The De-Identification of Individuals
Several week ago, on the way to work I heard a report on the radio about a judge back east (I don't remember which state) who ruled that the part on county's marriage application asking for race information was "unconstitutional." The county tried to get that part of the application to be optional, but the judge said it needed to be completely removed from the application. I don't remember who the couple were that brought up the lawsuit, but it doesn't really matter.
I've heard similar reports, where some required piece of information, usually gender-related, gets ruled "unconstitutional" but some judge (usually a liberal judge) and the city, county, or state agency, organization, or other entity has to stop gathering that information.
I will agree that there have been instances where certain information has been used unconstitutionally, where a person or another group uses it inappropriately, often in some discriminatory manner.
But as I listened to the report the term "de-identification" came to mind.
I have a degree in information systems, and had several classes in database design and management, along with business intelligence. I also have a degree in cybersecurity, so I'm familiar with many of the best practices as well as some of the data protection laws.
When companies gather data, often they want to identify trends, usually by aggregating data. Many data protection laws prohibit companies from using data obtained from individuals that could then be used to identify the individual in an aggregated format.
So, before combining data into an aggregate whole, the personal data has to be de-identified. That is, the data goes through whatever process the company has adopted to remove any identifiers that could be used to identify individuals. Sometimes only the general data is used and any personal data is dropped for the aggregated format. Sometimes the personal data goes through a process that strips the personal data and replaces it with a unique identifier so it can be identified as a "person" but not a specific person. And there are other methods and processes, but the end goal is the same, an (attempt) to protect the personal identities of individuals.
Where data protection is concerned, de-identification is sorely needed. Even more than it is being employed. But companies prefer personal data so they can market products and/or services more directly, so, unless restricted by law, many companies might keep both data sets.
We certainly don't want the data misused, such as for discrimination. But, what about from a family history or genealogical perspective?
When the communists took over Mongolia (beginning back in 1921 with the Soviet-backed revolution), they did as many authoritarian governments and rulers do, they tried to change history. More specifically they try to change the history that was taught. Among the things the communists did was to destroy as many family history records of the Mongolians as they could. They destroyed the various religious temples and killed religious leaders. Some of the records managed to be hidden, and escaped destruction, but most were lost or destroyed.
With the communist takeover, he damage was done. Over the subsequent generations, oral history was suppressed and lost, and the people, especially those in the cities, were taught the history that the communists wanted them to know.
By the 1990's, after the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party (MPRP) leaders resigned under pressure and new constitutional changes were instituted, the Mongolian government was changing to become a multi-party, semi-presidential representative democratic republic.
As a side note, it wasn't long after that that the Church began to have a small presence in the country.
Under the communist rule, family history was frowned on and even banned. To the communists (and socialists -- remember, before it was Russia it was formally known as USSR, or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) everyone should be equal. Because family history could be used to divide people into classes (think "royalty") or used to discriminate based on various factors (race, gender, etc.), people were generally grouped together for the common good of the country.
Consider "comrade." It's a gender-neutral term that refers to a companion, an associate, or even a close friend. It de-identifies someone from their race, gender, family, or other identifier.
Anyway, discovering one's family history is frowned on by the communists because it can lead people to set themselves apart from the communal good.
What it actually does is allow for certain controlling people and groups to have greater influence and power over others. While the people may not be divided into ruling classes, there are those families, and friends of families, who manage to keep political power and influence.
Anyway, after the communists lost power in Mongolia discovering one's family history and roots was no longer illegal. Many Mongolians have strong family ties and wanted to learn who their ancestors were. Of course, it's difficult because so many of the records were destroyed and the search still continues.
So what does Mongolia have to do with this post?
The socialist/communist agenda is to make everyone the same, to make everyone equal. That means we cannot be unique individuals in the eyes of the government. We cannot be identified by race, ethnicity, gender, or any other means that could potentially be used as discrimination. Religion is also another identifier that socialists try to abolish.
The problem is while we can be afforded equal opportunities, we are not equal. No two people are identical. No two people have the exact same talents, knowledge, experience, etc. Even seemingly identical twins have something that's different.
To socialists every person should be exactly equal. They see the equation as 1=1. Everyone is the same no matter what side of the equation you are on.
But, equal means the value of the sum of parts on both sides is the same. The value of both sides should be the same, however, the equation on each side can be completely different. A simple example is 1+4+6=5+3+3.
But, the value on each side should be equal opportunity not an equal end result. Socialists want the end result to be the same for everyone, with the government deciding what opportunities each person should be given.
The problem is no two people are exactly the same to start. Even given the same opportunities, the end results will likely be different.
Everyone should each be allowed the opportunities to take what makes us unique to reach our maximum value. This means we need to opportunities to further make us individualized and unique.
But de-identification strips us of what is unique and forces us to fit into a specified mold for the common good.
Marriage licenses, birth certificates, death certificates, and many other legal and government forms and paperwork are used in family history. These help us to know our past, our heritage.
How much harder would it be to perform family history if the unique identifies of individuals were removed, were deemed "unconstitutional" and stricken from the records?
Why do I bring up family history? Because your family is the basis of who you are.
And communists/socialists don't care much for families. For them the state/government is responsible for raising up and educating the children. That is how they can control what the children learn. Take away the strength of the family and family connections and you can better create reliance and dependence on the state, not to mention the increased loyalty to the state. Of course this means those in political power have more power, control, and influence over the populace.
What do those who promote, support, and advocate for the LGBTQ+ agenda want? For traditional families to go away. Most don't openly admit they want traditional families to go away. But, they want their lifestyle choices to be widely accepted, adopted, and to become popular. This can't happen if traditional families are dominant in the society. So, they need to tear down traditional families. Make them seem old-fashioned, out-of-touch, biased, unaccepting, intolerant. Make traditional families appear constraining to personal growth and career options. Make families relations unpopular and undesirable.
It is another form of de-identification. Only, instead of having more traditional family-related identification, the LGBTQ+ agenda is for people to identify with that group, where more individualized identification is traded for a generalized one.
Most people do not believe the LGBTQ+ agenda is the breakdown of the traditional family. And even many of those in the LGBTQ+ crowds don't think this is the goal. But it is part of the breakdown of traditional values and the family, and it is the legitimizing of immoral behavior.
The constant bombardment from the media (in general) on society, and more so on the youth and young adults has the main purpose to confuse them and make them question themselves. If someone of one gender happens to think someone of their same gender is attractive, then society wants that person to think they must be bi-sexual, asexual, or even homosexual depending on their feelings.
The youth and young adults are still developing and are more susceptible to suggestion that they must be different than their biological gender indicates. So they may start to believe they are gay, asexual, or bisexual. Or maybe they start wondering if they must be the wrong gender because of what and who they are attracted to, and what society is telling them they must be.
Does this sound similar to a communist country where the people are told what they will study, and then pursue as a career, often based on some aptitude or inclination but rarely on what the person may be interested in? They aren't given a choice, just told what they must be.
Similarly, our society, pushed by the LGBTQ+ community, wants to hijack all behaviors or interests that could possibly be related to homosexual, bisexual, asexual, trans, gender-bending, etc. as part of their community. And if anyone has any inclination, curiosity, thoughts, or actions that might be construed as LGBTQ+ related, then the attempt is to make that person begin to believe they must be gay, lesbian, gender-queer, or whatever other sub-label gets created beneath the LGBTQ+ group.
It is concerning that there are many who start believing the lies that the media and society tell them, such as if they have any feelings of attraction towards a member of their same gender then they must be gay or at least have gay tendencies. Or if someone happens to really like things that society ascribes towards the opposite gender then that person must really be transgender. It's no wonder their are so many gender-confused people.
If people can lose their real identity and become disassociated with it, then it makes it easier for a socialist-inspired agenda to de-identify people and to control them because their identity is tied to what society tells them.
The irony is in this politically correct era with ultra-hyper-sensitivity that people get offended at certain labeling but then willingly accept other labels, most of which have only really been in use for a very short time. For example, someone may get offended at having to identify their race, but then readily attach him/herself to LGBTQ+, Black Lives Matter, or any other group that instantly labels that person as part of a group, but not as an individual. And sometimes that new label can have more extremes than the shunned label.
This, to me, is another indicator that society and media (backed by liberal, socialist agenda) is pushing to disassociate people from traditional values. If the family can be broken up, then the rising generation can more easily be molded into thinking and acting in accordance with socialist/communist views, and they will be more accepting of what society (directed by those in power) tells them.
Some scientists want you to believe that we are born with our brain as it will be when we are grown. Meaning if someone is gay when they are an adult, then their brain was wired that way when they were a baby.
But, we know that the brain develops neural pathways throughout our life. Habits form pathways through the synapses of our brains. When we continually think, speak, or act in specific ways these neural pathways start developing. The more we think, speak, or act in the same way the stronger these connections become. Eventually we may even believe that is how we are wired.
I believe that to say someone was born gay, lesbian, bisexual or any other gender-term is the same as saying someone was born a drug addict or alcoholic. While it's true some babies are born with some drug or related addictions, the truth is these addictions were because of the mother's addiction and her choices affected the development of the baby. If the developing baby was not exposed to these toxins then it's safe to say the baby would not have the addiction.
Just as a normally developed baby is not born with drug or alcohol addiction, a baby is not born with gender confusion. That is developed as the child grows and receives conflicting information and doesn't know how to process it. It can be further exacerbated by parents, religious leaders, teachers, and others who may be controlling, abusive, fearful, or uncertain in how to respond to unexpected questions and actions.
I will acknowledge that environment influences and factors can have an effect on the developing brain. These factors include various chemicals and pollutants are can affect development. And, just as some people are more predisposed to becoming addicted more quickly than others, there are some children's brains who are more susceptible to gender confusion and persuasions.
The whole point of this post is there are those in government and associated with various groups who want to gain greater influence, power, and control over the people and a big way to do this is to de-identify individuals. If those people can become associated with a group that is easily dependent on those in power, then that just increases the influence and control those in political power have on them.
Remember, the goal of many people in political office is to retain and gain influence, power, and control. This is done by trying to make people more dependent and reliant on government. Both parties do this, and both sides of the aisle tend to do very little, if anything, to help people become independent and self-reliant. They don't want people to be independent and self-reliant because then the people will realize they don't need all the programs and services the government provides, and they'll realize the tremendous amount of waste that is in government and will work to change it.
If too many people become independent and self-reliant then they may realize that the private sector can provide many of the same services and programs better and more efficiently. So, to help discourage this, politicians put more regulations and controls into place--with the reasoning to better protect the health, safety, and welfare of the people--so fewer private services and programs can be provided, and the people turn back to the government for assistance.
It would be better for the country to have its people as independent, self-reliant individuals. But self-reliant, independent people are hard to control. From my observations, it appears that politicians, and those pulling the strings of power behind the scenes, want homogeneous groups of people de-identified from their original identity so they are more dependent on the government for support and even protection.
I've heard similar reports, where some required piece of information, usually gender-related, gets ruled "unconstitutional" but some judge (usually a liberal judge) and the city, county, or state agency, organization, or other entity has to stop gathering that information.
I will agree that there have been instances where certain information has been used unconstitutionally, where a person or another group uses it inappropriately, often in some discriminatory manner.
But as I listened to the report the term "de-identification" came to mind.
I have a degree in information systems, and had several classes in database design and management, along with business intelligence. I also have a degree in cybersecurity, so I'm familiar with many of the best practices as well as some of the data protection laws.
When companies gather data, often they want to identify trends, usually by aggregating data. Many data protection laws prohibit companies from using data obtained from individuals that could then be used to identify the individual in an aggregated format.
So, before combining data into an aggregate whole, the personal data has to be de-identified. That is, the data goes through whatever process the company has adopted to remove any identifiers that could be used to identify individuals. Sometimes only the general data is used and any personal data is dropped for the aggregated format. Sometimes the personal data goes through a process that strips the personal data and replaces it with a unique identifier so it can be identified as a "person" but not a specific person. And there are other methods and processes, but the end goal is the same, an (attempt) to protect the personal identities of individuals.
Where data protection is concerned, de-identification is sorely needed. Even more than it is being employed. But companies prefer personal data so they can market products and/or services more directly, so, unless restricted by law, many companies might keep both data sets.
We certainly don't want the data misused, such as for discrimination. But, what about from a family history or genealogical perspective?
When the communists took over Mongolia (beginning back in 1921 with the Soviet-backed revolution), they did as many authoritarian governments and rulers do, they tried to change history. More specifically they try to change the history that was taught. Among the things the communists did was to destroy as many family history records of the Mongolians as they could. They destroyed the various religious temples and killed religious leaders. Some of the records managed to be hidden, and escaped destruction, but most were lost or destroyed.
With the communist takeover, he damage was done. Over the subsequent generations, oral history was suppressed and lost, and the people, especially those in the cities, were taught the history that the communists wanted them to know.
By the 1990's, after the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party (MPRP) leaders resigned under pressure and new constitutional changes were instituted, the Mongolian government was changing to become a multi-party, semi-presidential representative democratic republic.
As a side note, it wasn't long after that that the Church began to have a small presence in the country.
Under the communist rule, family history was frowned on and even banned. To the communists (and socialists -- remember, before it was Russia it was formally known as USSR, or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) everyone should be equal. Because family history could be used to divide people into classes (think "royalty") or used to discriminate based on various factors (race, gender, etc.), people were generally grouped together for the common good of the country.
Consider "comrade." It's a gender-neutral term that refers to a companion, an associate, or even a close friend. It de-identifies someone from their race, gender, family, or other identifier.
Anyway, discovering one's family history is frowned on by the communists because it can lead people to set themselves apart from the communal good.
What it actually does is allow for certain controlling people and groups to have greater influence and power over others. While the people may not be divided into ruling classes, there are those families, and friends of families, who manage to keep political power and influence.
Anyway, after the communists lost power in Mongolia discovering one's family history and roots was no longer illegal. Many Mongolians have strong family ties and wanted to learn who their ancestors were. Of course, it's difficult because so many of the records were destroyed and the search still continues.
So what does Mongolia have to do with this post?
The socialist/communist agenda is to make everyone the same, to make everyone equal. That means we cannot be unique individuals in the eyes of the government. We cannot be identified by race, ethnicity, gender, or any other means that could potentially be used as discrimination. Religion is also another identifier that socialists try to abolish.
The problem is while we can be afforded equal opportunities, we are not equal. No two people are identical. No two people have the exact same talents, knowledge, experience, etc. Even seemingly identical twins have something that's different.
To socialists every person should be exactly equal. They see the equation as 1=1. Everyone is the same no matter what side of the equation you are on.
But, equal means the value of the sum of parts on both sides is the same. The value of both sides should be the same, however, the equation on each side can be completely different. A simple example is 1+4+6=5+3+3.
But, the value on each side should be equal opportunity not an equal end result. Socialists want the end result to be the same for everyone, with the government deciding what opportunities each person should be given.
The problem is no two people are exactly the same to start. Even given the same opportunities, the end results will likely be different.
Everyone should each be allowed the opportunities to take what makes us unique to reach our maximum value. This means we need to opportunities to further make us individualized and unique.
But de-identification strips us of what is unique and forces us to fit into a specified mold for the common good.
Marriage licenses, birth certificates, death certificates, and many other legal and government forms and paperwork are used in family history. These help us to know our past, our heritage.
How much harder would it be to perform family history if the unique identifies of individuals were removed, were deemed "unconstitutional" and stricken from the records?
Why do I bring up family history? Because your family is the basis of who you are.
And communists/socialists don't care much for families. For them the state/government is responsible for raising up and educating the children. That is how they can control what the children learn. Take away the strength of the family and family connections and you can better create reliance and dependence on the state, not to mention the increased loyalty to the state. Of course this means those in political power have more power, control, and influence over the populace.
What do those who promote, support, and advocate for the LGBTQ+ agenda want? For traditional families to go away. Most don't openly admit they want traditional families to go away. But, they want their lifestyle choices to be widely accepted, adopted, and to become popular. This can't happen if traditional families are dominant in the society. So, they need to tear down traditional families. Make them seem old-fashioned, out-of-touch, biased, unaccepting, intolerant. Make traditional families appear constraining to personal growth and career options. Make families relations unpopular and undesirable.
It is another form of de-identification. Only, instead of having more traditional family-related identification, the LGBTQ+ agenda is for people to identify with that group, where more individualized identification is traded for a generalized one.
Most people do not believe the LGBTQ+ agenda is the breakdown of the traditional family. And even many of those in the LGBTQ+ crowds don't think this is the goal. But it is part of the breakdown of traditional values and the family, and it is the legitimizing of immoral behavior.
The constant bombardment from the media (in general) on society, and more so on the youth and young adults has the main purpose to confuse them and make them question themselves. If someone of one gender happens to think someone of their same gender is attractive, then society wants that person to think they must be bi-sexual, asexual, or even homosexual depending on their feelings.
The youth and young adults are still developing and are more susceptible to suggestion that they must be different than their biological gender indicates. So they may start to believe they are gay, asexual, or bisexual. Or maybe they start wondering if they must be the wrong gender because of what and who they are attracted to, and what society is telling them they must be.
Does this sound similar to a communist country where the people are told what they will study, and then pursue as a career, often based on some aptitude or inclination but rarely on what the person may be interested in? They aren't given a choice, just told what they must be.
Similarly, our society, pushed by the LGBTQ+ community, wants to hijack all behaviors or interests that could possibly be related to homosexual, bisexual, asexual, trans, gender-bending, etc. as part of their community. And if anyone has any inclination, curiosity, thoughts, or actions that might be construed as LGBTQ+ related, then the attempt is to make that person begin to believe they must be gay, lesbian, gender-queer, or whatever other sub-label gets created beneath the LGBTQ+ group.
It is concerning that there are many who start believing the lies that the media and society tell them, such as if they have any feelings of attraction towards a member of their same gender then they must be gay or at least have gay tendencies. Or if someone happens to really like things that society ascribes towards the opposite gender then that person must really be transgender. It's no wonder their are so many gender-confused people.
If people can lose their real identity and become disassociated with it, then it makes it easier for a socialist-inspired agenda to de-identify people and to control them because their identity is tied to what society tells them.
The irony is in this politically correct era with ultra-hyper-sensitivity that people get offended at certain labeling but then willingly accept other labels, most of which have only really been in use for a very short time. For example, someone may get offended at having to identify their race, but then readily attach him/herself to LGBTQ+, Black Lives Matter, or any other group that instantly labels that person as part of a group, but not as an individual. And sometimes that new label can have more extremes than the shunned label.
This, to me, is another indicator that society and media (backed by liberal, socialist agenda) is pushing to disassociate people from traditional values. If the family can be broken up, then the rising generation can more easily be molded into thinking and acting in accordance with socialist/communist views, and they will be more accepting of what society (directed by those in power) tells them.
Some scientists want you to believe that we are born with our brain as it will be when we are grown. Meaning if someone is gay when they are an adult, then their brain was wired that way when they were a baby.
But, we know that the brain develops neural pathways throughout our life. Habits form pathways through the synapses of our brains. When we continually think, speak, or act in specific ways these neural pathways start developing. The more we think, speak, or act in the same way the stronger these connections become. Eventually we may even believe that is how we are wired.
I believe that to say someone was born gay, lesbian, bisexual or any other gender-term is the same as saying someone was born a drug addict or alcoholic. While it's true some babies are born with some drug or related addictions, the truth is these addictions were because of the mother's addiction and her choices affected the development of the baby. If the developing baby was not exposed to these toxins then it's safe to say the baby would not have the addiction.
Just as a normally developed baby is not born with drug or alcohol addiction, a baby is not born with gender confusion. That is developed as the child grows and receives conflicting information and doesn't know how to process it. It can be further exacerbated by parents, religious leaders, teachers, and others who may be controlling, abusive, fearful, or uncertain in how to respond to unexpected questions and actions.
I will acknowledge that environment influences and factors can have an effect on the developing brain. These factors include various chemicals and pollutants are can affect development. And, just as some people are more predisposed to becoming addicted more quickly than others, there are some children's brains who are more susceptible to gender confusion and persuasions.
The whole point of this post is there are those in government and associated with various groups who want to gain greater influence, power, and control over the people and a big way to do this is to de-identify individuals. If those people can become associated with a group that is easily dependent on those in power, then that just increases the influence and control those in political power have on them.
Remember, the goal of many people in political office is to retain and gain influence, power, and control. This is done by trying to make people more dependent and reliant on government. Both parties do this, and both sides of the aisle tend to do very little, if anything, to help people become independent and self-reliant. They don't want people to be independent and self-reliant because then the people will realize they don't need all the programs and services the government provides, and they'll realize the tremendous amount of waste that is in government and will work to change it.
If too many people become independent and self-reliant then they may realize that the private sector can provide many of the same services and programs better and more efficiently. So, to help discourage this, politicians put more regulations and controls into place--with the reasoning to better protect the health, safety, and welfare of the people--so fewer private services and programs can be provided, and the people turn back to the government for assistance.
It would be better for the country to have its people as independent, self-reliant individuals. But self-reliant, independent people are hard to control. From my observations, it appears that politicians, and those pulling the strings of power behind the scenes, want homogeneous groups of people de-identified from their original identity so they are more dependent on the government for support and even protection.
Comments
Post a Comment