So the French admninistration gave arbitrary names to families. Algerians were rightfully angry about that.
But then it got me thinking about what kind of acceptable solution you would have. There are naming conventions that are good enough to keep track of people in a village of mid-sized town. Given name + Parents names.
Family names start appearing when you need to be able to identify a person unambiguously among the population of a big country. Some places never went through that phase, yet being able to identify unambiguously a person who may have changed address or even country is perfectly valid.
In the absence of a universal ID scheme, I don't see a way around forcing a working pattern into every culture, with the acceptance that some things may be lost in translation.
Jesus would have registered as "Jesus Bin Yoseph" to get a passport or an Amazon Prime account. His (hypothetical) children would have "Bin Jesus" as their family names.
Hopefully one day we have a UID for humans that can be mapped to a variety of naming scheme, but we are not there yet.
In general, websites don't depend on these names for identification; if a site refused to sign me up because I shared a name with another "Smith, John" then I would rightly be irritated. So why do (many) sites insist on collection first and last names separately, as opposed to just a "full name" field that would be used to address me on the site or via email? Is it purely a data collection / advertising / monetization thing?
A free form "full name" text could be the solution, but then the problem is forcing a formatting on it so that one person always puts the same thing in this field. Should I include second names? Accents? Is that family name first or second? At least, with clearly labeled fields you are already able to tell Adam Smith from a Smith Adam.
Webshops usually are happy with name + current address but there are administrative domains where this is not acceptable.
Because that's also a cultural bias from (some) western countries. And even then some countries that "insist" on First/Last name don't have Middle names.
You might also want to split First/Last names to display things like Mr. Smith
In practice (especially for government purposes), John Smith is not only John Smith, but John Smith born in Day-Month-Year, in City, etc.
More precisely, "Yeshua Bin Yoseph" and "Bin Yeshua" for his kids.
"Yeshua Bin Yoseph" most likely being an actual name of at least one individual living today (somebody from Israel).
Pretty sure they go back further than that. Family names that are former patronymics (Svenson, Stevenson, Godwinson etc) are notably more common in Northern England than Southern. Reason being that was the Danelaw part of England where the Vikings held sway until roughly the Norman Conquest - 1066. They've stuck around as family names for over a thousand years.
The Domesday book was a survey of landowners and their holdings - mere peasants were listed numerically by class amongst the other holdings of the landowner, for tax and military purposes. The next attempt at a similar census was the mid 19th century. :)
There are still confusing exceptions: the retired footballer Eiður Guðjohnsen is not actually Gudjohn’s son; he is the son of Arnór Guðjohnsen.
Helpfully, the old Saxon custom of the eldest having a particular first name - which would be given to the next eldest if the older one inconveniently died, stuck around a good while too!
Regarding “the eldest having a particular first name which would be given to the next eldest if the older one inconveniently died”—is that referring mainly to childhood mortality? I’ve read of names being reused at times due to the (by modern standards) shocking rate of infant mortality but I’ve never heard of that particular custom.
The eldest getting a given name may have been a status thing, perhaps tied in with succession. Eldest being the one that would inherit the land or title. The young had all sorts of opportunities to die, and even escaping childhood was no guarantee as you'd then be expected to make up a Lord or King's retinue of men for any conflict. Maybe it's the origin of popes and some monarchs taking a name on succession - the "job name".
that sounds really dangerous
I believe all Americans have a social security number, right? And all passport holders have a de-facto global UID (but not everyone has a passport and bi-nationals may have several)
I don't see what this enables that would be impossible without.
A passport or driving licence forms a de facto ID, but both of those are voluntary, and there is no requirement to carry them. You don't even need to carry your driving licence when driving. I haven't seen my driving licence for years! I think I know which drawer it's in. :)
There are also voluntary ID schemes for youngsters who want to prove they're old enough to buy alcohol and tobacco, or be in a club etc.
Is the existence of an ID really the problem there?
I like the idea that having to provide an ID is optional and the police can't force someone to comply without a good reason, but the existence of an UID for people seems really necessary in a lot of cases, to prove someone did not vote 10 times in an election, to track your pension state, your debts, your condemnations (I don't want someone to confuse me with a criminal of the same name!)
I don't have to produce ID to the police, though I can be asked to identify myself. If arrested and I claim to be Winston Churchill I can probably expect a little more than average checking.
Circumstantial proof of ID is more than enough in most cases. If I want to apply for my first passport there are ways of acceptably identifying myself without any other form of ID.
We've managed without for 70 years without reducing ourselves to a banana republic (You may feel Brexit is doing that). :)
You must stop when asked to by a police officer. They don't have to suspect an offence. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/163
You must produce, when asked, your documents. They don't have to suspect an offence. Not producing when asked is committing an offence, but there's a defence if you produce your papers within 7 days at your nearest police station. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/164
> No ID needed for NHS care,
There's no ID needed for primary care or emergency care. You may be asked to prove ID if you get secondary care. The NHS number is irrelevant for whether you get charged or not.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
> I don't have to produce ID to the police
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
It is an offence to refuse to give your details or to give false details to a PCSO (so not even a police officer) if they think you have littered or they think you have behaved anti-socially. Or they think you're part of a group that includes some people who've behaved anti-socially and they've asked the group to disperse.
My mistake, I thought there was a need for cause for a producer. Such as the made up "faulty brake light" that miraculously starts working again when you have stopped, or you just got pulled for speeding etc. :)
> prove ID if you get secondary care
Yeah, that's the newly minted, and rather offensive regs from Theresa, in the govt mission against immigration, most of which always been from outside the EU. It was previously much the same for Brits and EU citizens as I understand it. From a quick glance of the link it seems to generate a couple of absurdities along the prove you don't need to prove ID lines that's been in the UK:Ireland travel area a while.
ID to the police or PCSO
Yes, they can ask for my name and address, and I'm expected to be truthful as they may check. They can't demand documentary evidence of same such as my papers or driving licence when not in control of a vehicle.
They might go away and check against their records, electoral role and so on. They might ask if I can confirm this, and much of the time I can honestly answer "no" without problem. They'll have more to say if I claim to be M. Mouse of 10 Downing St. Obviously if arrested they can search and find any circumstantial or actual evidence of ID, like a bank card or driving licence, that will hopefully match the name provided earlier.
Forbidding to interconnect personal files is a different issue than having an individual UID
And I would be VERY surprised if the UK government was unable to connect passport IDs and criminal records.
Ireland doesn't require ID either. You could visit Dublin on the ferry from England showing no papers other than your ferry ticket, bought for cash as you walked on to the boat, and I'm pretty sure vice versa. Even when there were the armed checkpoints between North and South. Did this quite a few times. I see no significant support for an "Iexit", so it can't be connected with ID, or attitudes to it, but the disingenuous politicians and right of centre British media stories on the EU. Murdoch et al.
As far as I know no EU citizens were required to have additional identity requirements, or present anything for NHS treatment, until the actions of the current and previous Tory governments. Which I found offensive in the extreme. FWIW I voted remain.
If I travel to a country in the EU or elsewhere that requires ID, I carry ID. I'd have my passport anyway. I might wish they had a similar attitude to ID, for the reasons stated.
All the EU countries except for Ireland and UK are part of the Schengen Area (or are obliged to join in the future, for some recent members). It remains to be seen what Ireland status is once UK is out, depending on what kind of border is put in place between them.
The trend in the EU is for more control (regarding IDs and in many other issues) and this was not well appreciated by many UK citizens.
The trend in the EU has been for removing ID to travel between countries within the zone. As far as I am aware once you're inside the Schengen zone ID rules remain whatever is the case within the country. i.e. Denmark wasn't required to make ID compulsory to be within the system, it's only supposed to be travel in and out of the zone that's affected is it not? There don't seem to be moves to change. Obviously a Dane would carry some ID when visiting France or another EU country requiring it.
Course there's all the "temporary" internal borders inside Schengen for migrant or terrorist checks etc that weakens the whole concept.
The Irish Government like to deny it, but I'd argue that the "Public Services Card" (https://psc.gov.ie/) is a de-facto ID card (and hence central ID database).
Not making a political statement. But suspicion of national registration/ID/papers is much more prevalent in some countries than others.
of course, there are many other reasons why a mandatory national ID would be politically unfeasible in the US.
As for carrying them, yeah, that should not be necessary.
Can't remember the last time - ten years perhaps. Someone young setting up lots of things for the first time, much more often.
You already have a national attempt at a GUID per human, it's called a social security number, it just has incredibly lax security and data handling practices, and no teeth in penalties for its misuse.
1. Centralization gives provides a juicy target for misuse/negligence by both legitimate (see: Equifax) and illegitimate (see: Cambridge Analytica). De-centralization allows a preferable level of chaos
1. Historically there has been an attempt at balancing federal (national) vs local (state) powers.
2. The country can probably not even agree on one standard -- some states for examples are very strict while others are not (usually along party lines)
And for any developping country, time will come where people who don’t have an ID now will need to get one, to receive care, go to school, get out of the country or drive a car.
In that sense, if a country allows people to not have a surname, as long as they have at least one canonical ID I guess it’s fine.
What you want are strong privacy laws. GDPR is overdue in USA.
US passports, among others, do not have a number identifying the holder, only the passport. Each time you replace the passport, every ten years or less, you get a new number. The passport also does not bear the social security number.
In India, passport numbers change (for the same person) whenever they're reissued (renewal, lost, etc.). That's a good thing, IMO.
Mostly agree with your point, but for the decades to come in this case it would be better to keep IDs of different nations separate.
> Having a Mohammed, son of Mohammed, grandson of Mohammed was common.
> In the absence of a universal ID scheme, I don't see a way around forcing a working pattern into every culture, with the acceptance that some things may be lost in translation.
Pakistan has very much the same problem, they've gone for a national ID card system. It hasn't been entirely fraud or ID theft free, but they're certainly trying.
https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=nad...
When dealing with automated systems in other countries, it causes all manner of problems!
---
Common pattern in USA:
Father: X Y | Z
Mother: A B | C
Your name: R C | Z
---
Spain/most of Latin America:
Father: X | Y Z
Mother: A | B C
Your name: R | Y B
---
Argentina:
Father: X Y | Z
Mother: A B | C
Your name: R S | Z
Father: X | Z
Mother: A | C
Set of Godfathers and Godmothers given names: {G}
Your name: {G} | Z
There are also double given names. For example Hans-Peter is a differs from Hans Peter. The later could also be rendered Peter Hans but for Hans-Peter the order is fixed.
---
Many Slavic Countries:
Father: X | Z
Mother: A | C
Your name (boy): R | patronymic(X) | Z
Your name (girl): R | patronymic(X) | feminine(Z)
The middle part is neither given name nor surname but referred to as patronymic.
---
Or even that you don't have a first name but a set of given names and that the relative that gave you the name that is conventionally often put in a later position would not be amused about another relatives name singled out to be a "first name".
That for sure would cause problems in some standard forms.
I think I've tried looking this up before, but is there an IATA regulation on what names are acceptable for a flight ticket?
Even if we remove the family name requirement from our end, a third party we use for identity verification still requires a family name, so how do we deal with that?
FamilyName GivenName*
<optional prefix> GivenName FamilyName
GivenName* Father'sGivenName
GivenName Father'sGivenName FamilyName
Father'sGivenName GivenName FamilyName
Prefix GivenName*
My name is of the third type and as a scientist it annoys me immensely that my work is referred to by my Father'sGivenName in western culture when no one has ever called me that in real life in my culture.
Source: my own comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19973627
Hence why there are surnames (or equivalents, Jesus son of Joseph)
Not a normalisation.
True, surnames are used for hierarchical system hence why some people don't want to use them for instance.
But websites aren't here to pander to you.
They want to make $. The less entropy they have on you the better. It's not laziness and/or ignorance and/or unwillingness to learn.
Most websites that need a name assume that everyone has a last name and make it mandatory. What's more ridiculous is that this habit is prevalent even in places where it may be uncommon (like in some parts of India)! Even Jesus didn't really have a surname that was used everywhere. Jews in those times (and for a much longer period) didn't have surnames either.
Instead of celebrating and appreciating the diversity among humans and human naming conventions, today's world thrives on forms that want to normalize things. It's just laziness and/or ignorance and/or unwillingness to learn.
See "Falsehood programmers believe about names". [1]
[1]: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-...