Having a full combination of first + family name doesn't really help for identification purposes, though: "John Smith" may not be quite as unidentifiable/ambiguous as "Mohammed, son of Mohammed, grandson of Mohammed", but it's not too far off it either.

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?

It is not perfect, far from it, and the reason why so many Americans have second names (After all, USA had to Georges Bush as president)

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.

There are also differences with how surname/given name ordering translates between languages. For example, a Chinese name like Xi Jinping has Xi as the surname and is rendered in that order in both Chinese and English. A Japanese name like Shinzo Abe is rendered in Japanese as Abe Shinzo with Abe as the surname.

> sites insist on collection first and last names separately, as opposed to just a "full name"

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.

Atatürk (the founder of the Turkish Republic) made surnames mandatory as a reform to be compatible with Europe (he was very pro-Europe) and this was in 1934. Everyone got to pick their own surnames. Luckily people hesitated to pick Mohammed because the word for last name in Turkish translates to "name of lineage" and that'd be a big claim (also I've heard that it wasn't allowed not to put a target on non-muslims' backs). So now we have a significant portion of the population with the surname "Pure/Core Turk" (Öztürk) and its variations (my surname Özcan included). Atatürk (father Turk) was reserved for the president though :)

Did he have any children? That is, do you have any Atatürks running around today?

He didn't. There were some people who claimed otherwise but without any piece of evidence whatsoever.

This is hilarious! Thanks for sharing.

>> 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.

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).

> Family names start appearing when you need to be able to identify a person unambiguously among the population of a big country

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. :)

Iceland—a relatively small country—still uses patronymics rather than surnames for the most part. The singer Bjork is Björk Guðmundsdóttir, because her father is Guðmundur Gunnarsson, which makes Bjork “Guthmund’s daughter”.

There are still confusing exceptions: the retired footballer Eiður Guðjohnsen is not actually Gudjohn’s son; he is the son of Arnór Guðjohnsen.

Interesting, I didn't know that. There was a big period of confusion in the overlap with some keeping to patronymics, some using as a family name. I'm not sure if it was Christianity, or personal preference that made the switch, as Christianity wasn't fully rolled out to England yet, again Danelaw areas being late adopters. Parish records of births, marriages and deaths were still 500 years away, so maybe no one really knows.

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!

How often were sons named for their fathers? I imagine it would be confusing to have generations of John Johnsons around.

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.

I honestly don't know, but probably not that uncommon as naming for the father has carried into the modern era. No less confusing to have three generations of John Smith.

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".

>Hopefully one day we have a UID for humans[…]

that sounds really dangerous

I keep seeing people from US and UK equating IDs with totalitarianism. Why? I don't follow the reasoning here.

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.

The UK has no requirement for ID. The old WW2 ID was abolished in the early 50s as an infringement of civil liberties. The idea being that a citizen can go about their lawful business without interruption unless suspected of something. IDs were being asked for by police and others as a matter of course rather than of suspicion.

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.

> IDs were being asked for by police and others as a matter of course rather than of suspicion.

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!)

UID per se no. Asking for it, most definitely yes. This is a hill I would die on. I have a passport and driving licence. I can be asked to produce my driving licence in limited circumstances (suspected of driving offences and stopped) at a police station within 7 days. Every other production of ID is optional, except passport at international ports. No ID needed for NHS care, dental care - there's an NHS number but I haven't the foggiest what it is. It's unconnected with my criminal record or lack, my debts, my pension etc etc. To vote I have to be on the electoral role, which is a special purpose UID, and can be hidden from public view. None of these are wrapped in an all encompassing national ID. They are specific to purpose, and should remain localised to that purpose. e.g. My employer will want my NI Number for pension and tax contributions.

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). :)

> I can be asked to produce my driving licence in limited circumstances (suspected of driving offences and stopped) at a police station within 7 days

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.

> stop when asked to by a police officer

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.

So you are in favor of several national IDs, but just don't want one? I must say I don't follow.

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.

Note that, right or wrong, this is the kind of attitude that made Brexit happen.

I really don't understand how.

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 Denmark, Ireland and UK have identity cards.

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.

That neatly demonstrates the idiocy of Brexit: The UK, Ireland, Channel Islands and Isle of Man have had a common travel area since before WW2, requiring no papers. Which could easily disintegrate with the way our govt is going about Brexit, and would cause issues. Complete freedom from papers changed 15 or 20 years ago for air travel in that it got silly: you "had to prove that you didn't need to prove your ID, by having Irish or British ID". The ferry kept on requiring nothing at all, I don't know if that's changed since.

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.

My point is that the UK is a bit of an outlier in the EU and was resisting many of the “unification” policies (including also the common currency, again in the company of Denmark — and Sweden that’s supposed to join but it’s just not doing it). UK citizens distrust their government and even more a supranational government and in the same way that UK citizens don’t like being controlled by their government the UK doesn’t like being controlled by the EU. That’s what I meant by “this kind if attitude” and apparently these are hills a majority of people chose to die on.

Ireland - yes and no.

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).

And it's why, to a lot of Americans with no horse in the race, certain aspects of Brexit seem quite understandable even when they are in a different class/income level than most Brexit voters are.

Not making a political statement. But suspicion of national registration/ID/papers is much more prevalent in some countries than others.

In places without any kind of unique ID, multiple voting is often prevented by dyeing your thumbnail after voting. This is sufficient to keep voter fraud down to insignificant levels. The UK commenter points out that a number specific to the voting process is also adequate to the purpose. Pension accounts can similarly be identified by numbers specific to the money in question, and in that case there's not even any requirement for being one to one—your pension contributions from different years can and possibly should be in separate, unlinked accounts. Certainly there is no benefit, and potentially enormous harm, in linking your pension to your voting.

Interestingly, voter ID laws are massively controversial in the US. The rationale is because they have disproportionate effects on African-Americans, and that voter fraud (eg somebody voting ten times in an election) does not seem to actually happen that frequently anyway.

as I understand it, voter ID laws are controversial because certain groups of people are less likely to have official ID. in general, if you don't drive or leave the country, you don't need a state-issued ID. if the federal government issued an ID to every citizen of the US, you couldn't argue that the requirement disproportionately impeded minorities from voting; they already have the ID!

of course, there are many other reasons why a mandatory national ID would be politically unfeasible in the US.

If you don’t drive, leave the country, fly on airlines, buy alcohol or tobacco, patronize establishments legally designated as certain categories of alcohol-serving establishments or adult entertainment venues, have a bank account, or have an actual job that would require you to fill out an I-9, you might be able to live in America without ID. But it seems really, really hard.

You may not have any requirement for ID, but to actually function in the society you need one. So in practice you do need one.

As for carrying them, yeah, that should not be necessary.

Hmm. You need very occasionally, such as when opening a new bank account, to prove name and address - a utility or council tax bill, letter from the tax office, or even previous bank or a mortgage statement etc will generally suffice. There's a fair list of what is and isn't accepted, and it's fairly infrequently needed. Like only when creating a new and often financial relationship.

Can't remember the last time - ten years perhaps. Someone young setting up lots of things for the first time, much more often.

I find it amusing at how many Americans seem resistant to a national ID system, but blithely give out their social security number to any number of private entities, along with their DOB, full name, mother's maiden name, etc. Basically a ready made identity theft kit when the inevitable data breach occurs.

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.

I think there are several reasons:

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)

But do any of these address the point that effectively anyone in a developped country already has one or more unique IDs of some kind ?

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.

Cambridge Analytica did not rely on any centralized ID scheme. Just Facebook ID.

What you want are strong privacy laws. GDPR is overdue in USA.

Like most measures that give more power to governments, it makes things easier for them, not possible. Are you honestly not aware of how unique permanent identifying numbers give governments more power over the people thus numbered? There are examples in the article.

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.

If you google "mark of the beast real ID" you'll see all kinds of very interesting reasoning. I don't know how much I'm joking about it, because if you don't think there's believers you're in a bubble -- I'm not saying whether or not they're crazy to reject a Real ID on religious grounds, but I think it is a pressure in american politics at least.

The only reason for a UID is to track what you do. A world full of events where that is a pressing need is a frightening one.

> And all passport holders have a de-facto global UID (but not everyone has a passport and bi-nationals may have several)

In India, passport numbers change (for the same person) whenever they're reissued (renewal, lost, etc.). That's a good thing, IMO.

> And all passport holders have a de-facto global UID (but not everyone has a passport and bi-nationals may have several)

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.

> Algeria

> 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...

There are many people whose name is Jesus