7 ms·

There was a stand up comedian of Algerian descent explaining that situation when the French administration tries to do the census of their colony. The custom wa

by Iv 7y ago

There was a stand up comedian of Algerian descent explaining that situation when the French administration tries to do the census of their colony. The custom was to use your father's and grandfather's name as a name. Problem is, many people, including brothers would have the most popular name (I think it was Mohammed). Having a Mohammed, son of Mohammed, grandson of Mohammed was common. 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.

vpzom 7y ago
>Hopefully one day we have a UID for humans[…] that sounds really dangerous
- Iv 7y ago
  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.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
    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.
  - walrus01 7y ago
    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.
  - TuringNYC 7y ago
    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)
    - hrktb 7y ago
      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.
    - Iv 7y ago
      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.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    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.
    - Iv 7y ago
      > 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!)
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        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). :)
  - jazzyjackson 7y ago
    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.
  - afiori 7y ago
    > 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.
  - kragen 7y ago
    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.
  - wtmt 7y ago
    > 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.
smaccona 7y ago
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?
- Iv 7y ago
  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.
  - philwelch 7y ago
    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.
- raverbashing 7y ago
  > 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.
galaxyLogic 7y ago
There are many people whose name is Jesus
walrus01 7y ago
> 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=nadra+card+pakistan&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=nad...
egeozcan 7y ago
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 :)
- jacobush 7y ago
  This is hilarious! Thanks for sharing.
- yxhuvud 7y ago
  Did he have any children? That is, do you have any Atatürks running around today?
  - egeozcan 7y ago
    He didn't. There were some people who claimed otherwise but without any piece of evidence whatsoever.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
> 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. :)
- philwelch 7y ago
  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.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    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!
    - philwelch 7y ago
      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.
YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
>> 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).

by Iv 7y ago

vpzom 7y ago

>Hopefully one day we have a UID for humans[…] that sounds really dangerous

Iv 7y ago
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.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
  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.
- walrus01 7y ago
  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.
- TuringNYC 7y ago
  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)
  - hrktb 7y ago
    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.
  - Iv 7y ago
    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.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  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.
  - Iv 7y ago
    > 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!)
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      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). :)
- jazzyjackson 7y ago
  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.
- afiori 7y ago
  > 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.
- kragen 7y ago
  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.
- wtmt 7y ago
  > 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.

smaccona 7y ago

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?

Iv 7y ago
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.
- philwelch 7y ago
  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.
raverbashing 7y ago
> 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.

galaxyLogic 7y ago

There are many people whose name is Jesus

walrus01 7y ago

> 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=nadra+card+pakistan&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=nad...

egeozcan 7y ago

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 :)

jacobush 7y ago
This is hilarious! Thanks for sharing.
yxhuvud 7y ago
Did he have any children? That is, do you have any Atatürks running around today?
- egeozcan 7y ago
  He didn't. There were some people who claimed otherwise but without any piece of evidence whatsoever.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

> 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. :)

philwelch 7y ago
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.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  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!
  - philwelch 7y ago
    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.

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago

>> 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).