RE: Another thing that goes wrong with naming

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@...
> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@...]On Behalf Of Brian Gladman
> Sent: 03 February 2004 17:53
> To: ukcrypto@...
> Subject: Re: Another thing that goes wrong with naming
>
>
> From: "Owen Lewis" <oml@...>
> To: <ukcrypto@...>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 4:43 PM
> Subject: RE: Another thing that goes wrong with naming
>
> [snip]
> > > > A sweeping statement indeed  I would expect that the additional
> cost
> > > > element over, say, 25 years should be handsomely repaid by the
> > > retirement
> > > of
> > > > the current, multiple and flawed systems, the reduction in
> > > certain crimes,
> > > > in the cost of detecting their perpetrators and by
> reduction in monies
> > > > underpaid to and over paid by the state in its dealings with
> > > individuals.
> > >
> > > This is the notion that there is an 'IT solution' to all current 'IT
> > > problems' just around the corner if only we had the courage to
> > > invest in it.
> > > It is precisely the argument that has led to the waste of billions of
> > > taxpayer's money on failed IT systems over the last two decades.
> > >
> > > I do not find it even remotely convincing.
> >
> > Perhaps because your interpretation of the issue is as an 'IT
> problem'. It
> > isn't. The 'problem' is one of certainty in unique naming.
>
> We disagree once more.
>
> Identifying things and naming things are different concepts that
> should not
> be confused.  A name is simply a convenient way in which groups of human
> beings can refer to things that lie within their common experience.  Names
> are a human imposition onto the world and are in no way intrinsic
> properties
> of the named objects.

Not so and too much ground to go over it again for you. We concern ourselves
here with the naming of persons. This names are given by others and are but
rarely assigned by a person that bears it (and then only where others will
consent to use it). Most persons answer to several names, none of which is
unique and some of which will change periodically throughout life. This is
charming, comforting and human. There is no reason for this practice to
cease. What is needed by states (and can be useful to others) is a single
unique and normally unchanging name by which each person in some
relationship to the state can be identified.
>
> In contrast a biometric identity is an intrinsic property of the body
> involved and is in no way arbitrary in the way that a name is.

See above. You are right in that a silk purse is not a pig's ear. Pig's ear
is a reasonable description of states present methods of attempting the
unique identification of persons.

Owen