The plan is to sell the info to marketing companies. , 06 Jul 2006 11:41:51 -0500, "Steve W. Jackson" <stevewjackson@knology.net> wrote: >In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0607052013350.751@kd6lvw.ampr.org>, > "D. Stussy" <spam@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, akak01000101 wrote: >> > Since I saw other census questions here, I thought I'd post this >> > here.... >> > >> > Remember the days of about 10 questions that just dealt with your name, >> > sex, and race, etc...? Basic questions. Now they want to know things >> > like, where you work, when you leave for work, how much you pay for >> > various things, cars you drive, fuel you use, etc.... >> > >> > This reads like an application you fill out when you want someone to >> > rob your home or steal your identity. Only thing that is missing, thank >> > god, is your SS#. >> > >> > Now if you have a problem filling out all this information, the >> > government says they will fine you up to $5,000. Does anyone else have >> > a problem with this? >> >> I have a problem with it. Any question that exceeds the constitutional >> mandate of the census (to make certain every person is counted - and counted >> only once - meaning identity information only) should be optional. To >> penalize for it is wrong. To penalize for not answering about one's name, >> age, etc. (i.e. personal identity) should be done, with exceptions for cause >> (e.g. hospitalization, outside the U.S., etc.). > >Aside from the fact that there is *no* 2006 US census and therefore a >question about the entire purpose of this thread... > >That so-called Constitutional mandate says nothing about counting every >person once and only once -- though it should have done so. The census >is called for in Article 1 Section 2. It originally called for counting >of all free persons, not counting Indians, and for counting three-fifths >of all "other persons" -- meaning slaves. But it also specified when >the count would be done by the Congress and then said "in such Manner as >they shall by Law direct". That seems reasonably broad. > >Given the diversity of the American population, it's reasonable to go >beyond a simple head count. There are numerous benefits and advantages >that the country derives from having some meaningful demographic data. >As someone interested in genealogy, I'm certainly aware of how much more >I wish were in older censuses, and I don't have any issues with having >that much accessible to my descendants someday, provided there's nothing >there which puts me at risk in the present. > >Before forming an opinion concerning penalties for not answering, >however, I'd like to see something more concrete on such a plan.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 07:11:23 -0400, Diana Riggs <rigger@hotmail.com> wrote: > The plan is to sell the info to marketing companies. Cite please?