess I’ll have to ask the nice lady who came to my door for some evidence that she is an authorized officer or employee of the Deparment of Commerce, or a bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of The Secretary.
Heck, I’d pay the $100 if it weren’t for Title 18, Section 3571 (allegedly Section 3559 as well, but that seems to deal with imprisonment and not monetary fines). With it on the books, the “not greater than $100” fine becomes “not greater than $5000” fine. That really blows.
Comments
718 responses to “American Community Survey”
I looked up my Vonage call-forwarding options. Did not find what Chris suggested. Have asked Vonage. It sounded very good.
You know, Chris BC, that’s a great idea (and it reminds me of the prank calls where the moronic call centre people just don’t seem to realise that they’re speaking to Arnold Scharzenegger lines from popular movies), but I have a better one.
Have you ever heard of the rejection hotline? There are a few in every state, and they’re designed for people who don’t want to give their number to a potential date, but can’t handle delivering rejecting news. So, they search the internet, before going out, for the rejection hotline in their area, and give that to any persistent people. When they call it, the recorded message handles the rejection that they couldn’t.
So, when you lie on your Census, rather than including your real phone number, search for the nearing rejection hotline and give them that. That, coupled with lying about your name, and your address is covered as well as your arse, because they can’t prove it was you. Even if they could, the evidence is inadmissible because it’s sealed for the next 72 years.
Now, let me see if I can find a pen that’s neither blue nor black so I can violate that rule too.
You know, Chris BC, that’s a great idea (and it reminds me of the prank calls where the moronic call centre people just don’t seem to realise that they’re speaking to Arnold Scharzenegger lines from popular movies), but I have a better one.
Have you ever heard of the rejection hotline? There are a few in every state, and they’re designed for people who don’t want to give their number to a potential date, but can’t handle delivering rejecting news. So, they search the internet, before going out, for the rejection hotline in their area, and give that to any persistent people. When they call it, the recorded message handles the rejection that they couldn’t.
So, when you lie on your Census, rather than including your real phone number, search for the nearing rejection hotline and give them that. That, coupled with lying about your name, and your address is covered as well as your arse, because they can’t prove it was you. Even if they could, the evidence is inadmissible because it’s sealed for the next 72 years.
I love your idea Chris BC. I’ll have to add that to my system.
You can sort of witness it by checking your call logs, and Lingo provides a complete one. You can see each and every time any number calls in the “Received” section of the log, and then down in the “Placed” section you can see where they were forwarded back to their 800 number. You also get to see the length of the call. I’ve seen multiple quick callbacks where it’s obvious the caller had no idea how they reached their own call center.
Just imagination the frustration this causes for those really persistent abusive personality types in these jobs. Instead of having the satisfaction of personally berating you and threatening you they get totally rejected.
Darn you Chris BC, for not posting sooner. The only downside is that you don’t get to witness the fruits of your labor. My favorite way of dealing with harassing telemarketers is to immediately start talking jibberish when I pick up the phone. Sometimes, it’s all I can do to keep from laughing with I do.
I have a relatively easy solution for the harassing CB calls. Both Lingo and Vonage VOIP service offer an advanced call forwarding feature that allows you to set up multiple call forwarding schemes such that your phone never even rings when the CB calls.
This feature allows you to create named groups of numbers that are automatically forwarded to any other number you like. In the case of the census bureau, you can enter any and all numbers they call from and simply forward them back to the 800 number they tell you to call. You can also use wildcards for the incoming call numbers in the event there is a CB office (or offices) with a block of numbers, for example 123-456-7801 to 123-456-7899. To forward all these numbers you just enter 123-456-78*, and then enter the forward to phone number. Of course you can put the wildcard sooner and block an entire prefix by entering 123-456-*. (The dashes are not required on Lingo, I just included them for clarity. I have only read about this capability for Vonage.) Odds are that you can compile a list of numbers the CB uses from sites like this such that you don’t even have to wait for the CB to call the first time to start blocking them. I just filled out my 2010 census form with one number and one checkmark, along with a note that the rest of the questions go beyond the Constitution, so I should probably set up a group for the CB now. Ha Ha
Of course this feature is also great for harassing telemarketers and collectors as well. Since you can have multiple groups of calling numbers and multiple forward to numbers there is no limit to your ability to stop harassment. The harassers end up harassing themselves because their calls go right back to them, and the Caller ID information from the original call is also passed through to the forwarded to number so your number does not appear at the forwarded to location’s phone. If you still have a regular land line from your local telco you’re already paying too much, so check out Vonage or Lingo and you can quickly throw up a phone gauntlet against the CB. (I can’t speak for any other VOIP providers, but it’s possible there’s more that offer it.) In most cases you can still keep your existing land line number, too.
The CB has a strong argument, which they have spent lots of time preparing and testing so that it garners the response the CB wants. The judge gave no real reasons for the dismissal, leaving the plaintiffs wondering if they would get fined. The CB has the “Rapid Response Team”, which is sent out to clean up the messes created by bad publicity. The deception must be maintained at all costs because it is so important to maintain the co-operation of the public, even if that co-operation is gained through threatening fines. Bills have been introduced in Congress to eliminate the fines, eliminate the surveys or curb the finding for these surveys and they died on the vine.
I don’t care so much about the fines as I do about the mandatory collection of personal data. Voluntary – fine; mandatory – NO!!! The gov has no business using the ability of the CB to ask questions to invade privacy to benefit the collective. I doubt that any of the data junkies are sufficiently qualified to take this data and make judgments about the success of the society at large. How I have constructed my life is none of the government’s business. Linking my financial state to my health, race, purchasing ability, utility bills, commuting distance and those who live with me are completely off limits. The gov has enough on its plate without trying to infiltrate, control or micromanage the lives of the public. I could have filled out the survey with erroneous info, knowing that the CB had no real way of verifying any of it. In fact, my info changed 3 months after my 90 day harassment. I decided to waste as much of the CB’s time and budget to try to collect what they could on me. I refuse. I am recalcitrant! I will not comply. This invasion of privacy needs to stop. Policies based upon this info needs to stop. Politicians drawing district boundaries based on anything other than raw enumeration needs to stop. Politicians pandering to the voters based upon race needs to stop. Marketeers, social, behavioral and economic scientists who petition to add more questions to government surveys, because the public won’t answer voluntary surveys from these groups, has to stop. Using our money collected in taxes to continue these surveys has to stop.
Cathy,
I see what you are saying, but she didn’t dismiss the case because they weren’t actually fined, she dismissed it because she bought the Bureau’s argument. At no time was it stated that they did not have standing to bring the suit in the first place, which was the point I was trying to make. I certainly agree though, that someone filing suit, who was actually fined by the government, would certainly generate more public outrage and more media coverage. However, I do not believe that had these particular plaintiffs been fined, the outcome would have been any different with this particular judge. She just didn’t get it.
There is a difference between bringing a case against being fined and bringing a case against the asking and collecting of personal info.