Census Bureau Officials Field Questions About Politicization and Data Loss After Controversial Rule Change

[system1]

Originally published at: Census Bureau Officials Field Questions About Politicization and Data Loss After Controversial Rule Change - TPM – Talking Points Memo

Census Bureau officials last Sunday conceded that a new rule banning certain privacy protection methods will make it impossible for the agency to publish certain data that it has historically released, a development that could especially harm minority groups. Representatives of the bureau, however, denied that the policy change had political objectives, though experts and…

[debg]

It’s very depressing, living in a white supremacist state.

[ladyfair]

@system1

differential privacy. The practice allows the federal government to publish granular data down to the micro-geographic level while also minimizing the risk that bad actors could use the data to identify specific people or groups. The bureau is required by federal law to protect respondent privacy and, per the June memo, will instead of differential privacy use two much more limiting privacy practices that will force staff to either “suppress” or not publish certain data sets, or to “coarsen” or aggregate up, from, for example, the block level to the county level, if individual privacy can’t be guaranteed otherwise.

So they banned using disclosure avoidance and decided that they will just drop the count or just not publish what they are charged by law to show.

We’ll count everyone, but won’t tell you how many we really counted.

[birdford]

It is time to start listing the few things these clowns haven’t messed with in our government. The list of what they have messed with is so long and depressing that on occasion it sucks the life right out of me.

[playitagainrowlf]

@birdford

It is time to start listing the few things these clowns haven’t messed with in our government.

What, give them their own “To Do List”? Nah, make them do their own work…

[jrw]

If they would just count these damn minorities as 3/5 of a person, the Supremes would say it’s okay due to historical precedent.

[fiftygigs]

Fortunately, Trump and his mob will be long gone by the next Census.

“This is taking the decision out of the accountability framework and making it an administration political process instead of a public process with expertise in oversight.”

Under the accountability framework, facts can be tracked, broken parts of the process fixed, bad administrators replaced. Better to make it political, so we can run things through the courts for a decade.

[jmacaz]

Generally speaking, small populations, small subgroups have historically been the hardest to protect

Here’s the reason, why on earth would the white male REPUBLICAN majority who make these rules have any reason to protect the very people they are out to eliminate

[kestenbaum]

Fortunately, Trump and his mob will be long gone by the next Census.

But the soonest relief from awful policy decisions will be January 20, 2029; decennial census activities will be well underway. The Census Bureau does not turn on a dime, and it’s not a good idea to force it to. Even small changes require a lot of lead time to test and implement. A whole lot of damage is being done that won’t be feasible to roll back before 2030.

[fiftygigs]

@kestenbaum

Even small changes require a lot of lead time to test and implement.

Yes!

Hopefully, the people running the government understand that. I know the census folks do.