#auscensus

Normally data hacking flies under our daily radar but Australia’s #censusfail and the ensuing public relations nightmare should give every business owner pause for thought.

The alarming truth is that ransomware is at unprecedented levels around the world.

A recent survey by global security company PhishMe found a staggering 789% jump in encryption ransomware attacks in the first three months of 2016.

PhishMe CEO Rohyt Belani said “Individuals, small- and medium-sized businesses, hospitals, and global enterprises are all faced with the reality that this is now one of the most favoured cyber-criminal enterprises.”

Whether you decide to pay or not, it can be costly to the bottom line and your reputation.

Does coughing up suggest you were unprepared to handle customer records in a secure way?

How are you going to reassure clients and suppliers (current and potential) that you can be trusted with their information?

And what steps are you taking to stop it from happening again?

No matter what business sector or size – if you hold any kind of data, you are at risk of a potential public relations nightmare. And if you haven’t contemplated a ransomware attack as part of your overall communications plan, you could be in trouble.

Here are some things to consider:

Put up your hand – if you don’t own the story, others (e.g. competitors) will tell it for you. Admit any mistakes, acknowledge any problems, and communicate what you’re doing in response.

Tell it truthfully – this is not the time to sugar coat, gloss over, or spin what’s going on.

Remember the 3Cs – in all communication (internally and externally) show your Concern for those impacted, show you are in Control of the situation, and show your Commitment to preventing a recurrence.

Make a list – think across your business about who you need to communicate with i.e. clients, members, visitors, staff, volunteers, government, business partners, donors, media.

Use the right channels – make sure your message gets through by using the most suitable and effective internal and external channels to communicate with different audiences.

Keep at it – constant, reliable, authoritative communication in bad times will make your stakeholders more likely to listen (and respond) in good times!

Your reputation is worth seeking expert communications advice, and spending time and effort preparing a proactive crisis communications plan, because, ultimately, the cost of prevention versus the cost of paying a ransom and/or rebuilding your brand is a no brainer.

Barbara Cox

Way back in August 2011 we raised some questions about how the Australian Census was asking respondents about religious affiliation. Our post suggested that the census seemed to assume that people were members of a religious group, and that a response bias could push people to choose the first bubble on the form (Catholic) even when more and more Australians are reporting being non-religious.

We loved the lively discussion in the comments and on Twitter, but more importantly, people were letting the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) know their concerns about potential bias in the wording of the question. The ABS received 444 submissions about the question — higher than all other categories combined and by a magnitude of three. The ABS' summary of the submissions:

the introduction of a filter question asking if the person has a religion with a 'YES/NO' response

the category of 'No religion' to be placed at the top of the list - otherwise in ranking order based on output data from the 2011 Census

revision of the question wording, incorporating new words such as ‘belief’ and ‘practising’

the inclusion of additional pick boxes for non-Christian religions

the review of examples of 'Other' in the accompanying notes.

This is great - any of these would be welcome changes, with longitudinal annotation of the adjustment, of course. Sadly, the ABS' recommendation for 2016 is a much more timid change:

The Census is the only source of detailed, small area religious affiliation data. Information on religious affiliation is widely used in the religious community, and by government agencies which provide services complementary to those provided by religious organisations.

The ABS will make some small changes to the list of response categories for common religious groups to reflect the most common responses received in the 2011 Census.

This recommendation is a contradiction. The first paragraph emphasizes the importance of the Census as the only source of religious affiliation data, but failing to address the larger problems with the question makes the results of that single-source wholly untrustworthy. 

This has real-life impacts on funding and policy decisions. Religious affiliation data collected from the census is used to plan funding for parochial schools, assigning chaplains in hospitals and the armed services, and determining how to share time in public media. In other words, things that you might notice every day.

The pure volume of submissions on the subject shows that this is an area of great concern for those watching the census. The ABS could have been scientific and statistical about the problem (we would have happily given them our prototype for a trial) but instead they chose consistency over accuracy.

No Religion and the Census Redesign - The People's Choice

A. Unchanged from the 2011 Australian Census

B. No Religion appears before Other, but after popular religious denominations.

C. No Religion appears first.

D. All options appear in alphabetical order, except Other.

E. No Religion is changed to Not Religious and appears first.

F. No Religion appears first and Other - please specify is changed to Other religion - please specify.

The Results are in!

The results from our unscientific poll* on the religion question from the 2011 Australian Census are in. They show that even though opinion varied on which was the best of our six designs, most readers who voted agreed with us that the question needs reevaluation.

The largest segment of readers favored option E, which changed the No Religion option to Not Religious and moved it to the top. We think this option is more accurate, especially for people who may have been raised with some religion, but are ambivalent as adults. 

But we could have done even better...

Jessica Enders, the form-design expert behind Formulate, gave us more awesome feedback. I think her ideal solution is better than any of the six we put together:

Q: Do you consider yourself {affiliated with/a follower of/a participant in} an organised religion? A: Yes/No Q: (If Yes) Which one(s)? A: First year implemented — large write-in box (i.e. no closed response options); Second year implemented: List religions that were chosen by more than 5% of population in first year implemented, in alphabetical order, with "Other, please specify" at the end.

Thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion. We'll keep the poll open for a few days longer and if results change dramatically we'll let you know.

-Tom