Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Time and again, the history of blogging has shown that online anonymity isn't quite as complete or safe as we might think. This won't be the last time that careers are threatened, and political earthquakes felt, as a result of blogospheric indiscretions by those who thought they were untraceable....

Unfortunately, all this will probably lead the Liberals to crack down on staff blogging - one might guess that a blanket ban has been instituted (or reiterated) in the Victorian branch already. Once the Schadenfreude has ebbed away, other branches and other parties might well do the same. We'd suggest, though, that this could only be counterproductive, and that the entire situation has only arisen precisely because of a widespread reluctance to engage with the possibilities of the new media of produsage.

Towards the end of the election campaign, Jason and Marcus Westbury pointed out in Crikey that the Liberals, above all others, had refused any involvement with online political initiatives. Reports since the election have suggested that the ban on online campaigning may have come down from on high, perhaps even from the artist formerly known as "she who must be obeyed", Janette Howard.

From these facts, it might reasonably be concluded that the lack of organisational engagement with blogs, citizen journalism or social media has meant that Liberal Party staffers and parliamentary representatives alike are uneducated about the opportunities and threats posed by these platforms.

A Liberal crackdown on staff blogging? I wonder if we will lose any of our contributors on WD? The Liberal Party is being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. With all the "in fighting" happening within the Liberal Party there is no sign of them winning government any time soon. They have lost he "War on Blogs"

F Kendall, the Australian Bureau or Statistics is by the law of the land required to conduct a census every five years as detailed in the Census and Statistics Act 1905. As such you are required by law to complete a census form and on it your name and address and neigbourhood (CCD) reference number, or in ABS language "the indictive".

The ABS in fact require that you supply your name not to spy, rather to collect more accurate data. This is good because it makes for the better planning and location of schools and hospitals possible, providing politics does not get in the way. 

In fact, up until the last census the forms themselves were destroyed after scanning. In short, there was never a chance that an individual could be identified by name from the tables produced. Now the ABS is allowed to archive them for genealogical and other  reasons until after we are dead.

There is, however, a very small chance that even though the names and addresses have been destroyed a piece (cell) of information may possibly be related to a real person.These statistically rare "cross matches' (as far as census tables/questions go)  are addressed  by randomly reallocating those unique cells or cells of very small value (in number) to other higher value cells within other tables.

For example there may be only one Chinese born 50 year old in a collection district or CCD (census collection district; there are around 30,000 covering Australia of around two hundred homes in each). He may be living in a CCD that records all income levels under $25,000; except one. Another table may record there is only one professionally employed person.

The easily identified Chinese born resident recorded on the country of birth  table is the professional - the local doctor in fact.

Another table will record the income levels of residents. His would be possibly identified; the one cell that records above $80,000. As such these unique  or very small cells are disappeared. The ABS statistically kills off the good doctor for his own welfare.

The ABS know its business and make sure that the data collected about individuals is in no way related back to real person. It is in my experience the most efficient and ethical of government departments; nothing to fear from the ABS. More to fear from the government of the day and how it uses/misuses or ignores ABS data.

One must distinguish between having to give information by law, giving information by contract and knowing when they are giving information at all.

For many it is not the information thing itself that so much worries them, rather the manner in which it is collected.

If our personal information is collected without our knowledge then I believe we have the right to be pissed off. 

I suppose it's a matter of common decency really; the ABS go out of its way to behave in a decent manner (as laid out in the Act) while other organisations, although governed by privacy legislation, may find the benefits in stretching the legal barriers far outweigh the risks of defending the legal grey areas.

Yep, it really pisses me off too when they try it on. The trick is to know when.

Thank you, David Eastwood.

It is reassuring that the school would not provide e-mail addresses:  I trust that the same applies to mobile phone numbers.

"...does not wish their information to be disclosed, shared, manipulated etc..." Personally, I do not wish my personal information to be collected, and collecting information now seems to be a national hobby.   Why, for example, should the theatre request my address when I buy my season's tickets?  (well, marketing of course).  Why does the Community College need my age when I enrol in a cooking course?

Recently I was required by the ABS, (with the threat of a $110 a day fine:  bill presented at the end of each financial year), to answer many questions re my health and income from various sources - from each of rent, interest, dividends, work.   That I was required to answer the questions to an interviewer completely negated their claim of "confidentiality", as far as I was concerned.

Aside:  A bizarre aspect of this was that one of the first questions was "Do you have Alzheimer's disease"?    Surely either a "yes" or "no" response to this would have to be suspect.

David Eastwood:  "Privacy regimes are similarly getting more powerful..."

Would you care to explain what these regimes are?  And how they can be accessed by the average citizen,  whose privacy this article is about?

Nice piece Justin.  My take on the issues you raise might be slightly different.  I agree that surveillance of one's behaviour, preferences, motives etc. is becoming ever more possible, and broad reaching.  But, privacy regimes are similarly getting more powerful, in part limiting the damage - where sovereignty can be exercised. 

On the other hand, where governments have no control over what we access, look at and participate in - and where we revel in the democratic freedom that offers us, it must fall upon us to take control of our own destiny and privacy.  We must be at once aware of the risks and dangers, vigilant to their threat and be able and prepared to respond to protect ourselves. 

So, the new information world forces us to be educated, aware and engaged, in our own interests.  Is that a bad thing?  Looking at the flip side, is it in society's interests as a whole that we might perceive or exercise a right NOT to engage and depend on our governments and societies to protect us where they simply can't?

Perhaps there is less room for passengers on the bus than there once was.

Since the dawn of time, man has attempted to control man. Since the dawn of time, man has attempted to escape those very clutches. The Internet is a lot like that. For every safe (no matter how technical), there will be a safe cracker......