3 ms·

> It is an identity though. That's why it's managed by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). Sorry, I could be wrong, but I cannot agree here.

> It is an identity though. That's why it's managed by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). Sorry, I could be wrong, but I cannot agree here. It's an identity document ("ID"), something that documents an identity (so, a credential), not an identity itself. Put simply: identity document ⊂ credential* ≠ identity. I really don't like the term "ID" - specifically because it leads to this kind of confusion (and this leads to all sorts of problems), but it's too well established out there... And I totally get the goal of Aadhaar (or most government-issued identity documents for that matter); my comment was unrelated to India (which is why I marked it as semi-offtopic) but solely regarding the language in the article. *) Note: "credential" is a wider term: all identity documents are a form of credential but not every credential is an identity document. I originally put "=" between ID and credential, but edited it later for clarity.

alephnerd 2y ago
Fair enough. I think it's a semantic argument, but words can have an overloaded meaning. In colloquial English, identification can be treated as credentialing as well.
- drdaeman 2y ago
  > I think it's a semantic argument Exactly! And all I wanted to say is "Please don't use harmful semantics, even if a lot of people do so because it's convenient or widespread. Your identity is yours, no one can give it to you or take it from you, it is simply who you are - don't let others believe otherwise and don't let others switch the meaning." Gradual acceptance of such quirks leads to gradual transformation of thought and erosion of identity. And that leads to all sort of bad things.