From: Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> > On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 11:30:02 +0100, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com wrote: > > >Here's a thought that struck me only yesterday when I was doing some research > >in the US censuses..... > > > >People often complain in this country that the census questions get more and > >more intrusive every decade, though whether there will ever be another one > >seems to be up in the air at the moment. > > I'm curious. > > In this forum you usually argue against those who are concerned about > privacy and pooh-pooh their concerns. > > Have you changed your mind?> Not in the slightest, Steve! I was merely making the point that I don't remember any UK census ever asking how much an individual's house was worth and how much money they had and I was somewhat surprised to find such questions in an American census in 1860 and 1870. On the general subject of privacy and intrusion I remain adamant that people are too precious and paranoid about it. To give an example, my current online "Famous family trees" blog at Findmypast is about the ancestry of the actor Michael Kitchen, who is quite brilliant in my opinion as Detective Superintendent Christopher Foyle in Foyle's War. It was entirely accurate and largely innocuous but I was actually verbally attacked, would you believe, by some members of his fan club who have set up a website devoted to him. They thought I shouldn't have done his ancestry because apparently he is very private and never gives interviews, etc. The irony and incongruity of being obsessive fans to the extent of establishing a website to talk about him seems to have escaped them utterly! Kitchen himself has made no complaint but some of these silly people thought they had the right to complain on his behalf. There are some very strange people about! -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/ "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

roy.stockdill@btinternet.com wrote: > From: Steve Hayes<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> > >> On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 11:30:02 +0100, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com wrote: >> >>> Here's a thought that struck me only yesterday when I was doing some research >>> in the US censuses..... >>> >>> People often complain in this country that the census questions get more and >>> more intrusive every decade, though whether there will ever be another one >>> seems to be up in the air at the moment. >> >> I'm curious. >> >> In this forum you usually argue against those who are concerned about >> privacy and pooh-pooh their concerns. >> >> Have you changed your mind?> > > Not in the slightest, Steve! I was merely making the point that I don't > remember any UK census ever asking how much an individual's house was worth and > how much money they had and I was somewhat surprised to find such questions in > an American census in 1860 and 1870. Erm, the Personal Property question didn't involve money in the bank. MOST folks didn't have any. It was more a "what've you got that we can tax" question. Generally covered things like horses, cattle, carriages, grandfather clocks, gold jewelry,slaves. It's humorous to compare the bragging census data with the poor-mouthing local tax list for the same year. :) Privacy-wise, you were born and raised in one small town, you didn't have any. The 1850, 60, 70 census were nailed on the wall of the courthouse for you to correct. But, generally, both your social and economic status were pretty well known to your neighbors and your in-laws' in-laws. Cheryl