4 ms·

> there is almost always a human in the loop somewhere verifying that the documents submitted by the user are valid. This is harmful to the user... This might

• squiggleblaz 6y ago
  I'm not sure if you're confused about the human in the loop. She's saying it's harmful when there's a human in the loop at the university trying to confirm the legal name change, not that there's a human in the loop in the name change process in general. If a database doesn't require a human to verify new records and records only a person's real name to the exclusion of their legal name, this seems pretty obvious to me. The question therefore is limited to occasions when a database requires a human to verify new records and/or record's a person's legal name. I think if there's some kind of "know your customer" requirement, as in a bank, they probably need to verify the change. But even then it's probably sufficient to record the name and the original name, use the new name for salutations, and have someone follow up the change if need be. The registrar charged with recording a person's legal name, by contrast, obviously has a responsibility to make sure it's a valid name. This doesn't change whether it's a child being born or whether it's an adult changing their name. Two cases I recently heard about - apparently some parents weren't ready to name their newborn son when the nurse came around asking for the name. They said "come back in a day or two", as is their right, but the nurse just submitted a form that said UNNAMED. He didn't realise what had happened till he was 16 and applying for his learners permit. This shouldn't have been permitted; the registrar should have put that certificate aside and come back to verify it. (Source: unverified caller on radio.) Also, a boy changed his surname to his mother's maiden name, which was also the surname of his uncle, a famous serial killer. He had good reason to change his surname: He had a strained relationship with his stepfather. Such a change is, in general, highly questionable, but in this case it was probably quite correct to allow it. Only human intervention can really divide the cases. (In any case, this particular boy shortly went on to kill his mate in an attempt to associate himself with some of his uncle's notoriety.)
  • jaspax 6y ago
    I understood the OP correctly, and I stand by my point. If someone claims that their legal name has changed, it makes perfect sense that any organization which needs to operate with legal names will be checking to see that the papers supporting this claim are real, and I don't see why this should be considered harmful. I too know some families in which name requirements cause problems. I have an acquaintance whose name was never recorded on her birth certificate and who was not initially issued an SSN. She managed to get to the age of 18 without too much trouble, but when she wanted to apply to college she had a very difficult time proving that she legally existed.
    • NoraCodes 6y ago
      > If someone claims that their legal name has changed, it makes perfect sense that any organization which needs to operate with legal names will be checking to see that the papers supporting this claim are real, and I don't see why this should be considered harmful. The misunderstanding here is subtle but important. I absolutely agree that a human needs to verify _legal_ name changes. This is why I suggest that legal names shouldn't be recorded most of the time. Humans do not need to be involved, generally, with name changes that have no legal or tax implications, so when legal names aren't the default, that human's time can be used elsewhere, and the user's experience streamlined.
    • andrewaylett 6y ago
      My impression of the article's point was that if you can be clear that you've recorded a preferred name rather than a legal name then you don't need to validate name changes at all.