No Data, No Oppression

Kim du Toit
January 4, 2008
11:55 AM CDT

When Hong Kong emerged from WWII, there was little to suggest that it would eventually become the free-market powerhouse that it did. The fact that Hong Kong became a financial superpower, of course, is largely the responsibility of one man: Sir John Cowperthwaite, Hong Kong’s financial secretary from 1961-1971, who followed a policy of extreme laissez-faire economics. Left pretty much to their own devices, the colony created probably the greatest example of how a tiny, overpopulated piece of land with no mineral wealth, manufacturing infrastructure or agricultural foundation could become one of the wealthiest countries in the world. How wealthy? In 1960, economist Milton Friedman put the average per capita income of Hong Kong at 28% of Great Britain’s. In 1996, Hong Kong’s per capita income was 137% of Britain’s.

But although it’s a story all of its own, that’s not the point of this story. This is.

Friedman tells of his meeting with Cowperthwaite, back in 1963. Here’s probably the best exchange ever recorded:

I remember asking him about the paucity of [government] statistics. [Cowperthwaite] answered, “If I let them compute those statistics, they’ll want to use them for planning.”

The Telegraph, in his obituary, put it this way:

Cowperthwaite explained that he resisted requests to provide any, lest they be used as ammunition by those who wanted more government intervention.

In other words, the more data you give the government, the greater the likelihood that the data will, at some point, be used by the government, and not necessarily to your advantage.

As Ron White says: I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

When BritPM Blair announced NuLabor’s policy of “cradle-to-grave data marking”, he promised that the huge database, containing the vital statistics of all Britons, would never be used for evil purposes. Well, I suppose that all depends on how you define “evil”, doesn’t it? The Englishman points out this monstrous plan:

Checks will be made on all children to identify potential criminals under an extension of the “surveillance state” announced by Tony Blair.

A Downing Street review of law and order also foreshadowed greater use of sophisticated CCTV, an expanded DNA database and “instant justice” powers for police.

The review is intended to chart a course for the next 10 years by focusing more “on the offender, not the offence”.

Most crime is committed by a small number of offenders who could be identified almost from birth, ministers believe.

After 10 years focusing on tougher sentences, the review paper said it wanted to tackle the “underlying causes through better targeting”.

Vulnerable children and those at risk will be identified by “trigger” factors such as parents in jail or on drugs.

They will be subject to measures including home visits from specialists.

But the Government says the net should be cast as widely as possible “to prevent criminality developing”.

It’s not often that I read something which fills me with horror to such an extent that I can truthfully say, “Words fail me.” This is one of those cases, and I’m not even going to try.

Well, I told you that story, so I can tell you this one.

In 2010, the United States will conduct its next decennial census, as mandated by the Constitution in Article I Sec. 2:

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

Now, that last clause, “in such Manner as they shall by Law direct” has led to something quite a lot more than simple enumeration—which is the basic function of the census. In the dry words of Cornell’s Law School:

While Sec. 2 expressly provides for an enumeration of persons, Congress has repeatedly directed an enumeration not only of the… free persons in the States, but also of those in the territories, and has required all persons over eighteen years of age to answer an ever-lengthening list of inquiries concerning their personal and economic affairs. This extended scope of the census has received the implied approval of the Supreme Court; ...it is one of the methods whereby the national legislature exercises its inherent power to obtain the information necessary for intelligent legislative action.

Well, I guess it all depends on how we define that apparent paradox ”intelligent legislative action”, doesn’t it? Certainly, if giving the Gummint data is going to result in edicts like those in Britain (above), then I think we could justifiably substitute “evil” for “intelligent”.

One of the recurring themes on this website is that of social policy as a pendulum. Laws and such are passed which move our society too far in one direction, and we then experience the inevitable voter backlash, in the form of different election outcomes and contrary laws, all of which can be likened to a pendulum.

Here’s my thought: I think that our government wants to know just a little too much about our affairs, and they disguise this thirst for data as a “compulsory” exercise, even though it’s just a part of the enumeration process (which is compulsory).

In the 2000 Census, we saw quite a few instances of people refusing to fill out more than the short form, and in some cases people refused to provide any data about themselves other than a “headcount” necessary to fulfill the basic requirements of the census. As I recall, harassment, threats and even some prosecutions followed, but nothing ever came of it.

Let me be perfectly frank about this. I think that when the Census Bureau releases its 2010 questionnaire, we should throw it back at them, through our elected representatives, and demand that they answer the question: ”Why do you want to know this about me?” and the Census bureaucrats should be told, in no uncertain fashion, that most of the data they collect is unnecessary—and considering how much of that data is sold to people like political parties, demographers, marketing companies and other entities in the private sector, we should make it clear that the government is not in the market research business.

We need to become more like Hong Kong in the 1950s and 1960s: super-low taxes, laissez-faire economic policy, and a free market. We need to become less like NuLabor’s Britain, where “checks will be made on all children to identify potential criminals under an extension of the ‘surveillance state’.”

I am aware that what I’m suggesting represents an “overkill” in terms of the information pendulum—that what I’m suggesting would swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. I’m aware too that this is how one achieves a compromise closer to one’s original intent, rather than some cosmetic pablum which essentially changes nothing.

Yes, it’s also civil disobedience. I’m aware of that as well.

But enough is enough. We’ve seen the end result of giving the government bureaucracy too much of our private information—the Brits have been invaluable, albeit unfortunate, canaries in this particular mine shaft.

It’s time we took back our right to privacy. And 2010 should be the first year we do that.