4 ms·
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
by 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 agoMy 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.