There seems to have been something shady going on here. I won't comment on that, but the government tracking this isn't per-se strange or unwarranted.
Took 5 seconds to find on google. Unless you're going to move the goalposts.
Source: I was tangentially involved in a research project once where we wanted, but weren't granted, access to this data.
Yes, thankfully there are no systems in place for the US government to verify/track someone's age (and thus infer their ability to bear children).
You're asking someone else to do your legwork, and it's a form of trolling.
Prove you care about this topic to the person you're talking to by doing some cursory research.
This is just the non-anonymized version of the same thing. Never attribute to misdimeanor what can be attributed to negligence or stupidity in the first place.
If you e.g anonymously poll the sexual orientation of your population and condense it to down numbers, it is something completely different than having a list with who is gay.
The first gives you insight in the structure of your population and the second allows everybody to target individuals, based on something a poll found.
The Dutch listed religion in their public register (see Hollerith system) before the second world war. Guess who thankfully used that list later?
The realization what data like that allows a fascist dictatorship to do is the main reason why the Germans up to this day are extremely sceptical about any state collected data and have one of the harshest data protection laws in the world.
Equating anonymous statistics with a list of individuals is wrong. And statistics that allow you to identify individuals are unethical and potentially dangerous.
We should keep in mind not to trust the connotations of any translated phrase. Heck, we can barely trust the overt meaning.
That doesn't mean the government is planning to round them up and put them to work.
Besides, in the US the census collects the same kind of data, it just probably hasn't used with an agenda. Among EU members, on the other hand, data protection laws often disallow the collection of such information.
EDIT: to your point however, being married would not preclude a woman from being "breed ready" as we understand the phrase. So clearly there is some missing context needed to really understand what that column represents.
First, they don’t know if it’s governmental or otherwise, second they’re not sure if the words are mistranslations or a shorthand categorization.
The government is concerned the population drop will happen too fast and are also concerned some men will have issues finding a partner due to previous reproductive policies. These latter issues are socially graver issues that could be discussed at length but the article instead decided to focus on speculation.
There is no otherwise.
> The government is concerned
You can't just use this—or safety—to justify anything.
For all we now it could be about reproductive health.
I bet Kaiser-Permanente knows who is reproductive or not for at least a subset of their patients.
NextWeb's reporting on the Twitter thread suggests that the phrase may be a Chinese attempt to translate to English a Chinese word meaning "woman of child-bearing age" [https://thenextweb.com/tech/2019/03/11/1-8m-chinese-women-de...], but we don't actually know because we have no primary source on what character was translated as "BreedReady."
It's not just speculation, the fact is the database is Chinese and the key is "BreedReady". I don't find it that difficult to understand how it could have ended up like that.
It still could be a translation to keep the keys in English though.
> Security by default, in software, means that the default configuration settings are the most secure settings possible, which are not necessarily the most user friendly settings.
The hard part is making it both secure by default but also developer (user) friendly.
If you make it so that it is super secure by default, but onerous just to get your product setup because of all the security overhead developers are going to get frustrated and either disable all the security or use a competitor's (less secure) product that is easier to setup and you are back at square one.
There are so many options out there that if you try to launch a product (DB, webserver, etc.) and it's really hard for the developer to get started ("step 1, before you can try out this webserver, first register an account with Let's Encrypt") nobody is going to use it.
It's not an easy problem to solve because people are inherently lazy and want results fast. Security done right is the opposite of that in its current state.
But MongoDB is web scale! Nobody is going to run it on localhost only! So the default (until 2.6) was to listen on all interfaces by default. AFAIK Elasticsearch still listens on all interfaces by default. Does this choice make life any easier for the developer who is just beginning to learn how to use it? I dunno, most of my development work takes place on localhost. I probably won't even notice if a newly installed database only listens on localhost.
Look at the screenshot from tweet carefully and you can find it store "photo" on fbcdn.net. Which totally blocked by firewall of China.
I guess this mostly seems fine to those who are not even potentially affected, as usual.
Sundar Pichai, Satya Nadella, Sergei Brin, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Jensen Huang, Andrew Viterbi, Stephen Wolfram, among others, seem like pretty good gets for the US.
This is actually considered the regular flow of first world countries.
Third world country birth rates become larger and larger to boost and enable larger economies while first world countries require less people to get things done.
In the West, three or four children is a large family while in four or five is normal in African Nations.