Genealogists trying to stop the planned destruction of 2010 census images.

[madfloridian]

They are already given out the contract to shred and destroy the images. All that will remain is the data.

I remember the day I found my 3rd great grandfather and his wife and children on an 1860 census. It was really the beginning of my genealogical research. I found out his profession, where he lived, the ages of his children, my ancestors. I could see their neighbors, and found that one of my ancestors married into the family of one of the neighbors close by.

I could track that line also because of that one census image. By going to the 1870 census, I found another line by following those family names. Because of the census images kept for those years, there was research available.

Genealogists are already banding together to stop the destruction of the images.

Save 2010 Census - no images to be preserved

The Census Bureau and the National Archives have agreed to throw out the 2010 census forms after archiving statistical data. This means that seventy-two years later genealogist will see – nothing -.

The same authorities planned to do this to the 2000 census, too. A January 1999 Supreme Court ruling forced the Census Bureau to redesign data collection by prohibiting the use of sampling. Responding to an inquiry from Congressman Waxman of the census oversight committee, the Census Bureau and the National Archives reevaluated their decision. Images of all 2000 census forms were copied onto microfilm.

For 2010, the Census Bureau and the National Archives once again plan to make a data file rather than capture images of the census forms. Data Killers, a shredding and degaussing company, has a one-year contract to destroy on-site Census Bureau data.

If earlier officials had been so short sighted, millions of Americans could not have used the 1880 census to prove their ages and qualify for Social Security. What if a future prospective citizen must prove he or she was in the United States in 2010? Who knows what crucial uses this information may fulfill?If in seventy-two years, you’d like your descendants to be able to see your census form, act now or it will not happen.

The site gives names of congress people to contact.

This is the first I have heard of this, and I see no need for the destruction of these images. I believe they burned the 1890 census, leaving a deep hole for those researching family history.

[lazarus]

1. K&R

I'm about to start on my own genealogical search, and those records will be a big help. Can't believe they're this shortsighted.

[madfloridian]

2. Finding family on a census is a special moment.

Plus there is a big hole left by the lack of the 1890 census. I remember one of my grandparents telling how the only way for many to get Social Security coverage was by the census from 1880.

[Towlie]

45. I hope the genealogists fail. The census was never meant for them to exploit.

Keeping only the statistical data is an excellent policy that will help counter the growing problem of http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS334US228&q=%22data+creep%22&cts=1267542122945&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=">data creep (use of private data for purposes other than what the data was collected for). The only census data that should be kept is what is necessary to comply with Constitutional requirements. Let genealogists gather their own data by legitimate and voluntary means.

[peacetalksforall]

46. I can't believe what you are saying. How inhumane. The census has a 70 year lock

on privacy. Allowing records before that to be researched is a most precious gift to us. We paid for it. It is ours.

I'm appalled by your words. Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about if you say other records can make up for it.

Perhaps you were just being sarcastic. If not, I can't forgive you for your cruelty. I am not going to begin to tell you my experiences in researching. The census records and access to them is a precious heritage and human gift. If you have not experienced the value, you shouldn't flip off comments like you did. It is equivalent to hating America imo. This is a melting pot nation. It is our right to use them.

Taking this away is the same as making us into nothing.

Prove which records will replace them. Make a case for defending yourself.

[RaleighNCDUer]

56. What is not legitimate about census data?

90% of what we know of 11th century Britain is directly derived from the Doomday Book - the census ordered by William the Conquerer to account for his new kingdom after his invasion.

If you are worried about 'illegitimate' use of the census, then pass a law to keep the documentation under lock and key for 40 years before opening it to historians. Actually, with the speed information moves these days, any data therein would be obsolete within 20 years.

This is not just about genealogists - this is about US history. And data collected today is data on what could be the most critical period in US history since the Civil War. We are seeing demographic shifts unlike anything seen since the great immigration waves of the first two decades of the 20th century - which correlated with the mass migration of American blacks from the south to the north.

And while the data might be preserved, all historians know that history is PEOPLE, not data. What will be lost is a means of tying people into that data.

You want to talk exploitation? The exploitation comes from corporations mining the DATA, regardless of the people. Genealogists are not 'exploiters' - they are amateur historians, and their work is as vital to preserving the true history of the country as amateur astronomers are to accounting for new comets and near-earth objects.

[bulloney]

61. I second Raleigh's comment. My family is extremely grateful for the genealogy work I've done.

The census data is one of the primary means of obtaining my information. Eliminate the data, you eliminate documents of this nation's history.

I would liken it to what Donny Rumdum's thugs allowed to happen to historical artifacts in Iraq after we invaded that country.

[Posteritatis]

64. Passing a law restricting census data for 40 years would be a drastic shortening of the lock time

Right now they're kept under lock and key for about seventy years, not that people freaking out about Big Brother and the panopticon and other Bachmania know about that (or care to).

[RaleighNCDUer]

80. Thanks - so I discovered reading further on.

I figured there was a confidentiality clause, a cooling off period. From the reactions, I thought it must be 15-20 years, which (IMO) is still plenty of time for infor to become worthless except to historians. So I doubled it to 40, not knowing it was actually nearly double that again. Add into that, the fact that most important things don't happen to people until their 20s at least, we're talking about a person being 90 years old before any embarrassment might be revealed. By that time your attitude is more like "yup, I was quite the kid back then."

[jwirr]

67. My family data is on those findings and maybe you can have them

destroy yours but I want mine kept. I have been doing genealogy since 1965 and would like to do more. As to using census data - they release a new census every 10 years - the 1930 census was the last one released. What can anyone do with data that is that old other than enjoy the family finds that are hidden in it?

[goclark]

75. I agree, my mother is 91 and she was in the 1920 census

as a little girl.

He parents have been dead for many years.

It was a precious moment to see her family listed in 1920.

:shrug:

[WinkyDink]

73. "Exploit"? That is a bizarre choice of words.

[madfloridian]

3. Okay I'll bite.

Why the unrecs on this topic? It is not a rec worthy or unrec worthy topic.

:shrug:

[Fire1]

7. Can't imagine the reasons for the unrecs but what concerns me

more is the motive behind the destruction of these images.

[nxylas]

42. It's to stop ACORN from turning us all into negroes, or something

Ask Michelle Bachmann, I'm sure it makes perfect sense on her planet.

[Gormy Cuss]

4. The 1890 census records were burned, but not intentionally.

Most of the records were destroyed in a fire in 1921.

There's no reason to destroy the original census forms other than saving money. Creating digital images is something that preserves the original record for future generations -- genealogists who have dealt with indexed data vs. actual images have tales to tell of transcription errors that made finding the families or individuals difficult.

No one will have access to the original images until seventy years from now, but they are an important historical record.

[Shell Beau]

26. The last time I went to the archives building, I was informed that

they didn't provide the census records until they were 70 years old. I had no clue at all. I found that interesting.

[Gormy Cuss]

29. Yeah, that's to protect privacy.

I was so glad to be able to show my parents their census records as wee children when the 1930 census became public.

[Shell Beau]

31. I bet. That is pretty cool.

[kctim]

5. I don't see a need to destroy them either

but then again, I only supply names, nothing else.

[pitohui]

6. too bad my privacy more important than some hobbyist's family tree, sheesh

researching family history may be an interesting hobby but it should not be used as an excuse to keep all that information on record, it's invasive enough as it is that they're asking some of these questions to begin with

privacy considerations should come before hobby considerations

genealogy is important to you, well, keep your family records and hand them down but don't insist on having EVERY family's privacy violated just to make it easier for you to snoop into the past

my husband's family has some serious secrets that don't need to be in the public records, as is true of many families in the south

if you want honest answers to census questions you have to guarantee that the data can't find its way back to the families and neighbors, you seem to want it guaranteed that the data CAN be linked back to certain families

this means that some people will have no option but to lie in order to protect their family secrets -- who's the real daddy, how old mommy really was when she got pregnant, and personal financial data -- all examples of personal information that should be destroyed after the statistics are compiled, if that makes it more difficult for some hobbyists to color a tree in the family bible, you know what? i just don't care

[Fire1]

8. To many people and cultures, lineage is more than a mere

'hobby.' It identifies ones place in history.

[Cronus Protagonist]

13. Then let them sign an option to keep their own records safe

They can and should burn mine.

[KingFlorez]

11. For most, it's not a hobby, it's about knowing where one came from

And the records don't become public for many decades, so it's not like there is much that can be done with them.

[csziggy]

36. Plus there is really only the most basic of information in most census years.

Usually head of household's full name, first name of spouse and children - if you are lucky, approximate ages, sex. And any others living in the same household. Very rarely are notes made of adopted children, exact relationships or any other details that could reveal those family secrets people seem to be so worried about. Those things have to be figured out from other clues.

I've been working on my family history recently and the places where the census was destroyed are the places where there are dead ends. The census gives hints and can be used as one piece of data to confirm the presence of a family bu it is hardly a complete picture of the people living in the household.

[madfloridian]

12. Wow! What an unpleasant post.

I totally disagree.

[LiberalFighter]

15. Do you know that the Census records are not made available to the public for 72 years?

Do you know that the most recent Census available to the public is the 1930 Census?

That the 1940 Census won't be available until 2012?

Do you know the questions that are being asked on the Census?


You referred to serious secrets on your husband's side that you think would be exposed by the Census. Really? I've done research for over 30 years and I have never found any secret that was exposed as a result of Census records.

Genealogy doesn't rely solely on Census records. It is a piece of the puzzle. It requires checking other available resources that help put the pieces together.

[pipi_k]

16. To check out the claims that some people were making

about the "intrusive" nature of the Census questions, I actually did go to the Census site last month and took a look at the form we'll be filling out.

Nothing in there even the least bit intrusive...


Oh, and for those worried about "secrets" getting out, there's something called the Freedom of Information Act which allows family members to get information that could potentially be MUCH more intrusive than what's on Census forms...

Social security applications...birth and death certificates...draft/military records...all kinds of stuff.

In most cases you have to pay for the records, but they're easily obtainable...people think the Census is the Enemy when it's really not.

[dalaigh lllama]

20. I was looking at the 1930 census recently

and one of the boxes to check was whether or not the home had a "radio set." Bet Michelle Bachmann would have flipped out.

[LiberalFighter]

22. They should have box to indicate if an idiot lives in the home.

Or maybe it should ask if a moran lives in the home? Or if they can see Russia from their window?

[jwirr]

68. Actually one of the census records I got from Indiana did record

disabled persons as idiots. I really freaked at that. Not I would just like to know what happened to that child back in 1850.

[LiberalFighter]

21. I know.

I get peeved by those that don't bother confirming the facts.

Some people probably have a problem with the Social Security Death Index.

If they have a problem with personal information made public they should be upset with obituaries or even school yearbooks.

[Posteritatis]

24. There were a few yearbook panics in my hometown a few years ago actually

Ridiculous timorous bullshit they all were, of course.

It's fascinating and a little scary seeing the Bachmann echoes through this thread. I wish people would at least attempt to know what they were talking about before flying off the handle and emoting wildly.

[pipi_k]

28. Oh geez...Obituaries!

never even thought of that, but yes...someone wanting to get personal information could do it from an obituary. Especially the kind where the family feels a need to tell nearly the entire story of a loved one's life. Seriously, I've seen some that took up two whole newspaper columns...

[csziggy]

37. For anyone who does want to see the questions, here is a link to them

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/text/text-form.php

Very simple, very basic.

[madfloridian]

43. Thanks. Appreciate the link.

:hi:

[Duchess]

17. I agree

There is no great public need for these records. No one should be under any obligation to provide the data for more than statistical analysis. It is still an invasion of privacy even if the data is not considered invasive and wouldn't be released for decades.

I understand that genealogy is important but it doesn't outweigh individual privacy concerns.

[verges]

53. It's not just Geneology. It's History.

[WolverineDG]

18. There are legitimate uses for family histories

not just some "hobby." In some cases, such as oil or property rights, someone has to locate unknown heirs so they can get property. If they can't be located, then it goes to the state.

And besides, you're going to be dead by the time that information gets released, so wtf do you care?

dg

[dalaigh lllama]

19. The records aren't open to the public for 70 years

The 1930 census is the latest census available. And believe me, there are warts in every family history.

[Shell Beau]

27. I just don't get that. By the time your records are available, you'll

likely be dead and gone and won't know the difference. God forbid someone's "hobby" help them figure out where they came from. It is called history.

[Gormy Cuss]

30. Chances are good that you'll be dead before 2010 microdata is released to the public

and there is no right to privacy after death. That's the beauty of it.

[Hekate]

33. Well lah-dee-dah. The US census is actually a requirement of the US Constitution...

... and genealogical "hobbyists" aren't interested in your family -- they are interested in their own families.

If any member of YOUR family wants to "snoop around" you can just hit them with your fan or whatever. And with the data being kept on hold for 70 years after collection, you will be dead and gone and I presume past caring that some eager young bride accomplished in 6 months what takes cow or countess 9 months.

Serious historians use this data to learn about prior eras, not just statisticians scoping out an accurate portrait of our own times.

Hekate

[Tsiyu]

79. Fiddle dee dee

:spray:

[Spider Jerusalem]

38. That's pretty silly, I would say

I've found some interesting things about my own family from census records--for instance, that a great-great grandmother's husband was 11 years her junior and that they were apparently separated within a few years of getting married, since he appears in the 1900 census as living alone in a boarding house; which kind of leads to the conclusion that she got knocked up and he did the honourable thing so the kid wouldn't be a bastard, but that's all there was to the marriage--which is a 'family secret' sort of thing, but you know, they're all long dead now, so I don't see how anyone could care about long-past scandals. As far as personal financial data? There's not a lot of that in the census; occupation and value of personal estate, for most, and the data when released to the public in any case is some 70+ years old, so what relevance it has to anything in the present is really rather questionable.

[On the Road]

71. I Think You May be Underestimating the Relevance

It isn't just the specific census data, but information that census data can be used to connect to.

I hope they save the data. I understand the privacy argument, but it is certainly a public good.

[peacetalksforall]

48. Are you sure you know what you mean when you say 'public records'?

The census of the periods we talked about contained name sex age address occupation. (I can't speak for what it contains now as it is released every ten years, but not before 70 years past.)

If you have something legal you don't want anyone to know about - it is in other records. Just ask that those be destroyed. See where it takes you. Start with Probate Records. Start with the newspapers. Some of them were heavily gossip in ink. Start with the military records and legal documents and court records.

[verges]

52. Sheesh.

1) the information isn't available "publicly" for 70 years!
2) they are also a precious resource for historians.
3) furure generations should be denied the right to geneologica information just because Great-grandparents weren't interested?
4) Believe it or not, future generations might actually find "scandals" a little bit interesting WITHOUT putting a value judgement on it. It helps round out the names on a list into more than names on a list!

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. WTF? Family secrets?

Am I supposed to be embarrassed by my great-grandfather's brother being hanged as a horse thief? Or that another great-grandfather was a Jew who changed his name and religion to fit into Iowa society in 1890?

You seem to think that people who are worried about such things will tell the truth about them if they are guaranteed the information will be destroyed - WRONG! They will ALWAYS lie about it, even to themselves. Even, and especially, to government census takers. Particularly when by lying to the census they can make the fiction true for all time - that Aunt Nancy really WAS the mother of that baby, and that Uncle Bob died in a farm accident instead of drowning in his own alcoholic puke.

Frankly, when I found out about the horse thief it answered a lot of questions about that side of the family - it might have been a huge embarrassment in 1904, but in 2010 who really gives a crap?

The records are locked for 70 YEARS. That's time enough for any secret to die of old age.

[dragonlady]

9. The 1921 fire that destroyed the 1890 census was accidental

There were a few fragments left ( http://genealogy.about.com/cs/census/a/1890_census.htm ).

I agree that the census forms from all years are among the most valuable resource a genealogist can find.

[KingFlorez]

10. They should be retained

There's really no need to stop archiving the records on microfilm. I wanted to add that I have found many in my family tree and it's a very good feeling when you make those connections.

[LiberalFighter]

14. Why are they going to save the images on microfilm?

They should consider converting the images to PDF or other computer image format.

They need to fired these damn jerks in the Census Bureau and National Archives that are advocating destroying the images.


In addition to contacting Congress Members, activists need to contact both the federal office and local office of the Census Bureau and also the National Archives.

[Posteritatis]

23. PDFs won't be readable in seventy years; microfilm will

There isn't anything better out there yet for long-term preservation. Any digital format is a complete joke in those terms, and will be for some time.

[jmowreader]

47. This is another reason I really dislike digital cameras

Besides the fact that discs go unreadable--everyone's got CD-Rs they can't read anymore--and there are scalability issues (try blowing the images off your 640x480 digital camera up to 11x14 sometime), the file formats will all eventually be superseded.

Microfilm's problem is the lack of rapid access (if a researcher in Montana wants access to a roll of microfilm in West Virginia the library in WV has to dig it out, make a copy and send it by mail) but the permanence is unquestionably good.

[verges]

55. A high-end digital camera

can produce images that are actually higher res than the grain on standard photography.

[Posteritatis]

62. You still have the problem of keeping the "negatives" around long-term

In terms of raw image quality a good digital camera can compete with just about everything film cameras are capable of, but you still have the problem of what to do if you want a copy of an image taken off one in the year 2095. (Or, given how for-their-own-sake changeable formats can be at times, 2025.)

[verges]

66. I agree.

I was just replyibg to post 47, which implied that digital res was inferior to standard. It's not necessarrily. I prefer film, myself, though.

[WinkyDink]

74. Yeah, a $20,000 Hasselblad D-SLR might be as good as a $700 Nikon SLR.

I'm still hanging with my little 35mm Fuji film camera.

[jmowreader]

78. YOUR standard photography, maybe...

I shoot 35mm only when absolutely necessary, although I keep a Nikon FG on hand at all times. My preference is 6x7cm transparency film, specifically Fuji Velvia 50. In a medium format camera there is no digital camera priced at less than, say, $20,000, that can approach the quality you will get out of this film.

You can sort slides faster than digital--just throw a hundred or so of them on a light table and grab your loupe.

If you put a scratch in the back side of a slide, you can put a little Edwal No-Scratch on it and print with impunity. Put a scratch on the back of the CD that has your digital images and see what happens.

You don't have to worry that Adobe is going to supersede the file format your slides are in and render all your work unreadable.

If you're out shooting digital in the middle of Timbuktu and fill up your camera's memory cards, you're pretty much out of luck if you didn't bring a laptop with you--roadside gas stations usually don't sell memory cards. If I'm out shooting film and run out (and that would be a feat to remember, because I can't remember the last time I went out shooting with less than a brick of film in my possession) every gas station and grocery store in the known universe has 35mm film.

And here's the kicker: If you for some reason have a great digital picture and you need it bigger than your image size will allow--maybe you want a 20x24 to hang over the sofa--you're basically screwed. If I want to print a 20x24 off one of my images, I just run the head of the enlarger up higher.

Digital has a place--it's good for fun snaps you'll print a couple of times but don't really care about. If you go to the club with your friends and want to take pictures to remember the evening, yes definitely carry a digital camera. But for archival work, wet process is the ONLY way to fly.

[Hekate]

35. Electronic data is not only not stable, it is often not reliably transferable to new computers....

By inclination I am an archivist, but most of the stuff I've tried to keep from my first Mac 20 years ago is now unreadable.

On the other hand, non-acid paper can and does last for many generations, and parchment (which no one uses any more) can last for centuries.

Hekate

[verges]

54. Digital media deteriorates!

It's not uinlikely that we will become one of the worst documented generations in centuries because of this and media changes!

[WinkyDink]

76. Not to mention the extinction of letter-writing. And now Tweets are surpassing even e-mails.

[RaleighNCDUer]

58. There is nothing permanent about computer images.

Hell, I can't read information on floppys from 15 year3 - and three computers - ago because of formatting changes. Microsoft aps might be ubiquitous today but in thirty years they will be as quaint as wire recorders are to us.

Microfilm, however, will last for generations, and as it ages it can always be re-copied.

[Shell Beau]

25. I have had to use to records for my job at times, and they

have been beyond helpful. It also really made me want to do some research on my own family. It is so fascinating. I can't imagine why they'd want to destroy that.

[Hekate]

32. I think this country has gone mad. My mom wrote 5 genealogy books of the family lines...

It was very meticulous work, and using census data was a key part of her research. She'd be spinning in her grave if she knew.

Hekate

[JCMach1]

34. In the age of .pdf, why do this???

A simple statistical database with attached graphic file would work nicely.

[Posteritatis]

63. Because PDFs are terrible for archival purposes. (nt)

[bos1]

39. If the data is archived anyway, does it matter if the forms themselves are tossed? nt

[madfloridian]

44. Yes.

The images allow research, the data won't.

[bos1]

50. The data will not be available to the public after the waiting period? nt

[madfloridian]

51. The "data" is just numbers.

The census "images" show names in the household.

[bos1]

70. Really? The data being archived does not include names?

I see from the blog entry that it says only "statistical data" is being archived. So, for example, percentage of people in some county making between 30K and 50K per year is being saved. But not the names. Is that right? Are we sure? The Cape Cod Genealogical Society doesn't cite a source.

update: from the comments of that blog:
"The National Archives and Records Administration has written a post on this subject. It is available on NARAtions at http://blogs.archives.gov/online-public-access/?p=1192
This post clarifies that the final disposition of the records of the 2010 census has not been determined. However, preliminary discussions between NARA and the Census Bureau indicate that scanned digital images and the unedited file containing response data are being proposed for permanent retention."

[rasputin1952]

40. Census records are kept sealed for 72 years...

The vast majority of people searching records are family members looking for ties to the past, they are not seeking info on others, w/the exception of famous figures...ie, presidents, generals/admirals, inventors, writers and the like.

I believe they should be open for individual inspection, we all like to know where we came from, it has a lot to do with who we are today. The Census is a great starting point for people that are seeking their roots. Besides...years from now, a descendant of one of us may wonder about how their lineage came through all of this...why deny them their lineage?

The Census is incredibly important for the number of Representatives we have, the amount of funding that goes out and a very real way to keep track of trends that affect the entire nation. There is a possibility that out here in Nebraska we could lose a seat in the House. Populations move and demographics affect the nation as a whole.

[Demeter]

41. Considering What this Census Process Costs

throwing away the data is absurd.

[peacetalksforall]

49. I started family history using census records - the research was the greatest

gift I ever gave myself. I know from experience that it isn't of interest to some family members YET. From my experience those who have involved themselves in learning by digging as opposed to having it handed to them already done and bound are historians in their own right who become educated in a way that enriches.

Don't speak for everyone about destruction.

Those records are ours. If you are uninterested, please consider what it means to some of us and others to come.

[flyarm]

59. if they destroy it who in the future can question redistricting and the fraud of our elections?

by both parties.

[Hekate]

69. That thought went through my mind as well. I am disgusted at the madness of our worship of...

... electronic technology, and the infatuation with it that blinds so many people to its profound limitations and perils.

Hekate

[progressoid]

60. Michelle Bachman doesn't want anyone tracing her ancestors...

[jwirr]

65. This is insane. They have no reason to do this what so ever.

[WinkyDink]

72. Penny wise, pound foolish. Destroy history; it's what Fascists like to do.

[JustAnotherGen]

77. Oh that's sickening

And you are correct on the 'black hole' of the 1890 census. My my great great grandfather went from being white in 1880 to black in 1900. It's a long story but suffice to say - it would have been neat to see the 1890 census when family legend says is when he was first id'd as black for living in a 'black part of a white town' in MS and being married to a Cherokee woman.

Look up! Those are the things that we have to rely on family lore but can't 'trace' in a census when the records are shred.