Endeavour Dialogue "Spanish Practices"

[MC]

I was watching the TV series "Endeavour" which is set in 1965 and heard
three expressions that had me wondering if they were anachronisms.

1) "Spanish practices"

This was the first time I'd ever run across it. Wikipedia defines it
thus:

"...Spanish Practices or old Spanish customs are United Kingdom
expressions that refer to irregular or restrictive practices in workers'
interests. Typically, these are arrangements that have been negotiated
in the past between employers and unions."

It certainly fit the context, but was it current in 1965?

"According to BBC Radio 4 presenter Nigel Rees, the terms have been used
since the 1970s to describe malpractices among the trades unions,"

2)

"I.D." - as an abbreviation for "Identity" or "Identification."

Was this current BrE for the period? I don't recall ever hearing it.
Maybe it was police jargon, but I tend to think it might have been a
more recent AmE import.

3)

"Hopefully" - used in the sense of "it is to be hoped."

Current now, but was it then? Again, I tend to think not.

___

Opinions?

--

"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:26:25 -0400, MC <cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:

>"I.D." - as an abbreviation for "Identity" or "Identification."
>
>Was this current BrE for the period? I don't recall ever hearing it.
>Maybe it was police jargon, but I tend to think it might have been a
>more recent AmE import.

In South Africa ID has been used since c1972 as an abbreviation of "Identity
Document".


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Peter Brooks]

On Apr 16, 5:19 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:26:25 -0400, MC <copes...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
> >"I.D." - as an abbreviation for "Identity" or "Identification."
>
> >Was this current BrE for the period? I don't recall ever hearing it.
> >Maybe it was police jargon, but I tend to think it might have been a
> >more recent AmE import.
>
> In South Africa ID has been used since c1972 as an abbreviation of "Identity
> Document".
>

It is quite a recent abbreviation - I'm not sure where R.J.Schwartz
dictionary of abbreviations was published.The OED gives evidence that
the migration from 'ID Card' to 'ID' had not taken place in 1971, but
it's not been that well known in England, as the 1965 quote shows:

" [OED]
1955 R. J. Schwartz Compl. Dict. Abbrev. 90 *Id, identification.
   1963 T. Pynchon V. xiii. 373 Pig was understandably nervous, trying
simultaneously to salute, produce ID and liberty cards.    1965 New
Statesman 3 Dec. 880/3 ‘ID's’‥are pretty obscure to English readers as
translations‥of‥papiers (identity documents).    1968 A. Diment Bang
Bang Birds v. 75, I had the usual range of forged driver's licences,
ID cards, credit chits.    1970 Globe & Mail (Toronto) 28 Sept. 7/1
Once inside I was forced to produce my driver's licence, draft card,
student I.D.    1971 Leader (Durban) 7 May 1/1 The loss of the money
was not important. I am more concerned about my ID card, as I am
presently applying for a house in Unit 10.    1972 J. Ball Five Pieces
Jade ii. 21 Tibbs was politely asked for his ID. He produced his
police credentials.
"

[Nick Spalding]

MC wrote, in <copespaz-CFC7AE...@news.eternal-september.org>
on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:26:25 -0400:

My father use to refer to "old Spanish customs" in that sense many years
before the 1960s.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

[Don Phillipson]

"MC" <cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote in message
news:copespaz-CFC7AE...@news.eternal-september.org...

>I was watching the TV series "Endeavour" which is set in 1965 and heard
> three expressions that had me wondering if they were anachronisms.
>
> 1) "Spanish practices"
>
> This was the first time I'd ever run across it. Wikipedia defines it
> thus:
>
> "...Spanish Practices or old Spanish customs are United Kingdom
> expressions that refer to irregular or restrictive practices in workers'
> interests. Typically, these are arrangements that have been negotiated
> in the past between employers and unions."
>
> It certainly fit the context, but was it current in 1965?
>
> "According to BBC Radio 4 presenter Nigel Rees, the terms have been used
> since the 1970s to describe malpractices among the trades unions,"

Spanish Practices is Fleet Street jargon for customs of the
newspaper workers' trade union (mainly printers, compositors,
drivers etc.), e.g. paying for a full 8 hour day even if everyone
finished work early, paying for a full crew even if one or two
men were absent, etc. British trade unions had long been
used to embedded traditions and customs. (E.g. longshoremen
hired for single shifts were always paid per gang of 13 men even
if the job required only 6 or 8.)

When newspapermen reported unions' customary methods
it seemed normal to use their own jargon, viz. Spanish Practices:
so cheeky new papers like Private Eye popularized the term in
the 1960s as a nonlibellous way of saying "corrupt." The most
familiar of such euphemisms was "tired and emotional" =
falling-down drunk (as applied to George Brown and other famous
public figures.)

Notoriously, newspaper proprietor Rupert Murdoch successfully
ended the tradition of Spanish Practices by automating newspaper
printing at a secret new site and summarily firing all the Fleet
Street printers.

> 2)
>
> "I.D." - as an abbreviation for "Identity" or "Identification."
>
> Was this current BrE for the period? I don't recall ever hearing it.

ID = "Identify Document" was normal in the 1950s. All Europeans
were habituated since the 1930s to being obliged to produce "papers"
to document their identity to policemen, border guards, etc.
Not until WW2 were Britons obliged to do this as well (when
the civilian Identity Card was issued.) Conscripted military
service was then practically universal. Soldiers were obliged to
carry a "paybook" every day and present it on demand. Because
ID were so often demanded they often acquired pet names, so
that the RAF photo ID was called a Twelve Fifty (as RAF Form
1250.) The generic term (including paybooks, 1250s and
civilian identity cards) was either "papers" or "ID" (cf. "dokumenty"
in several eastern European languages.)

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:42:55 +0100, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
wrote:

The only doubt might be whether the "practices" version was around at
that time rather than "customs" one.

OED:

an old Spanish custom : phr. used joc. to justify a long-standing
practice which is unauthorized or otherwise irregular.

1932 N. & Q. 13 Feb. 122/1 Could any reader tell me the origin
of the phrase, 'An old Spanish custom,' as applied, in a jocular
sense, to any unauthorised practice?
1966 'M. Torrie' Heavy as Lead x. 115 Giving Sir Ganymede lunch
at the pub..appeared by this time to have become an old Spanish
custom.
1982 Listener 25 Nov. 13/2 The December issue of
Encounter..lifts some lids on the 'old Spanish customs' of Fleet
Street print unions.


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Whiskers]

On 2013-04-16, MC <cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
> I was watching the TV series "Endeavour" which is set in 1965 and heard
> three expressions that had me wondering if they were anachronisms.
>
> 1) "Spanish practices"
>
> This was the first time I'd ever run across it. Wikipedia defines it
> thus:
>
> "...Spanish Practices or old Spanish customs are United Kingdom
> expressions that refer to irregular or restrictive practices in workers'
> interests. Typically, these are arrangements that have been negotiated
> in the past between employers and unions."
>
> It certainly fit the context, but was it current in 1965?
>
> "According to BBC Radio 4 presenter Nigel Rees, the terms have been used
> since the 1970s to describe malpractices among the trades unions,"

<http://www.worldwidewords.org/topicalwords/tw-spa2.htm>:

[...]

Understandably, many people have complained about the term, then and
now, on the grounds that it unnecessarily denigrates the Spanish.
Commentators in the newspaper business at the time say it was Robert
Maxwell who first used the term Spanish practices of the print workers,
perhaps misunderstanding the original — old Spanish customs — which had
been used since the 1930s and which was a humorous, nod-and-wink
reference to what was politely referred to as custom and practice.

[...]

> 2)
>
> "I.D." - as an abbreviation for "Identity" or "Identification."
>
> Was this current BrE for the period? I don't recall ever hearing it.
> Maybe it was police jargon, but I tend to think it might have been a
> more recent AmE import.

I can't give chapter and verse, but I think that BrE speakers in the '60s
would have been familiar with 'Americanisms' such as that from Hollywood
movies. "Identity cards" had been issued, controversially, during the
second world war, and only discontinued in the early 1950s - over strenuous
police objections that they were an essential policing tool - so I think
some sort of short-hand term must have been current vernacular, and "eye
dee" is a lot easier to say than the full phrase. (I still have the UK ID
card and ration book issued in my name when I was born).

> 3)
>
> "Hopefully" - used in the sense of "it is to be hoped."
>
> Current now, but was it then? Again, I tend to think not.
>
> ___
>
> Opinions?

I think that malapropism has been irritating me for a very long time, so
perhaps it was around in the '60s.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Robert Bannister]

On 16/04/13 10:26 AM, MC wrote:
> I was watching the TV series "Endeavour" which is set in 1965 and heard
> three expressions that had me wondering if they were anachronisms.
>
> 1) "Spanish practices"
>
> This was the first time I'd ever run across it. Wikipedia defines it
> thus:
>
> "...Spanish Practices or old Spanish customs are United Kingdom
> expressions that refer to irregular or restrictive practices in workers'
> interests. Typically, these are arrangements that have been negotiated
> in the past between employers and unions."
>
> It certainly fit the context, but was it current in 1965?

Never come across it myself.

>
> "According to BBC Radio 4 presenter Nigel Rees, the terms have been used
> since the 1970s to describe malpractices among the trades unions,"
>
> 2)
>
> "I.D." - as an abbreviation for "Identity" or "Identification."
>
> Was this current BrE for the period? I don't recall ever hearing it.
> Maybe it was police jargon, but I tend to think it might have been a
> more recent AmE import.

I have doubts about its currency at the time, but I am quite sure it was
understood. We may not have used it, but we knew what it meant.

>
> 3)
>
> "Hopefully" - used in the sense of "it is to be hoped."
>
> Current now, but was it then? Again, I tend to think not.

I can remember my German teacher at school (mid-1950s) pointing out that
"hoffentlich" could be used this way, unlike "hopefully". We were all
rather surprised because we had always used "hopefully" that way,
happily ignoring our English teachers who clearly did not speak English.

--
Robert Bannister

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:04:11 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:

>On 16/04/13 10:26 AM, MC wrote:
>> I was watching the TV series "Endeavour" which is set in 1965 and heard
>> three expressions that had me wondering if they were anachronisms.
>>
>> 1) "Spanish practices"
>>
>> This was the first time I'd ever run across it. Wikipedia defines it
>> thus:
>>
>> "...Spanish Practices or old Spanish customs are United Kingdom
>> expressions that refer to irregular or restrictive practices in workers'
>> interests. Typically, these are arrangements that have been negotiated
>> in the past between employers and unions."
>>
>> It certainly fit the context, but was it current in 1965?
>
>Never come across it myself.

It was used in Britain in the context of disputes between newspaper
bosses and the print unions. It was treated as a jargon phrase and was
explained for general readers.

The Wikip article on "Spanish practices" seem to me to be objective and
balanced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_practices

It begins by establishing the contractual background:

The terms Spanish Practices or old Spanish customs are United

Kingdom expressions that refer to irregular or restrictive practices
in workers' interests. Typically, these are arrangements that have
been negotiated in the past between employers and unions.

The issue arises because, in United Kingdom law, a contract of
employment consists of both expressed and implied terms.[1] Implied
terms can arise through "custom and practice". Historically,
alteration of these terms has been by negotiation and collective
bargaining.

For example, if it has been the habit to release staff when the
day's work is done (such as, today's newspaper is printed), then
that becomes the de facto contract of employment. If some
workers are required to stay on to do additional tasks, then it
may be more convenient to pay these workers to do so (since
otherwise they are not being treated equitably and/or have no
incentive to do so). Over many years of incremental negotiation,
the original rationale may be lost and a point reached where all
workers are being paid a supplement merely to complete a normal
shift. With the benefit of hindsight, such an arrangement might
be described as a "Spanish practice".

[1] What is a contract of employment?

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/nm/index/life/employment/contracts_of_employment.htm#what_is_a_contact_of_employment

>> 2)
>>
>> "I.D." - as an abbreviation for "Identity" or "Identification."
>>
>> Was this current BrE for the period? I don't recall ever hearing it.
>> Maybe it was police jargon, but I tend to think it might have been a
>> more recent AmE import.
>
>I have doubts about its currency at the time, but I am quite sure it was
>understood. We may not have used it, but we knew what it meant.

I feel sure it was in my passive vocbulary (an American import)

(Unlike Americans, we Brits were free people and very rarely needed to
prove identity.)

>> 3)
>>
>> "Hopefully" - used in the sense of "it is to be hoped."
>>
>> Current now, but was it then? Again, I tend to think not.
>

The OED says "orig. U.S. (Avoided by many writers.)"

The first six citations (1932 - 1969) are American.

The first British example of hopefully meaning "It is hoped (that); let
us hope." is:

1970 Daily Tel. 12 Feb. 21 The cost of developing a new 'Dash
50' series of engines, that hopefully will power Lockheed's
'extended range' jet, is put at around �75 million.

The first from a Br source that uses it as clearly a sentence adjunct
is:

1971 Guardian 13 Apr. 9/5 Prototype wooden rocking horses...
Hopefully they will be available in the autumn at prices from
�120.

Because this sense of "hopefully" was "Avoided by many writers" it is
very possible that it was in use colloquially in BrE for some time
before it appeared in print.

[Robert Bannister]

I remember Identity Cards during the War. Being a small child, I don't
think I had one, or at least I don't remember, but I do remember what
they looked like.

--
Robert Bannister

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:17:37 +0800, Robert Bannister

Here's mine:
http://www.peterduncanson.net/images/ID%20outer%20opt.jpg

http://www.peterduncanson.net/images/ID%20inner%20digits%20blanked%20opt.jpg

I was aged three when that was issued.

Children under 16 were not required to carry identity cards. They were
to be kept by a parent or guardian. I didn't see mine until some time
after the war when it was given to me by my father.

This webpage explains that the information for identity cards was
collected by means of a census-like operation.

http://www.1911census.org.uk/1939.htm

A National Registration Bill was quickly introduced and royal assent
given on the 5th September 1939, just two days after the declaration
of war and a few days later it was announced that National
Registration Day would be Friday September 29th 1939.
....
The decision was made to use similar methods as for the census for
which planning had started for the 1941 census. Basically 65,000
enumerators across the country delivered forms ahead of the chosen
day. On the 29th, householders were required to record details on
the registration forms and then on the following Sunday and Monday
the enumerators visited every householder, checked the form and
there and then issued a completed identity card for each of the
residents.

The cards did not have photos. But:

In December provision was also made to make it possible to exchange
an ordinary buff identity card for a green card with room for a
photograph and description of the holder; the reason for this was to
assist anyone who needed to provide better evidence of their
identity where they did not possess any other acceptable document,
for example if they required access to enter a protected area under
the defence regulations.

That last phrase means "an area designated 'protected' under the defence
regulations".

[Nick Spalding]

Robert Bannister wrote, in <at8vtj...@mid.individual.net>
on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:17:37 +0800:

So do I, and I remember the 'number' on it — 4 letters, slash, 4 digits.
It was on my ration book too and went on being used as my ID for the NHS
up to the time I emigrated in 1963. I use it still as password for
non-critical things but I often have to drop the slash. I also use my
Army number from 1955 for all-numeric passwords.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

[Nick Spalding]

Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote, in
<4ccvm8lcoover1smc...@4ax.com>
on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 10:05:55 +0100:

I had to hand mine in, and my ration book, at the dock side when I went
overseas to work on 26/12/1951. Both were obsolete by the time I came
back in February 1955.

Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

[Robert Bannister]

Right. I was only nine days old when yours was issued.

--
Robert Bannister

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes:

> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:04:11 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
>>On 16/04/13 10:26 AM, MC wrote:

>>> "I.D." - as an abbreviation for "Identity" or "Identification."
>>>
>>> Was this current BrE for the period? I don't recall ever hearing it.
>>> Maybe it was police jargon, but I tend to think it might have been a
>>> more recent AmE import.
>>
>>I have doubts about its currency at the time, but I am quite sure it was
>>understood. We may not have used it, but we knew what it meant.
>
> I feel sure it was in my passive vocbulary (an American import)
>
> (Unlike Americans, we Brits were free people and very rarely needed to
> prove identity.)

Things have obviously changed. The last time I was in the UK (about a
decade ago), I purchased a Tube pass and was issued an ID card,
complete with photograph. And at the HP site in Bristol, you needed a
company ID card (valid for the site, which mine wasn't) to get *out*
of the building without triggering alarms.

But I'm curious as to how it worked back then. When you went into a
bank and asked for money, did they just look at you and say "He looks
to be an honest chap. We'll trust that he's who he says he is"?
(Note that "Ask the manager. He knows me" is a way of proving your
identity.)

And, of course, "ID" isn't merely a document indicating identity; it's
also the process of ascertaining identity. I'm sure your police
officers IDed suspects and murder victims even if they didn't use that
term. And witnesses IDed suspects (by saying "That's the one").

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |So when can we quit passing laws and
SF Bay Area (1982-) |raising taxes? When can we say of
Chicago (1964-1982) |our political system, "Stick a fork
|in it, it's done?"
evan.kir...@gmail.com | P.J. O'Rourke

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:24:13 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:04:11 +0800, Robert Bannister
>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 16/04/13 10:26 AM, MC wrote:
>
>>>> "I.D." - as an abbreviation for "Identity" or "Identification."
>>>>
>>>> Was this current BrE for the period? I don't recall ever hearing it.
>>>> Maybe it was police jargon, but I tend to think it might have been a
>>>> more recent AmE import.
>>>
>>>I have doubts about its currency at the time, but I am quite sure it was
>>>understood. We may not have used it, but we knew what it meant.
>>
>> I feel sure it was in my passive vocbulary (an American import)
>>
>> (Unlike Americans, we Brits were free people and very rarely needed to
>> prove identity.)
>
>Things have obviously changed.

They have.

> The last time I was in the UK (about a
>decade ago), I purchased a Tube pass and was issued an ID card,
>complete with photograph. And at the HP site in Bristol, you needed a
>company ID card (valid for the site, which mine wasn't) to get *out*
>of the building without triggering alarms.
>

A few decades ago there was a substantial tightening-up, by law, of the
procedures for opening a bank account. Before that it was possible for a
person to walk into a bank with a stolen cheque, pretend to be the
person named on the cheque, open an account in that name, lodge the
cheque and, soon after, withdraw cash. Possession of the cheque, was in
effect, proof of identity.

>But I'm curious as to how it worked back then. When you went into a
>bank and asked for money, did they just look at you and say "He looks
>to be an honest chap. We'll trust that he's who he says he is"?
>(Note that "Ask the manager. He knows me" is a way of proving your
>identity.)
>

I'm trying to remember.

Your bank account would be managed by a particular branch. You would
have a cheque book with the branch details and your name printed on each
cheque. You would go to that branch to withdraw cash. They would have
you signature on record and could in necessary check it against what you
had scrawled when trying to withdraw cash. You would need to make
special arrangements in advance to be able to withdraw cash from a
different branch.

More recently an account holder could be issued with a "cheque guarantee
card" That was partly a form of ID card but not as far as I known ever
referred to as such. It had the account details and the account holder's
signature. It was primarily used when paying a retailer by cheque.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheque_guarantee_card

Someone else might have a better memory of the details.

>And, of course, "ID" isn't merely a document indicating identity; it's
>also the process of ascertaining identity. I'm sure your police
>officers IDed suspects and murder victims even if they didn't use that
>term. And witnesses IDed suspects (by saying "That's the one").

--

[Mike L]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:26:35 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:24:13 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
><evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:04:11 +0800, Robert Bannister
>>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 16/04/13 10:26 AM, MC wrote:
>>
>>>>> "I.D." - as an abbreviation for "Identity" or "Identification."
>>>>>
>>>>> Was this current BrE for the period? I don't recall ever hearing it.
>>>>> Maybe it was police jargon, but I tend to think it might have been a
>>>>> more recent AmE import.
>>>>
>>>>I have doubts about its currency at the time, but I am quite sure it was
>>>>understood. We may not have used it, but we knew what it meant.
>>>
>>> I feel sure it was in my passive vocbulary (an American import)
>>>
>>> (Unlike Americans, we Brits were free people and very rarely needed to
>>> prove identity.)
>>
>>Things have obviously changed.
>
>They have.
>
>> The last time I was in the UK (about a
>>decade ago), I purchased a Tube pass and was issued an ID card,
>>complete with photograph.

I wonder why. These days, anybody can have a prepaid "Oyster" card,
and no identification is required.

>And at the HP site in Bristol, you needed a
>>company ID card (valid for the site, which mine wasn't) to get *out*
>>of the building without triggering alarms.

It was very variable. My last workplace, also in Bristol, provided a
card to work the lifts, but it didn't have a photo. The office of the
same group I'd been in before provided a photoless card to work the
doors, and a photo ID card which didn't do anything electronic at all.

>>
>A few decades ago there was a substantial tightening-up, by law, of the
>procedures for opening a bank account. Before that it was possible for a
>person to walk into a bank with a stolen cheque, pretend to be the
>person named on the cheque, open an account in that name, lodge the
>cheque and, soon after, withdraw cash. Possession of the cheque, was in
>effect, proof of identity.
>
>>But I'm curious as to how it worked back then. When you went into a
>>bank and asked for money, did they just look at you and say "He looks
>>to be an honest chap. We'll trust that he's who he says he is"?
>>(Note that "Ask the manager. He knows me" is a way of proving your
>>identity.)
>>
>I'm trying to remember.
>
>Your bank account would be managed by a particular branch. You would
>have a cheque book with the branch details and your name printed on each
>cheque. You would go to that branch to withdraw cash. They would have
>you signature on record and could in necessary check it against what you
>had scrawled when trying to withdraw cash. You would need to make
>special arrangements in advance to be able to withdraw cash from a
>different branch.

You went up to the counter with your cheque, and said "I have an
arrangement."

>
>More recently an account holder could be issued with a "cheque guarantee
>card" That was partly a form of ID card but not as far as I known ever
>referred to as such. It had the account details and the account holder's
>signature. It was primarily used when paying a retailer by cheque.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheque_guarantee_card

And before that a lot of shops would take a cheque on trust if they
liked your face. Sometimes you could even go into a privately owned
shop and have something sent to your address with an invoice: I
unexpectedly found a particularly desirable album of Queensland
photographs on my penniless and chequeless way home from a camping
holiday. I said I regretted not being able to buy, and the shopman
offered the post-and-invoice solution. And once after it, I had a
cheque refused even _with_ a gurantee card.

>
>Someone else might have a better memory of the details.
>
>>And, of course, "ID" isn't merely a document indicating identity; it's
>>also the process of ascertaining identity. I'm sure your police
>>officers IDed suspects and murder victims even if they didn't use that
>>term. And witnesses IDed suspects (by saying "That's the one").

--

Mike.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes:

> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:24:13 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes:
>>
>>> (Unlike Americans, we Brits were free people and very rarely
>>> needed to prove identity.)
>>
>>Things have obviously changed.
>
> They have.
>
>> The last time I was in the UK (about a decade ago), I purchased a
>>Tube pass and was issued an ID card, complete with photograph. And
>>at the HP site in Bristol, you needed a company ID card (valid for
>>the site, which mine wasn't) to get *out* of the building without
>>triggering alarms.
>>
> A few decades ago there was a substantial tightening-up, by law, of
> the procedures for opening a bank account. Before that it was
> possible for a person to walk into a bank with a stolen cheque,
> pretend to be the person named on the cheque, open an account in
> that name, lodge the cheque and, soon after, withdraw
> cash. Possession of the cheque, was in effect, proof of identity.

I'd say more than "in effect". It was a form of ID. A fraudulent
one, in this case.

>>But I'm curious as to how it worked back then. When you went into a
>>bank and asked for money, did they just look at you and say "He looks
>>to be an honest chap. We'll trust that he's who he says he is"?
>>(Note that "Ask the manager. He knows me" is a way of proving your
>>identity.)
>>
> I'm trying to remember.
>
> Your bank account would be managed by a particular branch. You would
> have a cheque book with the branch details and your name printed on
> each cheque. You would go to that branch to withdraw cash. They
> would have you signature on record and could in necessary check it
> against what you had scrawled when trying to withdraw cash. You
> would need to make special arrangements in advance to be able to
> withdraw cash from a different branch.

Okay, so that's proof of ID. Two forms, in fact. You produced
something (the checkbook) that only you would have and you
demonstrated a signature that matched the one they had on file.

> More recently an account holder could be issued with a "cheque
> guarantee card" That was partly a form of ID card but not as far as
> I known ever referred to as such. It had the account details and the
> account holder's signature. It was primarily used when paying a
> retailer by cheque.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheque_guarantee_card
>
> Someone else might have a better memory of the details.
>
>>And, of course, "ID" isn't merely a document indicating identity; it's
>>also the process of ascertaining identity. I'm sure your police
>>officers IDed suspects and murder victims even if they didn't use that
>>term. And witnesses IDed suspects (by saying "That's the one").

--

Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |A little government and a little luck
SF Bay Area (1982-) |are necessary in life, but only a
Chicago (1964-1982) |fool trusts either of them.
| P.J. O'Rourke
evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Robin Bignall]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:26:35 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>A few decades ago there was a substantial tightening-up, by law, of the
>procedures for opening a bank account. Before that it was possible for a
>person to walk into a bank with a stolen cheque, pretend to be the
>person named on the cheque, open an account in that name, lodge the
>cheque and, soon after, withdraw cash. Possession of the cheque, was in
>effect, proof of identity.

I read, very recently on the Daily Mail advice page, of that still being
possible today with the combination of a slick fraudster and a sloppy
bank. (The complainant wrote to the Mail after the defrauded bank
refused to make good the value of a stolen cheque in his name, which a
bank, not his normal one, had opened an account with and then paid out
on.)
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England (BrE)

[Robert Bannister]

On 19/04/13 11:24 PM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:

>
> But I'm curious as to how it worked back then. When you went into a
> bank and asked for money, did they just look at you and say "He looks
> to be an honest chap. We'll trust that he's who he says he is"?
> (Note that "Ask the manager. He knows me" is a way of proving your
> identity.)

I have to answer that I honestly don't remember, but I think my father
took me into the bank and introduced me to the manager. I'm fairly sure
I didn't have to produce papers. Of course, by the time I arrived in
Australia in 1972 things had changed, but not a lot. I think I did show
my passport, but I already knew the bank manager socially.

--
Robert Bannister

[Dr Nick]

"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes:

> A few decades ago there was a substantial tightening-up, by law, of the
> procedures for opening a bank account. Before that it was possible for a
> person to walk into a bank with a stolen cheque, pretend to be the
> person named on the cheque, open an account in that name, lodge the
> cheque and, soon after, withdraw cash. Possession of the cheque, was in
> effect, proof of identity.

The laws now seem to be the catch-all excuse for mindless process and
inconvenience.

I once went into my bank and - on no evidence of my identity at all
other than that I turned up at the time they invited - was allowed to
make all sorts of changes to my bank accounts and - significantly - our
joint account without my wife's presence: move payments from one to the
other, cancel some etc.

Then I tried to open a savings account to be fed from the current
account. Complete chaos as they had no record of ever verifying my
identity.

This was because I'd opened an account with a predecessor bank
probably before the girl serving me was born.

This was during the time that - unbenknownst to the rest of us - the
bosses were happily emptying the vaults.

And another bunch have recently made me jump through the most
astonishing hoops to get a pay-out from a cancelled policy that I'm
bloody glad I never was unwell enough to need to claim on it.

[Robin Bignall]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:24:13 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:

>But I'm curious as to how it worked back then. When you went into a
>bank and asked for money, did they just look at you and say "He looks
>to be an honest chap. We'll trust that he's who he says he is"?
>(Note that "Ask the manager. He knows me" is a way of proving your
>identity.)

When I was 19 (1958) and knew that I would be leaving home within a year
or two and needed a bank account, I put on my suit, went to Nottingham's
main branch of the Midland Bank and opened one. I was a student teacher
that year and had a payslip, and a passport and driving licence. They
didn't know me from Adam (my parents only had Post Office Savings
accounts) but I walked out with a cheque book.

On going to Uni in London I had Nottingham set up a cheque cashing
facility in Chelsea, and when I needed cash I had to take my cheque book
along and ostentatiously make out the cheque and sign it before a
teller. For the first few times he took it away and checked the
signature, and that was that.

It became even easier when cheque guarantee cards were invented.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Okay, so just as here, once you proved your identity (each time) you
were treated as you.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Those who would give up essential
SF Bay Area (1982-) |Liberty, to purchase a little
Chicago (1964-1982) |temporary Safety, deserve neither
|Liberty nor Safety.
evan.kir...@gmail.com | Benjamin Franklin

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:26:35 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:24:13 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>><evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The last time I was in the UK (about a decade ago), I purchased a
>>>Tube pass and was issued an ID card, complete with photograph.
>
> I wonder why. These days, anybody can have a prepaid "Oyster" card,
> and no identification is required.

When I got my pass, they took my picture and a full-color print was
affixed to the card before it was laminated.

I still have the card. The other half of the card has my printed
name[1], the word "Adult" in large letters, a number, and the
instruction that "This photocard is valid for use only by the person
shown with a ticket bearing the same number".

They were *way* more concerned with my being able to prove my identity
than I had ever seen on public transport in the US.

[snip]

>>>But I'm curious as to how it worked back then. When you went into a
>>>bank and asked for money, did they just look at you and say "He looks
>>>to be an honest chap. We'll trust that he's who he says he is"?
>>>(Note that "Ask the manager. He knows me" is a way of proving your
>>>identity.)
>>>
>>I'm trying to remember.
>>
>>Your bank account would be managed by a particular branch. You would
>>have a cheque book with the branch details and your name printed on each
>>cheque. You would go to that branch to withdraw cash. They would have
>>you signature on record and could in necessary check it against what you
>>had scrawled when trying to withdraw cash. You would need to make
>>special arrangements in advance to be able to withdraw cash from a
>>different branch.
>
> You went up to the counter with your cheque, and said "I have an
> arrangement."

So you proved your identity (by having a thing that only you were
assumed to be able to have).

[1] After a pre-printed "Mr". My card has a blue background. IIRC
my wife's had a different color.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Your claim might have more
SF Bay Area (1982-) |credibility if you hadn't mispelled
Chicago (1964-1982) |"inteligent"

evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[John Briggs]

On 21/04/2013 01:18, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:26:35 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:24:13 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>>> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The last time I was in the UK (about a decade ago), I purchased a
>>>> Tube pass and was issued an ID card, complete with photograph.
>>
>> I wonder why. These days, anybody can have a prepaid "Oyster" card,
>> and no identification is required.
>
> When I got my pass, they took my picture and a full-color print was
> affixed to the card before it was laminated.
>
> I still have the card. The other half of the card has my printed
> name[1], the word "Adult" in large letters, a number, and the
> instruction that "This photocard is valid for use only by the person
> shown with a ticket bearing the same number".
>
> They were *way* more concerned with my being able to prove my identity
> than I had ever seen on public transport in the US.

It's called "losing sight of the aim."
--
John Briggs

[Whiskers]

On 2013-04-21, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:26:35 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:24:13 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>>><evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The last time I was in the UK (about a decade ago), I purchased a
>>>>Tube pass and was issued an ID card, complete with photograph.

That wasn't an "Identity Card", it was merely a way for a ticket inspector
to be sure that the person using the season ticket was the person who'd
paid for it.

>> I wonder why. These days, anybody can have a prepaid "Oyster" card,
>> and no identification is required.

The amount of money represented by an Oyster card is usually pretty small,
and the 'pay as you go' variety aren't linked to a bank account. If you
set up an automatic top-up by Direct Debit, you can report a card stolen
using your on-line account and that will stop any further charges being
debited to you (and will cause the stolen card to be rejected the next time
it's used).

"Oyster photocards" are issued to people granted special travel privileges,
eg school-children, full-time students, military veterans, people over 60.

London residents who have certain disabilities or are past retirement age
can qualify for free transport, and their "Freedom Pass" includes a photo;
but it is only of use for local travel, it isn't a general "Identity Card".

> When I got my pass, they took my picture and a full-color print was
> affixed to the card before it was laminated.
>
> I still have the card. The other half of the card has my printed
> name[1], the word "Adult" in large letters, a number, and the
> instruction that "This photocard is valid for use only by the person
> shown with a ticket bearing the same number".
>
> They were *way* more concerned with my being able to prove my identity
> than I had ever seen on public transport in the US.
>
> [snip]

No, they merely wanted to make sure that the only person using your season
ticket was you. The photocard proved only that you were the person who'd
paid for that ticket, that's all.

>>>>But I'm curious as to how it worked back then. When you went into a
>>>>bank and asked for money, did they just look at you and say "He looks
>>>>to be an honest chap. We'll trust that he's who he says he is"?
>>>>(Note that "Ask the manager. He knows me" is a way of proving your
>>>>identity.)
>>>>
>>>I'm trying to remember.
>>>
>>>Your bank account would be managed by a particular branch. You would
>>>have a cheque book with the branch details and your name printed on each
>>>cheque. You would go to that branch to withdraw cash. They would have
>>>you signature on record and could in necessary check it against what you
>>>had scrawled when trying to withdraw cash. You would need to make
>>>special arrangements in advance to be able to withdraw cash from a
>>>different branch.
>>
>> You went up to the counter with your cheque, and said "I have an
>> arrangement."
>
> So you proved your identity (by having a thing that only you were
> assumed to be able to have).

Essentially, banks used to rely on personal acquaintance and trust. They
still do, but it tends to take a rather impersonal form these days; the
"chip and PIN" card embodies the trust between the bank and the shop-keeper
in its own anti-faking measures, and the trust between the bank and the
card-holder is represented by the card holder knowing the secret PIN that
is encrypted within the "chip".

Government requirements that people "prove who they are" before being
allowed to open a bank account, have nothing to do with the relationship
between the bank and customer and everything to do with the government's
lust for controlling and following people (with "crime" or "terrorism" or
"enemy agents" or "anarchists" or whatever as the current excuse).

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 14:07:11 +0100, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com>
wrote:

"Money launderers".

There are regulations requiring banks and financial institutions to
exercise due diligence in keeping an eye open for, and reporting,
dubious transactions. There is also a requirement to verify the identity
of the holder of an account before any transactions are permitted on
that account. That rules out anonymous accounts, which used to be
permissible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering#United_Kingdom

The Money Laundering
Regulations 2007
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2157/pdfs/uksi_20072157_en.pdf

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 14:07:11 +0100, Whiskers
<catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:

>On 2013-04-21, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:26:35 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:24:13 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>>>><evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The last time I was in the UK (about a decade ago), I purchased a
>>>>>Tube pass and was issued an ID card, complete with photograph.
>
>That wasn't an "Identity Card", it was merely a way for a ticket inspector
>to be sure that the person using the season ticket was the person who'd
>paid for it.

How is that different from an "Identity Card"? Is there some formal
definition of an Identity Card that includes a particular format but
excludes cards that are used to verify your identity for certain
purposes?

It seems to me that any document that is required by any governmental
agency or business to verify the identity of the holder is an Identity
Card.

My Driver's License can be used as an Identity Card for certain
purposes, but the primary function of it is to prove that I have the
legal right to be operating a motor vehicle. You could say that it is
"merely a way for a policeman to be sure I'm allowed to be driving a
vehicle". But, an airline ticket agent accepts it as an Identity
Card.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[Peter Moylan]

On 20/04/13 01:24, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes:

>> (Unlike Americans, we Brits were free people and very rarely needed to
>> prove identity.)
>

> [...]

>
> But I'm curious as to how it worked back then. When you went into a
> bank and asked for money, did they just look at you and say "He looks
> to be an honest chap. We'll trust that he's who he says he is"?
> (Note that "Ask the manager. He knows me" is a way of proving your
> identity.)

There's a difference between an identifier and a universal identifier.
When I wanted to withdraw money from my bank account I had to produce
the account passbook, and IIRC also a signed withdrawal form. (This was
in Australia, but I'm sure the details in Britain were much the same.)
What I could NOT do was produce that same passbook when pulled over by
the police. For that I had to produce a driver's licence, a completely
different identifier. (Assuming that the police stopped me for a driving
offence. There was no such thing as a walker's licence.) But of course
the bank wasn't permitted to ask for my driver's licence.

When universal health insurance was introduced here, everyone got a card
with a number on it. That led to disquiet about the number being used as
a universal identifier. The solution to that problem was to introduce a
law that made it illegal to use our Medibank number or card for any
non-medical purpose, and equally illegal for anyone to ask for it as a
form of identification.

I'm not sure whether that law is still in force. If it is, it's being
violated by many government departments. To the best of my knowledge,
though, the police still don't have the power to look at my medical
records or my bank records, without having to argue for such access in a
court of law.

And of course it's still legal for me to walk around the streets with
nothing in my pockets.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 19:20:56 +1000, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>There's a difference between an identifier and a universal identifier.
>When I wanted to withdraw money from my bank account I had to produce
>the account passbook, and IIRC also a signed withdrawal form. (This was
>in Australia, but I'm sure the details in Britain were much the same.)
>What I could NOT do was produce that same passbook when pulled over by
>the police. For that I had to produce a driver's licence, a completely
>different identifier. (Assuming that the police stopped me for a driving
>offence. There was no such thing as a walker's licence.) But of course
>the bank wasn't permitted to ask for my driver's licence.

In the US, the Driver's License is required for most transactions at a
bank. One bank I use has my photograph on file, and whenever my
account is brought up that photograph appears on the screen facing the
teller. They still ask for my Driver's License.

(Non-drivers can get a similar ID from the Department of Motor
Vehicles)

[John Briggs]

London Transport is not a government agency.
--
John Briggs

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

In the UK what we understand by an Identity Card is a government-issued
document that can be used for any purpose at any time by the government.

It enables anyone in authority to stop anyone anywhere and demand that
they identify themselves.

Government ID cards are seen as an instrument of authoritarianism.

ID cards were accepted during WWII because their purpose was to
distinguish between citizens and enemy infiltrators.

[Whiskers]

On 2013-04-21, Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 14:07:11 +0100, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com>
> wrote:
>>On 2013-04-21, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>>Government requirements that people "prove who they are" before being
>>allowed to open a bank account, have nothing to do with the relationship
>>between the bank and customer and everything to do with the government's
>>lust for controlling and following people (with "crime" or "terrorism" or
>>"enemy agents" or "anarchists" or whatever as the current excuse).
>
> "Money launderers".
>
> There are regulations requiring banks and financial institutions to
> exercise due diligence in keeping an eye open for, and reporting,
> dubious transactions. There is also a requirement to verify the identity
> of the holder of an account before any transactions are permitted on
> that account. That rules out anonymous accounts, which used to be
> permissible.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering#United_Kingdom
>
> The Money Laundering
> Regulations 2007
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2157/pdfs/uksi_20072157_en.pdf

Exactly; none of that benefits the bank or the customer, and is in fact an
intrusion into their privacy and security and impedes the efficient
operation of the bank. It even forces the bank and customer to distrust
each other, which is entirely contrary to the fundamental reqirements of a
banking system.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> writes:

> On 2013-04-21, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:26:35 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:24:13 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>>>><evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The last time I was in the UK (about a decade ago), I purchased
>>>>>a Tube pass and was issued an ID card, complete with photograph.
>
> That wasn't an "Identity Card", it was merely a way for a ticket
> inspector to be sure that the person using the season ticket

Actually, it was just a one-week (perhaps two-week) pass. I believe
that the same card was used no matter how long you intended to ride.

> was the person who'd paid for it.

So it's a card that contains my name, my photo, and personally
identifying details (my sex and the fact that I'm an adult) that "must
be shown ... whether requested or not" in order to prove that I am the
person allowed to ride on a particular ticket, but it's not an
"identity card" and, presumably, I am not being asked to "prove [my]
identity" (which was what Peter said didn't happen often)?

The whole notion of "a ticket inspector [making] sure that the person
using the season ticket was the person who'd paid for it" is
predicated on being able (and required) to identity.

>> When I got my pass, they took my picture and a full-color print was
>> affixed to the card before it was laminated.
>>
>> I still have the card. The other half of the card has my printed
>> name[1], the word "Adult" in large letters, a number, and the
>> instruction that "This photocard is valid for use only by the person
>> shown with a ticket bearing the same number".
>>
>> They were *way* more concerned with my being able to prove my identity
>> than I had ever seen on public transport in the US.
>>
>> [snip]
>
> No, they merely wanted to make sure that the only person using your season
> ticket was you. The photocard proved only that you were the person who'd
> paid for that ticket, that's all.

How is that different from proving my identity? All they knew about
Evan Kirshenbaum was that he was the adult male who had set up account
AY 42714. As far as they were concerned, that was his identity. They
gave me a card so that I could, as required, prove that I was him.

As this was after 9/11, it would not, of course, surprise me if that
photograph, linked to my name, didn't wind up in a government database
there, too.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |The reason that we don't have
SF Bay Area (1982-) |"bear-proof" garbage cans in the
Chicago (1964-1982) |park is that there is a significant
|overlap in intelligence between the
evan.kir...@gmail.com |smartest bears and the dumbest
|humans.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Yosemite Park Ranger

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

As with most things, this differs across the US. Around here, I don't
recall a bank asking for my driver's license except when opening an
account. After that, the banks issue you their own credentials
(previously a passbook, now an ATM card) and expect you to use that
(and/or a signature on file) to prove your identity.

Similarly, my employer saw my driver's license once, 24 years ago when
I was hired. They then issued a corporate ID card, which has been
what I've used since.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |The look on our faces isn't confusion.
SF Bay Area (1982-) |It's disbelief.
Chicago (1964-1982) |
| Jon Stewart
evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 17:05:06 +0100, John Briggs
<john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Full reading required in this group. I said "governmental agency or
business". Whatever London Transport is, it falls under one of these
two groups even if loosely.

[Whiskers]

Proving what, exactly? The airline, or government, may have created a rule
that a driving licence that appears to have been issued to the person
wanting to travel can be accepted as proof of something they call
"identity" of the person in the ticket shop with some other person who
apparently obtained a driving licence at some earlier time, from which
inference the ticket shop are able to decide whether or not to issue a
ticket and the government can decide whether or not to track the supposed
movements of this inferred "person".

But your driving licence has nothing to say about "who you are".

The matter seems to hinge on what the word "identity" is taken to mean.
The OED has quite a long entry (updated in 2010):

"identity, n.". OED Online. March 2013. Oxford University Press. 21 April
2013 <http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/91004?redirectedFrom=identity>.

which suggests at least as many questions as answers. The first definition
provides the framework for all the others:

 1.
 a. The quality or condition of being the same in substance, composition,
nature, properties, or in particular qualities under consideration;
absolute or essential sameness; oneness.

absolute identity: that asserted in the metaphysical doctrine of the German
philosopher Friedrich Schelling (1775–1854) that mind and matter are
phenomenal modifications of the same substance.

As far as people are concerned, I like Locke's description:

1694   J. Locke Ess. Humane Understanding (new ed.) ii. xxvii. 180   The
Identity of the same Man consists..in nothing but a participation of the
same continued Life, by constantly fleeting Particles of Matter, in
succession vitally united to the same organized Body.

Which (it seems obvious to me) is not something that can be connected in
any meaningful way with possession of a particular object such as a card,
seal, or ring.

But Locke glosses over any distinction or connection between a person's
"constantly fleeting particles of matter" and that person's own sense of
"self", or mind, or soul, or memories; none of which have any substance,
although they seem to me to be central to what is "my identity".

[Tony Cooper]

I am asked for my Driver's License by the bank when making a
withdrawal of cash. At the branch I use, the teller's know me by
sight and greet me by name. My photo pops up on the screen when they
access my account. Still, the standard drill in making a cash
withdrawal is to present my Driver's License.

Whether or not I *have* to is questionable. If I forget my wallet at
home and want to make a cash withdrawal at this branch, they may
proceed with the transaction anyway. I've never put this to the test.

I automatically offer my Driver's License. It doesn't bother me at
all to be asked for this.

I don't have an ATM card. I've never asked for one.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 13:36:17 -0400, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com>

Does London Transport even exist any more?


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[John Briggs]

Yes, it is now called "Transport for London".
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

Too loosely for a tube photocard to be considered an Identity Card for
any purposes. Would your library card be considered an Identity Card?
--
John Briggs

[Robin Bignall]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 16:27:29 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum

<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:24:13 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>But I'm curious as to how it worked back then. When you went into a
>>>bank and asked for money, did they just look at you and say "He looks
>>>to be an honest chap. We'll trust that he's who he says he is"?
>>>(Note that "Ask the manager. He knows me" is a way of proving your
>>>identity.)
>>
>> When I was 19 (1958) and knew that I would be leaving home within a year
>> or two and needed a bank account, I put on my suit, went to Nottingham's
>> main branch of the Midland Bank and opened one. I was a student teacher
>> that year and had a payslip, and a passport and driving licence. They
>> didn't know me from Adam (my parents only had Post Office Savings
>> accounts) but I walked out with a cheque book.
>>
>> On going to Uni in London I had Nottingham set up a cheque cashing
>> facility in Chelsea, and when I needed cash I had to take my cheque book
>> along and ostentatiously make out the cheque and sign it before a
>> teller. For the first few times he took it away and checked the
>> signature, and that was that.
>>
>> It became even easier when cheque guarantee cards were invented.
>
>Okay, so just as here, once you proved your identity (each time) you
>were treated as you.

Yes. It was particularly easy at Chelsea, as it was a small branch and
I always asked for ten shilling notes rather than pound notes. The 10/-
notes were always new and unused, and padded out one's wallet nicely.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 09:52:20 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> In the US, the Driver's License is required for most transactions at a
>>> bank. One bank I use has my photograph on file, and whenever my
>>> account is brought up that photograph appears on the screen facing the
>>> teller. They still ask for my Driver's License.
>>>
>>> (Non-drivers can get a similar ID from the Department of Motor
>>> Vehicles)
>>
>>As with most things, this differs across the US. Around here, I don't
>>recall a bank asking for my driver's license except when opening an
>>account. After that, the banks issue you their own credentials
>>(previously a passbook, now an ATM card) and expect you to use that
>>(and/or a signature on file) to prove your identity.
>>
>>Similarly, my employer saw my driver's license once, 24 years ago when
>>I was hired. They then issued a corporate ID card, which has been
>>what I've used since.
>
> I am asked for my Driver's License by the bank when making a
> withdrawal of cash. At the branch I use, the teller's know me by
> sight and greet me by name. My photo pops up on the screen when they
> access my account. Still, the standard drill in making a cash
> withdrawal is to present my Driver's License.

As I said, this may differ by state (or bank). I'm not sure that my
bank would accept a driver's license as proof of identity unless I was
reporting my ATM card lost, stolen, or unusable. They want me to
present the card and demonstrate that I know the PIN to identify
myself.

> Whether or not I *have* to is questionable. If I forget my wallet at
> home and want to make a cash withdrawal at this branch, they may
> proceed with the transaction anyway. I've never put this to the test.
>
> I automatically offer my Driver's License. It doesn't bother me at
> all to be asked for this.
>
> I don't have an ATM card. I've never asked for one.

It appears to be hard to use a bank around here without one. This is
the case even if the ATM card doesn't actually allow you to deposit or
withdraw funds. (When I was the treasurer on an HOA board, all of the
officers had cards, but mine was the only one that actually allowed
the use of ATMs for depositing or withdrawing money. The others
merely identified the people as connected with the accounts.)

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a
SF Bay Area (1982-) |barbarian and thinks that the
Chicago (1964-1982) |customs of his tribe and island are
|the laws of nature.
evan.kir...@gmail.com |
| George Bernard Shaw
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Paul Wolff]

In message <slrnkn87sn.2...@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> writes

Excellent. That saves me from writing down my own opinion on the matter.
I'm impressed that Locke so clearly expressed the dynamic view of the
individual. No 'not the same river twice' nonsense there.

If someone asks me to prove my identity, I'd love to be able to say "See
me: what you see is me." An alternative is to ask "Identity to what?"
But it's usually inconvenient to prejudice my immediate objectives by
indulging myself like that.
--
Paul

[Whiskers]

On 2013-04-21, Paul Wolff <boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <slrnkn87sn.2...@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
> Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> writes

[...]

I find Locke's description remarkably modern, albeit so concisely expressed
in 17th century English.

> If someone asks me to prove my identity, I'd love to be able to say "See
> me: what you see is me." An alternative is to ask "Identity to what?"
> But it's usually inconvenient to prejudice my immediate objectives by
> indulging myself like that.

I am not a number, but there are a great many numbers associated with me
and which other people accept as proof of something; proof of what, I doubt
if they ever consider.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 19:27:37 +0100, John Briggs

Certainly, but - just as the London Transport card is limited in use -
a library card has limited use as an identity card. The LT card is
good only on LT, and a library card is good only at the library.

Again, employ "full reading". Up above the question is about
verifying your identity for "certain purposes".

I can show my Driver's License at the library, but they won't accept
it as verification that I have a library card and won't let me check
out books. I can show my library card at a police traffic stop, but
the cop will not accept it as a permit to drive.

You seem to feel that the definition of "Identity Card" is some sort
of universal form of identity verification. There is no such thing in
the US, but the Driver's License is the closest we have.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 18:19:19 +0100, Whiskers

I'm not attempting to prove anything other than certain documents can
be required and accepted as proof of identity for certain purposes.
The Driver's License is the most universally used and accepted
Identity Card in the US, but we have no official identity card or
truly universal form of an identity card.

Where they are used, and accepted, they act as an identity card.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 12:09:25 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum

I think I have a PIN. I have a vague memory of the bank assigning one
and telling me that I could change it to something if I wanted to. I
didn't, and have no idea what that number would be. Never needed it,
never wanted it.

I do know my account number, though. That is not changeable.

>> Whether or not I *have* to is questionable. If I forget my wallet at
>> home and want to make a cash withdrawal at this branch, they may
>> proceed with the transaction anyway. I've never put this to the test.
>>
>> I automatically offer my Driver's License. It doesn't bother me at
>> all to be asked for this.
>>
>> I don't have an ATM card. I've never asked for one.
>
>It appears to be hard to use a bank around here without one. This is
>the case even if the ATM card doesn't actually allow you to deposit or
>withdraw funds. (When I was the treasurer on an HOA board, all of the
>officers had cards, but mine was the only one that actually allowed
>the use of ATMs for depositing or withdrawing money. The others
>merely identified the people as connected with the accounts.)
--

[Mike L]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:18:42 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum

<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:26:35 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:24:13 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>>><evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The last time I was in the UK (about a decade ago), I purchased a
>>>>Tube pass and was issued an ID card, complete with photograph.
>>
>> I wonder why. These days, anybody can have a prepaid "Oyster" card,
>> and no identification is required.
>
>When I got my pass, they took my picture and a full-color print was
>affixed to the card before it was laminated.
>
>I still have the card. The other half of the card has my printed
>name[1], the word "Adult" in large letters, a number, and the
>instruction that "This photocard is valid for use only by the person
>shown with a ticket bearing the same number".
>
>They were *way* more concerned with my being able to prove my identity
>than I had ever seen on public transport in the US.

I don't think I know what was going on in their minds. Was it a card
allowing you to buy tickets at a concessionary rate, perhaps? Or
accompanying a season ticket? I didn't have a London Transport card at
that time, but my Oyster card doesn't even have my name on it, and I
just charge it up with value and scan it at the barrier: no tickets
involved - same as most cities these days.

>
>[snip]
>
>>>>But I'm curious as to how it worked back then. When you went into a
>>>>bank and asked for money, did they just look at you and say "He looks
>>>>to be an honest chap. We'll trust that he's who he says he is"?
>>>>(Note that "Ask the manager. He knows me" is a way of proving your
>>>>identity.)
>>>>
>>>I'm trying to remember.
>>>
>>>Your bank account would be managed by a particular branch. You would
>>>have a cheque book with the branch details and your name printed on each
>>>cheque. You would go to that branch to withdraw cash. They would have
>>>you signature on record and could in necessary check it against what you
>>>had scrawled when trying to withdraw cash. You would need to make
>>>special arrangements in advance to be able to withdraw cash from a
>>>different branch.
>>
>> You went up to the counter with your cheque, and said "I have an
>> arrangement."
>
>So you proved your identity (by having a thing that only you were
>assumed to be able to have).

I suppose it was really pretty secure, in spite of the system's
ramshackle appearance: a thief would have had to know I had an
"arrangement", and with which branch, and how much it was safe to ask
for, as well as getting the signature right.

>
>[1] After a pre-printed "Mr". My card has a blue background. IIRC
> my wife's had a different color.

--

Mike.

[Mike L]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 09:46:43 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> writes:
[...]

>> No, they merely wanted to make sure that the only person using your season
>> ticket was you. The photocard proved only that you were the person who'd
>> paid for that ticket, that's all.
>
>How is that different from proving my identity? All they knew about
>Evan Kirshenbaum was that he was the adult male who had set up account
>AY 42714. As far as they were concerned, that was his identity. They
>gave me a card so that I could, as required, prove that I was him.
>
>As this was after 9/11, it would not, of course, surprise me if that
>photograph, linked to my name, didn't wind up in a government database
>there, too.

That's a thought. I wouldn't be surprised, either way. If the
information was digitally recorded, then it might have been a breach
of data protection laws to pass it on; but there may be get-out
clauses.

--
Mike.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes:

Ah. You can be pretty sure that if an American speaks of an "ID" or
"ID card", we don't mean *that* unless context has clearly established
it.

This subthread started when you said, in response to a question about
the word "ID"

(Unlike Americans, we Brits were free people and very rarely
needed to prove identity.)

It may have happened, but I don't recall there ever being a time in
which Americans were issued the sort of thing you call an "Identity
Card", so if that's what you think an "ID card" is, I have no idea
what you mean by your "unlike Americans".

Like Brits, we Americans need to prove our identity relatively
frequently and, again I'd suppose like you, we have several forms of
ID that we use for the purpose (as well as as capability tokens to
prove that we are authorized to be places and do things). The only
difference would appear to be that one particular form of
government-issued ID here is sufficiently commonly carried
(voluntarily) and considered sufficiently secure that it is often used
to prove identity in situations other than the one it was issued for.
In many cases to verify some other (less secure) form of ID or to
warrant issuing another.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |It does me no injury for my neighbor
SF Bay Area (1982-) |to say there are twenty gods, or no
Chicago (1964-1982) |God.
| Thomas Jefferson
evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:18:42 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:26:35 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:24:13 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>>>><evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The last time I was in the UK (about a decade ago), I purchased a
>>>>>Tube pass and was issued an ID card, complete with photograph.
>>>
>>> I wonder why. These days, anybody can have a prepaid "Oyster" card,
>>> and no identification is required.
>>
>>When I got my pass, they took my picture and a full-color print was
>>affixed to the card before it was laminated.
>>
>>I still have the card. The other half of the card has my printed
>>name[1], the word "Adult" in large letters, a number, and the
>>instruction that "This photocard is valid for use only by the person
>>shown with a ticket bearing the same number".
>>
>>They were *way* more concerned with my being able to prove my identity
>>than I had ever seen on public transport in the US.
>
> I don't think I know what was going on in their minds. Was it a card
> allowing you to buy tickets at a concessionary rate, perhaps? Or
> accompanying a season ticket?

It was a card accompanying a purchased one- or two-week pass. I
believe that it could have been used to buy subsequent passes. It's
purpose was apparently to make sure that I wasn't sharing the flat
fare I had purchased with anybody else.

> I didn't have a London Transport card at that time, but my Oyster
> card doesn't even have my name on it, and I just charge it up with
> value and scan it at the barrier: no tickets involved - same as most
> cities these days.

Yeah. Once cities realized that by issuing machine-readable cards
that could hold a pre-paid value or to be linked to a bank account
from which money could be drawn as the service was used, they no
longer had an interest in caring about the identity of the riders,
just as they never had with single-trip tickets. Certainly not enough
to justify the expense of taking and printing a full-color picture and
laminating a card.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |It is one thing to be mistaken; it is
SF Bay Area (1982-) |quite another to be willfully
Chicago (1964-1982) |ignorant
| Cecil Adams
evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Robin Bignall]

The term "non-transferable" springs to mind in response to Evan's query
about London Transport's paranoia with regard to security and
photocards. I don't know how Oyster cards worked in detail, but they
were issued to a given person and were non-transferable. So, if Evan
only used his card on three days a week, having paid for a weekly card,
he was not allowed to lend his card to someone else to use the other
four days.

I don't have an elderly person's Travelcard because I can't use public
transport, but I bet they have a photo, too.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:24:03 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:


>This subthread started when you said, in response to a question about
>the word "ID"
>
> (Unlike Americans, we Brits were free people and very rarely
> needed to prove identity.)
>

As you will realise from my general style of commenting, that was
tongue-in-cheek.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes:

> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:24:03 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>This subthread started when you said, in response to a question about
>>the word "ID"
>>
>> (Unlike Americans, we Brits were free people and very rarely
>> needed to prove identity.)
>>
> As you will realise from my general style of commenting, that was
> tongue-in-cheek.

Oh, sure, but (1) where's the fun if you can't take things like that
at face value, and (2) Americans these days are getting way too used
to people being completely serious when saying ridiculous things, both
from inside and outside the country. I'm sure you could name at least
half a dozen people who have posted on this very group in the recent
past who could have said that and meant every word, with the subtext
of "Of course, as we all know, America sucks".

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |There's been so much ado already
SF Bay Area (1982-) |that any further ado would be
Chicago (1964-1982) |excessive.
| Lori Karkosky
evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Robert Bannister]

A curious thing happened here in Australia some years ago. The
government of the day proposed introducing an "Australia Card" which was
to combine medical, pension and other details used by various government
departments. There was a massive outcry and the government rapidly
backed down.

Today we have, just as you do, a wide variety of cards mostly with
photos and which carry a number of personal details hidden in their
magnetic strip or chip and nobody says anything.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On 21/04/13 5:20 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 20/04/13 01:24, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes:
>
>>> (Unlike Americans, we Brits were free people and very rarely needed to
>>> prove identity.)
>>

>> [...]

>>
>> But I'm curious as to how it worked back then. When you went into a
>> bank and asked for money, did they just look at you and say "He looks
>> to be an honest chap. We'll trust that he's who he says he is"?
>> (Note that "Ask the manager. He knows me" is a way of proving your
>> identity.)
>

> There's a difference between an identifier and a universal identifier.
> When I wanted to withdraw money from my bank account I had to produce
> the account passbook, and IIRC also a signed withdrawal form. (This was
> in Australia, but I'm sure the details in Britain were much the same.)
> What I could NOT do was produce that same passbook when pulled over by
> the police. For that I had to produce a driver's licence, a completely
> different identifier. (Assuming that the police stopped me for a driving
> offence. There was no such thing as a walker's licence.) But of course
> the bank wasn't permitted to ask for my driver's licence.
>

> When universal health insurance was introduced here, everyone got a card
> with a number on it. That led to disquiet about the number being used as
> a universal identifier. The solution to that problem was to introduce a
> law that made it illegal to use our Medibank number or card for any
> non-medical purpose, and equally illegal for anyone to ask for it as a
> form of identification.
>
> I'm not sure whether that law is still in force. If it is, it's being
> violated by many government departments. To the best of my knowledge,
> though, the police still don't have the power to look at my medical
> records or my bank records, without having to argue for such access in a
> court of law.
>
> And of course it's still legal for me to walk around the streets with
> nothing in my pockets.
>

If I recall correctly, in Australia it is still officially illegal to
demand to see or to use one's driver's licence as ID and yet it is
generally accepted by all sorts of places. A photograph makes a big
difference - Medicare cards, most library cards and the like don't have
a photo. Going right back to 1961, I used to use my Berlin student pass
more or less like a passport (in West and East Berlin until they built
that obstruction) because it had a photo and a big official stamp.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

My bank has given me several secret numbers to remember that I may be
asked for, particularly for telephone transactions. They never ask for a
card apart from my usual bank credit/debit/master-card. So I remember my
3 digit "secret number", my 8 digit other number that I mainly use as a
user name in online banking, and of course my 16 digit card number. OK,
I don't /have/ to remember the last one, but I do the first two.

--
Robert Bannister

[Tony Cooper]

The most permanent, universal, identifier for Americans is something
no one asks to see. We are required to provide that number to be
employed, have a bank account, open any kind of credit arrangement,
apply for insurance, or be treated in a hospital.

Yet, I can't remember ever having to actually show a copy of my social
security card. It's locked away in my safety deposit box.

If I call my television cable provider, my mobile phone provider, or
anyone else about the status of my account, I have to give them the
last four numbers of my social security number. If my cable TV goes
out, and I call to get someone to come out, the first thing they ask
is for those last four numbers.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> writes:

> The most permanent, universal, identifier for Americans is something
> no one asks to see. We are required to provide that number to be
> employed, have a bank account, open any kind of credit arrangement,
> apply for insurance, or be treated in a hospital.
>
> Yet, I can't remember ever having to actually show a copy of my social
> security card.

Likely because, as it probably says prominently on the card, the card
itself is "not to be used for identification purposes". (Many people
(AFAIK) mistakenly believe that that instruction was meant to apply to
the number, but I'm pretty sure that it was the card because, until
recently, they would send you a new one with whatever name and number
you asked for.) Rather, you had to provide your number and swear it
was correct. The card was simply a reminder of the number.

> It's locked away in my safety deposit box.

I don't have the slightest idea where mine might be.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |The Elizabethans had so many words
SF Bay Area (1982-) |for the female genitals that it is
Chicago (1964-1982) |quite hard to speak a sentence of
|modern English without inadvertently
evan.kir...@gmail.com |mentioning at least three of them.
| Terry Pratchett
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Dr Nick]

Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> writes:

> Certainly, but - just as the London Transport card is limited in use -
> a library card has limited use as an identity card. The LT card is
> good only on LT, and a library card is good only at the library.
>
> Again, employ "full reading". Up above the question is about
> verifying your identity for "certain purposes".
>
> I can show my Driver's License at the library, but they won't accept
> it as verification that I have a library card and won't let me check
> out books. I can show my library card at a police traffic stop, but
> the cop will not accept it as a permit to drive.
>
> You seem to feel that the definition of "Identity Card" is some sort
> of universal form of identity verification. There is no such thing in
> the US, but the Driver's License is the closest we have.

Reverting to English Usage, in the UK that's /exactly/ the definition of
"Identity Card". A single state owned proof of identity to be shown on
demand to officialdom. It's a political warm potato.

As ever, we now seem to have the worst of both worlds: all the
restrictions that a ID card would cause, different organisations
inventing their own requirements and some people finding themselves with
no way of satisfying them.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> writes:

> And of course it's still legal for me to walk around the streets with
> nothing in my pockets.

As it is in essentially all of the United States. (The only exception
that springs to mind may be on the streets of military bases and the
like, although there you may be required to wear your identification
more openly.) Not being able to establish your identity (and not
having any form of payment) there may be things you won't be allowed
to do and places you won't be allowed to go, but there's nothing
illegal about it.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Specifically, I'd like to debate
SF Bay Area (1982-) |whether cannibalism ought to be
Chicago (1964-1982) |grounds for leniency in murder,
|since it's less wasteful.
evan.kir...@gmail.com | Calvin

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Dr Nick <nosp...@temporary-address.org.uk> writes:

> Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Certainly, but - just as the London Transport card is limited in use -
>> a library card has limited use as an identity card. The LT card is
>> good only on LT, and a library card is good only at the library.
>>
>> Again, employ "full reading". Up above the question is about
>> verifying your identity for "certain purposes".
>>
>> I can show my Driver's License at the library, but they won't
>> accept it as verification that I have a library card and won't let
>> me check out books. I can show my library card at a police traffic
>> stop, but the cop will not accept it as a permit to drive.
>>
>> You seem to feel that the definition of "Identity Card" is some
>> sort of universal form of identity verification. There is no such
>> thing in the US, but the Driver's License is the closest we have.
>
> Reverting to English Usage, in the UK that's /exactly/ the
> definition of "Identity Card". A single state owned proof of
> identity to be shown on demand to officialdom.

Except, of course, that it isn't. If you're driving a motor vehicle
and are stopped by a police officer, you are required to show it. I
can't, offhand, think of any other situation in which you can be
required to show it to a government official. (Okay, if you are
signing up as a driver with a government institution they will
probably require seeing proof that you are a licensed driver.)

There are other situtations in which in order to do something you have
to show *some* form of government ID to a government official, but I
can't think of any in which a passport wouldn't suffice. Or a
military ID. Or a green card. Or some other task-specific ID. But
all of those are "if you want to do this you have to prove who you
are" (or how old you are or where you live) not "to be shown on
demand".

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |To express oneself
SF Bay Area (1982-) |In seventeen syllables
Chicago (1964-1982) |Is very diffic
| Tony Finch
evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:09:35 +0100, Dr Nick
<nosp...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:

>Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Certainly, but - just as the London Transport card is limited in use -
>> a library card has limited use as an identity card. The LT card is
>> good only on LT, and a library card is good only at the library.
>>
>> Again, employ "full reading". Up above the question is about
>> verifying your identity for "certain purposes".
>>
>> I can show my Driver's License at the library, but they won't accept
>> it as verification that I have a library card and won't let me check
>> out books. I can show my library card at a police traffic stop, but
>> the cop will not accept it as a permit to drive.
>>
>> You seem to feel that the definition of "Identity Card" is some sort
>> of universal form of identity verification. There is no such thing in
>> the US, but the Driver's License is the closest we have.
>
>Reverting to English Usage, in the UK that's /exactly/ the definition of
>"Identity Card". A single state owned proof of identity to be shown on
>demand to officialdom. It's a political warm potato.

Well, people who oppose a state-issued universal Identity Card may
define it that way, but the term itself merely means a card that
verifies the identity of the holder.

I would think the opposition would be to a requirement to have such a
card in one's possession at all times and a requirement to produce it
on demand for any reason by the authorities, not to a card that is
universally recognized.

>As ever, we now seem to have the worst of both worlds: all the
>restrictions that a ID card would cause, different organisations
>inventing their own requirements and some people finding themselves with
>no way of satisfying them.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:43:39 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:09:35 +0100, Dr Nick
><nosp...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Certainly, but - just as the London Transport card is limited in use -
>>> a library card has limited use as an identity card. The LT card is
>>> good only on LT, and a library card is good only at the library.
>>>
>>> Again, employ "full reading". Up above the question is about
>>> verifying your identity for "certain purposes".
>>>
>>> I can show my Driver's License at the library, but they won't accept
>>> it as verification that I have a library card and won't let me check
>>> out books. I can show my library card at a police traffic stop, but
>>> the cop will not accept it as a permit to drive.
>>>
>>> You seem to feel that the definition of "Identity Card" is some sort
>>> of universal form of identity verification. There is no such thing in
>>> the US, but the Driver's License is the closest we have.
>>
>>Reverting to English Usage, in the UK that's /exactly/ the definition of
>>"Identity Card". A single state owned proof of identity to be shown on
>>demand to officialdom. It's a political warm potato.
>
>Well, people who oppose a state-issued universal Identity Card may
>define it that way, but the term itself merely means a card that
>verifies the identity of the holder.

In the UK the primary meaning of "Identity Card" has been a state-issued
universal identity document.

In my personal experience the terms "ID", "Identity Card" and the like
have not been used for non-general idendification documents until
perhaps recently.

When I was in the Royal Air Force I had, and wore in some circumstances,
a card with my details and a photo on it. It was for identification in a
specific context but was not as far as I remember referred to as an "ID
Card" or "ID".

Similarly at a university the card to identify a person as a student or
member of staff was a "student card" or a "staff card". More recently
the word "identity" may be creeping in to the names or descriptions of
such cards.

What is interesting is the contrast between the uses transponially of
"ID Card" and "district" (being discussed in another thread.

In BrE the primary sense of "district" is general and not
administrative, and the primary sense of "ID Card" is specific to a
government document issued for authoritarian purposes.

It seems to be the other way round in the US: "district" is specific and
"ID" is general.

[Katy Jennison]

On 21/04/2013 23:24, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:

> Like Brits, we Americans need to prove our identity relatively
> frequently and, again I'd suppose like you, we have several forms of
> ID that we use for the purpose (as well as as capability tokens to
> prove that we are authorized to be places and do things).

Actually, speaking as a Brit I don't seem to be required to prove my
identity very much at all. The only thing I can think of recently is
needing to produce some form of identification (I used a driving
licence) before the Post Office would hand over a parcel addressed to me
which hadn't been delivered because we were out; but what they really
wanted was something with an address which matched the address on the
parcel, rather than a matching name. I have cards with photos which I
use regularly, including a bus pass, but its function is to be passed
over an electronic gizmo on the bus: the bus driver doesn't look at it
to establish that I look like the photo.

--
Katy Jennison

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

That's because until there's established reason to doubt, the first
factor--possession of the card--is sufficient to prove your identity.
You prove your identity every time you type a PIN that goes along with
an ATM card or credit card, every time you type a password that goes
along with an account name, every time you present a card that only
you are assumed to have.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Giving money and power to government
SF Bay Area (1982-) |is like giving whiskey and car keys
Chicago (1964-1982) |to teenage boys.
| P.J. O'Rourke
evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Paul Wolff]

In message <txmylg...@gmail.com>, Evan Kirshenbaum
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> writes

>Katy Jennison <ka...@spamtrap.kjennison.com> writes:
>
>> On 21/04/2013 23:24, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>
>>> Like Brits, we Americans need to prove our identity relatively
>>> frequently and, again I'd suppose like you, we have several forms of
>>> ID that we use for the purpose (as well as as capability tokens to
>>> prove that we are authorized to be places and do things).
>>
>> Actually, speaking as a Brit I don't seem to be required to prove my
>> identity very much at all. The only thing I can think of recently is
>> needing to produce some form of identification (I used a driving
>> licence) before the Post Office would hand over a parcel addressed to
>> me which hadn't been delivered because we were out; but what they
>> really wanted was something with an address which matched the address
>> on the parcel, rather than a matching name. I have cards with photos
>> which I use regularly, including a bus pass, but its function is to be
>> passed over an electronic gizmo on the bus: the bus driver doesn't
>> look at it to establish that I look like the photo.
>
>That's because until there's established reason to doubt, the first
>factor--possession of the card--is sufficient to prove your identity.

I don't think that's quite it. The photo is there in case of dispute
over whether the card is being used by someone not entitled to use it.
The bus pass is issued for the exclusive use of the person who looks
like the photo. It really doesn't matter what their name is.

It's true that the bus pass does also have a name on it, which no doubt
is convenient for enabling the issuer to post it to the correct
recipient, but the card doesn't have the function of proving the name.
Mine has a name on it that isn't accurately mine (I forget how that came
about).

>You prove your identity every time you type a PIN that goes along with
>an ATM card or credit card, every time you type a password that goes
>along with an account name, every time you present a card that only
>you are assumed to have.
>

At least one of those is a very weak version of 'prove'. I once, long
ago, was asked by a policeman for evidence that my name was what I
claimed it to be. I offered him my sock, with a name-tape sewn into it,
but he said that wasn't convincing. I thought that presenting a sock
(still warm, to boot) that only I would be presumed to have was pretty
good, but it was not good enough for Surrey Police.
--
Paul

[LFS]

On 22/04/2013 17:54, Paul Wolff wrote:

>>
> At least one of those is a very weak version of 'prove'. I once, long
> ago, was asked by a policeman for evidence that my name was what I
> claimed it to be. I offered him my sock, with a name-tape sewn into it,
> but he said that wasn't convincing. I thought that presenting a sock
> (still warm, to boot) that only I would be presumed to have was pretty
> good, but it was not good enough for Surrey Police.

Thank you for that, the best laugh this week. Especially the bit in
parentheses.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)

[Robin Bignall]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 19:20:56 +1000, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>And of course it's still legal for me to walk around the streets with
>nothing in my pockets.

A French colleague told me that in 1958 when he was a student, he found
he'd run out of wine one Saturday morning. His parents were away for
the weekend, it was a hot day, so he grabbed a few francs and popped
down to the village shop dressed in a singlet and shorts. On the way
back the police stopped him and asked for ID, which he'd left at home
not far away. They would not accompany him home, and he spent the
weekend in the local police station's cells until his parents returned.

The French have abolished the law which stated that non-French residents
had to carry a carte de sejour around with them: now it's a passport.

[Dr Nick]

Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:09:35 +0100, Dr Nick
> <nosp...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Certainly, but - just as the London Transport card is limited in use -
>>> a library card has limited use as an identity card. The LT card is
>>> good only on LT, and a library card is good only at the library.
>>>
>>> Again, employ "full reading". Up above the question is about
>>> verifying your identity for "certain purposes".
>>>
>>> I can show my Driver's License at the library, but they won't accept
>>> it as verification that I have a library card and won't let me check
>>> out books. I can show my library card at a police traffic stop, but
>>> the cop will not accept it as a permit to drive.
>>>
>>> You seem to feel that the definition of "Identity Card" is some sort
>>> of universal form of identity verification. There is no such thing in
>>> the US, but the Driver's License is the closest we have.
>>
>>Reverting to English Usage, in the UK that's /exactly/ the definition of
>>"Identity Card". A single state owned proof of identity to be shown on
>>demand to officialdom. It's a political warm potato.
>
> Well, people who oppose a state-issued universal Identity Card may
> define it that way, but the term itself merely means a card that
> verifies the identity of the holder.

It doesn't in the UK. Honestly. Any document we might have that we
use for that purpose has a name of its own. The only time the term
"identity card" is used is in debate about whether there should be a
national identity card, and there's been enough of it for most people to
become aware of the term in that context and no other.

The only exception I can think of is an armed forces identity card which
is called that. I'm not sure what they are doing on this page, but here
are some examples:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/03/5316/3

but outside that context, the general public would not have a clue if
you asked them "do you have an identity card?".

> I would think the opposition would be to a requirement to have such a
> card in one's possession at all times and a requirement to produce it
> on demand for any reason by the authorities, not to a card that is
> universally recognized.

You would think so, wouldn't you.

It's not as simple as that.

[Dr Nick]

Katy Jennison <ka...@spamtrap.kjennison.com> writes:

> On 21/04/2013 23:24, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
>> Like Brits, we Americans need to prove our identity relatively
>> frequently and, again I'd suppose like you, we have several forms of
>> ID that we use for the purpose (as well as as capability tokens to
>> prove that we are authorized to be places and do things).
>
> Actually, speaking as a Brit I don't seem to be required to prove my
> identity very much at all. The only thing I can think of recently is
> needing to produce some form of identification (I used a driving
> licence) before the Post Office would hand over a parcel addressed to
> me which hadn't been delivered because we were out; but what they
> really wanted was something with an address which matched the address
> on the parcel, rather than a matching name.

Either actually, I've used a credit card for that purpose before now.

[Whiskers]

On 2013-04-21, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 17:05:06 +0100, John Briggs
>> <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

[...]

> Like Brits, we Americans need to prove our identity relatively
> frequently and, again I'd suppose like you, we have several forms of
> ID that we use for the purpose (as well as as capability tokens to
> prove that we are authorized to be places and do things). The only
> difference would appear to be that one particular form of
> government-issued ID here is sufficiently commonly carried
> (voluntarily) and considered sufficiently secure that it is often used
> to prove identity in situations other than the one it was issued for.
> In many cases to verify some other (less secure) form of ID or to
> warrant issuing another.

But of course, that is not actually proving who you are. The driving
licence says, in effect, "the person known as [insert name here] whose face
looks like this [insert image here] is allowed by [insert driver licencing
agency name here] to operate vehicles of [insert vehicle types here] on
public roads between [insert start date] and [insert expiry date]." If you
also produce another document bearing the same name and image, then it is
tempting to infer that both documents were issued to the same person, and
if both are being carried by someone who resembles the image and uses the
same name then perhaps that person is the same person as was issued with
the two documents. But that is faith, not proof.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Whiskers]

There may have been a less intrusive form of season ticket available at the
time. London Transport used to have a very complex range of tickets, and
people often ended up with something that was rather more sophisticated or
inclusive than necessary. Unless you put in a lot of research and planned
your travel carefully, it was easy to end up with a ticket that was not
valid for your journey and could lead to unpleasantness, so ticket-office
staff were inclined to keep it simple (for them) and sell the most
all-embracing form of ticket unless the customer asked specifically for
something else.

>> I didn't have a London Transport card at that time, but my Oyster
>> card doesn't even have my name on it, and I just charge it up with
>> value and scan it at the barrier: no tickets involved - same as most
>> cities these days.
>
> Yeah. Once cities realized that by issuing machine-readable cards
> that could hold a pre-paid value or to be linked to a bank account
> from which money could be drawn as the service was used, they no
> longer had an interest in caring about the identity of the riders,
> just as they never had with single-trip tickets. Certainly not enough
> to justify the expense of taking and printing a full-color picture and
> laminating a card.

The fare structure on public transport in Greater London is still
complicated, but the Oyster card system simplifies matters for the
traveller by using the central computer system to calculate the lowest fare
for each journey or for each day's journeys and adjusting the balance in
that card's account accordingly. People who qualify for special fares
(by being old or young or disabled or retired military or by having paid a
large sum in advance) are still issued with a photo-card.

[Whiskers]

On 2013-04-21, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 23:08:31 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[...]

> I don't have an elderly person's Travelcard because I can't use public
> transport, but I bet they have a photo, too.

The "Freedom Pass" issued by London boroughs certainly does.

[Dr Nick]

Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> writes:

> On 2013-04-21, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 23:08:31 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I don't have an elderly person's Travelcard because I can't use public
>> transport, but I bet they have a photo, too.
>
> The "Freedom Pass" issued by London boroughs certainly does.

The bus pass my wife gets because she can't drive does too.

[Paul Wolff]

In message <atlaun...@mid.individual.net>, LFS
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes

I thought of offering both socks, but I had cold feet.
--
Paul

[Mike L]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 20:25:14 +0100, Paul Wolff
<boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <slrnkn87sn.2...@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
>Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> writes

>>On 2013-04-21, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 14:07:11 +0100, Whiskers
>>> <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>>On 2013-04-21, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:26:35 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>>>>>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:24:13 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>>>>>>><evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The last time I was in the UK (about a decade ago), I purchased a
>>>>>>>>Tube pass and was issued an ID card, complete with photograph.
>>>>

>>>>That wasn't an "Identity Card", it was merely a way for a ticket inspector
>>>>to be sure that the person using the season ticket was the person who'd
>>>>paid for it.
>>>
>>> How is that different from an "Identity Card"? Is there some formal
>>> definition of an Identity Card that includes a particular format but
>>> excludes cards that are used to verify your identity for certain
>>> purposes?
>>>
>>> It seems to me that any document that is required by any governmental
>>> agency or business to verify the identity of the holder is an Identity
>>> Card.
>>>
>>> My Driver's License can be used as an Identity Card for certain
>>> purposes, but the primary function of it is to prove that I have the
>>> legal right to be operating a motor vehicle. You could say that it is
>>> "merely a way for a policeman to be sure I'm allowed to be driving a
>>> vehicle". But, an airline ticket agent accepts it as an Identity
>>> Card.
>>

>>Proving what, exactly? The airline, or government, may have created a rule
>>that a driving licence that appears to have been issued to the person
>>wanting to travel can be accepted as proof of something they call
>>"identity" of the person in the ticket shop with some other person who
>>apparently obtained a driving licence at some earlier time, from which
>>inference the ticket shop are able to decide whether or not to issue a
>>ticket and the government can decide whether or not to track the supposed
>>movements of this inferred "person".
>>
>>But your driving licence has nothing to say about "who you are".
>>
>>The matter seems to hinge on what the word "identity" is taken to mean.
>>The OED has quite a long entry (updated in 2010):
>>
>>"identity, n.". OED Online. March 2013. Oxford University Press. 21 April
>>2013 <http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/91004?redirectedFrom=identity>.
>>
>>which suggests at least as many questions as answers. The first definition
>>provides the framework for all the others:
>>
>> 1.
>> a. The quality or condition of being the same in substance, composition,
>>nature, properties, or in particular qualities under consideration;
>>absolute or essential sameness; oneness.
>>
>>absolute identity: that asserted in the metaphysical doctrine of the German
>>philosopher Friedrich Schelling (1775–1854) that mind and matter are
>>phenomenal modifications of the same substance.
>>
>>As far as people are concerned, I like Locke's description:
>>
>>1694   J. Locke Ess. Humane Understanding (new ed.) ii. xxvii. 180   The
>>Identity of the same Man consists..in nothing but a participation of the
>>same continued Life, by constantly fleeting Particles of Matter, in
>>succession vitally united to the same organized Body.
>>
>>Which (it seems obvious to me) is not something that can be connected in
>>any meaningful way with possession of a particular object such as a card,
>>seal, or ring.
>>
>>But Locke glosses over any distinction or connection between a person's
>>"constantly fleeting particles of matter" and that person's own sense of
>>"self", or mind, or soul, or memories; none of which have any substance,
>>although they seem to me to be central to what is "my identity".
>>
>Excellent. That saves me from writing down my own opinion on the matter.
>I'm impressed that Locke so clearly expressed the dynamic view of the
>individual. No 'not the same river twice' nonsense there.
>
>If someone asks me to prove my identity, I'd love to be able to say "See
>me: what you see is me." An alternative is to ask "Identity to what?"
>But it's usually inconvenient to prejudice my immediate objectives by
>indulging myself like that.

I was chatting with a policeman at a boring airshow, and the subject
of identity cards came up. I asked him his opinion, and he said, "I
don't mind identifying myself to anybody. They can show me a mirror,
and I'll have a look, and say 'Yep, that's me!'"

--
Mike.

[Mike L]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 23:58:57 +0100, Robin Bignall

<docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 23:08:31 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>

>>On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:18:42 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum

>><evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:26:35 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>>>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:24:13 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>>>>><evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The last time I was in the UK (about a decade ago), I purchased a
>>>>>>Tube pass and was issued an ID card, complete with photograph.
>>>>

>>>> I wonder why. These days, anybody can have a prepaid "Oyster" card,
>>>> and no identification is required.
>>>
>>>When I got my pass, they took my picture and a full-color print was
>>>affixed to the card before it was laminated.
>>>
>>>I still have the card. The other half of the card has my printed
>>>name[1], the word "Adult" in large letters, a number, and the
>>>instruction that "This photocard is valid for use only by the person
>>>shown with a ticket bearing the same number".
>>>
>>>They were *way* more concerned with my being able to prove my identity
>>>than I had ever seen on public transport in the US.
>>
>>I don't think I know what was going on in their minds. Was it a card
>>allowing you to buy tickets at a concessionary rate, perhaps? Or

>>accompanying a season ticket? I didn't have a London Transport card at

>>that time, but my Oyster card doesn't even have my name on it, and I
>>just charge it up with value and scan it at the barrier: no tickets
>>involved - same as most cities these days.
>>>

>The term "non-transferable" springs to mind in response to Evan's query
>about London Transport's paranoia with regard to security and
>photocards. I don't know how Oyster cards worked in detail, but they
>were issued to a given person and were non-transferable. So, if Evan
>only used his card on three days a week, having paid for a weekly card,
>he was not allowed to lend his card to someone else to use the other
>four days.

>
>I don't have an elderly person's Travelcard because I can't use public
>transport, but I bet they have a photo, too.

I can lend my Oyster card to anybody, and nobody would ever know: as
Evan says, it doesn't matter to them. My old folks' card for local
trains and all English buses, though, does carry my photograph.

--
Mike.

[Mike L]

A good one, indeed. I'm reminded of the time when Edward Lear sat ion
a railway compartment obliged to listen to a man laying down the law
to his companion about how this "Edward Lear" was clearly the
pseudonym of Edward, Earl of [forgotten], because "Lear" was a strange
name found only in Shakespeare. He finally lost patience, and
confronted the know-all with his hat, gloves, etc, "all clearly
marked", in token of his real existence.

Take it away, James...

--
Mike.

[Mike L]

Are you reading this, R.J.Valentine?

--
Mike.

[Whiskers]

I've used a utility bill for that; same name, same address, and the bill
was paid, so what more could the post office need to show that I was a
suitable recipient for the package? That has nothing to do with my
identity - but I have noticed that forms and notices often ask for "some
form of identity, eg ..." and then list possible things. But that's a
misuse of the word "identity" in my opinion; what they're asking for is
evidence of eligibility.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

I never said that it was proof of a name. I said that it was proof of
identity. It proves, by comparison to the picture, that the person
holding the card is identical to the person authorized to travel on
the ticket. That's the identity that matters in the context.

>>You prove your identity every time you type a PIN that goes along
>>with an ATM card or credit card, every time you type a password that
>>goes along with an account name, every time you present a card that
>>only you are assumed to have.
>
> At least one of those is a very weak version of 'prove'. I once,
> long ago, was asked by a policeman for evidence that my name was
> what I claimed it to be. I offered him my sock, with a name-tape
> sewn into it, but he said that wasn't convincing. I thought that
> presenting a sock (still warm, to boot) that only I would be
> presumed to have was pretty good, but it was not good enough for
> Surrey Police.

If you proffer proof of identity and are accepted as having a
particular identity, you have proven it. If it isn't accepted, it's a
failed attempt.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |A handgun is like a Lawyer. You
SF Bay Area (1982-) |don't want it lying around where
Chicago (1964-1982) |the children might be exposed to
|it, but when you need one, you need
evan.kir...@gmail.com |it RIGHT NOW, and nothing else will
|do.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Bill McNutt

[Jerry Friedman]

On Apr 22, 3:23 pm, Paul Wolff <bounc...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <atlaunF2kv...@mid.individual.net>, LFS

Didn't you resent having to toe the line and being brought to heel?
(He asked archly.)

--
Jerry Friedman

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> writes:

> On 2013-04-21, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 17:05:06 +0100, John Briggs
>>> <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Like Brits, we Americans need to prove our identity relatively
>> frequently and, again I'd suppose like you, we have several forms of
>> ID that we use for the purpose (as well as as capability tokens to
>> prove that we are authorized to be places and do things). The only
>> difference would appear to be that one particular form of
>> government-issued ID here is sufficiently commonly carried
>> (voluntarily) and considered sufficiently secure that it is often used
>> to prove identity in situations other than the one it was issued for.
>> In many cases to verify some other (less secure) form of ID or to
>> warrant issuing another.
>
> But of course, that is not actually proving who you are. The driving
> licence says, in effect, "the person known as [insert name here] whose face
> looks like this [insert image here] is allowed by [insert driver licencing
> agency name here] to operate vehicles of [insert vehicle types here] on
> public roads between [insert start date] and [insert expiry date]."

It's a little more. It's "the person known as [name] whose face looks
like [picture] is the holder of license number [number], valid to
operate vehicles of type [type] until [date]". Any other identity
that can be tied, transitively, to that number, is also established.
When a police officer asks for your driver's license, the question
being answered isn't "Are you licensed to drive?" It's "Is there
anything I should be aware of about the holder of this license?"

The card also vouches that the government has seen sufficient evidence
that you were born on a particular day and live (or, at least at the
time the license was issued, lived) at a particular address.

> If you also produce another document bearing the same name and
> image, then it is tempting to infer that both documents were issued
> to the same person, and if both are being carried by someone who
> resembles the image and uses the same name then perhaps that person
> is the same person as was issued with the two documents. But that
> is faith, not proof.

Proof is convincing evidence. What's convincing depends on the
situation.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Those who study history are doomed
SF Bay Area (1982-) |to watch others repeat it.
Chicago (1964-1982)

evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[BCD]

***But it was his sole request.

Best Wishes,

--BCD

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Dr Nick <nosp...@temporary-address.org.uk> writes:

> It doesn't in the UK. Honestly. Any document we might have that we
> use for that purpose has a name of its own. The only time the term
> "identity card" is used is in debate about whether there should be a
> national identity card, and there's been enough of it for most
> people to become aware of the term in that context and no other.
>
> The only exception I can think of is an armed forces identity card which
> is called that. I'm not sure what they are doing on this page, but here
> are some examples:
> http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/03/5316/3
>
> but outside that context, the general public would not have a clue if
> you asked them "do you have an identity card?".

Same in the US (or more so). But if you asked them "Do you have an ID
card?" they'd probably pull out several.

I suspect that most of us expand "ID [card]" to "identification card"
rather than "identity card".

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |There's been so much ado already
SF Bay Area (1982-) |that any further ado would be
Chicago (1964-1982) |excessive.
| Lori Karkosky
evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:23:17 +0100, Dr Nick

This is a pre-plastic version of the RAF Identity Card.
http://rafww2butler.wordpress.com/raf-indentity-card-form-1250/

IME as a former holder of one, it was not referred to as an ID card. It
was referred to by its form name "Form 1250" or simply "1250".

>but outside that context, the general public would not have a clue if
>you asked them "do you have an identity card?".
>
>> I would think the opposition would be to a requirement to have such a
>> card in one's possession at all times and a requirement to produce it
>> on demand for any reason by the authorities, not to a card that is
>> universally recognized.
>
>You would think so, wouldn't you.
>
>It's not as simple as that.

[Whiskers]

But that would seem to mean that all the boys in my class at school were
called "St Michael" (that being the name embroidered into the underwear
sold by a popular British chain-store).

[Robert Bannister]

If you're going to nitpick that far, then proof of identity doesn't
exist. That doctor who took my DNA sample deliberately contaminated the
sample.

--
Robert Bannister

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes:

> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:23:17 +0100, Dr Nick
> <nosp...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>It doesn't in the UK. Honestly. Any document we might have that we
>>use for that purpose has a name of its own. The only time the term
>>"identity card" is used is in debate about whether there should be a
>>national identity card, and there's been enough of it for most people to
>>become aware of the term in that context and no other.
>>
>>The only exception I can think of is an armed forces identity card which
>>is called that. I'm not sure what they are doing on this page, but here
>>are some examples:
>>http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/03/5316/3
>>
> This is a pre-plastic version of the RAF Identity Card.
> http://rafww2butler.wordpress.com/raf-indentity-card-form-1250/
>
> IME as a former holder of one, it was not referred to as an ID card. It
> was referred to by its form name "Form 1250" or simply "1250".

Although at least one holder now retrospectively refers to it that
way:

The rest of the day at the recruiting centre was spent filling out
various forms, and having our photos taken for our ID Cards. The
air force ID card is known as a '1250' and its serial number is
one of the many things that recruits are required to memorise in a
hurry.

Kevin McDermott, _The Time of the
Corncrake: An Irishman's memories of
his life in the 1940s and 1950s_, [2004]

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |I value writers such as Fiske.
SF Bay Area (1982-) |They serve as valuable object
Chicago (1964-1982) |lessons by showing that the most
|punctilious compliance with the
evan.kir...@gmail.com |rules of usage has so little to do
|with either writing or thinking
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |well.
| --Richard Hershberger

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:45:58 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:

>When a police officer asks for your driver's license, the question
>being answered isn't "Are you licensed to drive?" It's "Is there
>anything I should be aware of about the holder of this license?"

In my experiece the question is always "Are you licensed to drive?"

>The card also vouches that the government has seen sufficient evidence
>that you were born on a particular day and live (or, at least at the
>time the license was issued, lived) at a particular address.

No, it is rather that the person of that name who was born on that day is the
one who is licensed to drive, and not some other person with the same name who
was born on another day.

Some people and institutions do accept driving licences as evidence that you
are who you sway you are -- yesterday a courier brought me a new credit card,
and I could have shown him my driving licence and he would have accepted that
as proof of identity (in fact I showed him my passport).

But when a policeman asks for my driving licence it is invariably because he
wants to know whether I'm licensed to drive that class of vehicle.

Oh, there is an exception. A traffic cop once asked my wife for her driving
licence and told her that it was not valid for the class of vehicle she was
driving (a Toyota Venture people carrier). In fact it was valid for that class
of vehicle, and he knew it, but he was trying to solicit a bribe.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Steve Hayes]

M'kay.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:

> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:45:58 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>When a police officer asks for your driver's license, the question
>>being answered isn't "Are you licensed to drive?" It's "Is there
>>anything I should be aware of about the holder of this license?"
>
> In my experiece the question is always "Are you licensed to drive?"

I should have noted that I was speaking (as I believed the context of
the discussion made clear) of the situation in the United States. It
may well be that in South Africa all they care about is whether you
are licensed to drive. In the US, the primary concerns are, in order:

Are there any outstanding warrants out for your arrest?

What identity do I attach the ticket I'm about to write to?

Can you demonstrate that your license hasn't been revoked?

Can you demonstrate that you were actually issued a license?

Only the last two, which are pretty much assumed to be true, have
anything to do with asking whether you are licensed to drive.

>>The card also vouches that the government has seen sufficient
>>evidence that you were born on a particular day and live (or, at
>>least at the time the license was issued, lived) at a particular
>>address.
>
> No, it is rather that the person of that name who was born on that
> day is the one who is licensed to drive, and not some other person
> with the same name who was born on another day.

It is that, as well, but since the process for issuing licenses is
known, it inherently does the other, too.

> Some people and institutions do accept driving licences as evidence
> that you are who you sway you are -- yesterday a courier brought me
> a new credit card, and I could have shown him my driving licence and
> he would have accepted that as proof of identity (in fact I showed
> him my passport).
>
> But when a policeman asks for my driving licence it is invariably
> because he wants to know whether I'm licensed to drive that class of
> vehicle.

As I said, I can't speak to South Africa.

> Oh, there is an exception. A traffic cop once asked my wife for her
> driving licence and told her that it was not valid for the class of
> vehicle she was driving (a Toyota Venture people carrier). In fact
> it was valid for that class of vehicle, and he knew it, but he was
> trying to solicit a bribe.

That wouldn't work here, as there are pretty much only four classes of
licenses: car, motorcycle, bus, and large truck (a couple of different
kinds of bus and truck) and most people know that they're not driving
a motorcycle, bus, or large truck. So they would call the guy's bluff
and see whether he was really willing to write out a ticket, complete
with his name, the make and model of vehicle, and the assertion that
the particular license was invalid for that vehicle.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |The Irish fear nothing
SF Bay Area (1982-) | and no one.
Chicago (1964-1982) |They keep fightin'
| 'til everyone's dead.
evan.kir...@gmail.com |I'm not sure where this
| metaphor's goin'.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |I just felt like it
| had to be said.
|
| _Legally Blonde_

[Dr Nick]

Oxford I believe from memory. Sellar and Yeatman have a little note
about that in one of their books because a few critics had suggested
they were APH in disguise.

[Dr Nick]

I've never collected parcels for a different surname, but I regularly
collect for different initials for first name - and in those cases I'm
quite obviously the wrong sex for the title.

I think they pretty good security checks in that they are at the right
level of toughness: if a card happens to get swept out of the house by
the wind and blown down the street, someone who just picks it up can't
use to get the parcel. But most of the time to get the card you'd have
to be in in the house, in which case you could get the parcel had it
been delivered. So proving any matching object (name, address) rules
out randomness without making it hard to have something suitable to
hard.

[James Hogg]

I heard a story about a Swedish humorist who went into a post office and
began by showing the cashier a photograph of himself and asking, "Will
this do as proof of identity?" Since it was just a plain photograph with
no name or anything, she said no. He then took off his hat and showed
her his name written on the hatband. She wouldn't accept that either. He
then took out of his pocket an old letter addressed to himself, but that
wasn't good enough either. He protested loudly, saying "Why would I be
going round wearing someone else's hat and carrying letters sent to
him?" The cashier went to fetch the manager, who decided to settle the
matter by asking, "What exactly do you want?" He said, "I want to buy a
stamp."

--
James

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:44:36 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum

<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:45:58 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>When a police officer asks for your driver's license, the question
>>>being answered isn't "Are you licensed to drive?" It's "Is there
>>>anything I should be aware of about the holder of this license?"
>>
>> In my experiece the question is always "Are you licensed to drive?"
>
>I should have noted that I was speaking (as I believed the context of
>the discussion made clear) of the situation in the United States. It
>may well be that in South Africa all they care about is whether you
>are licensed to drive. In the US, the primary concerns are, in order:
>
> Are there any outstanding warrants out for your arrest?
>
> What identity do I attach the ticket I'm about to write to?
>
> Can you demonstrate that your license hasn't been revoked?
>
> Can you demonstrate that you were actually issued a license?
>
>Only the last two, which are pretty much assumed to be true, have
>anything to do with asking whether you are licensed to drive.

Ah, yes, I'm sure those kinds of questions might be asked if you were being
stopped for committing an offence, and that a ticket was going to be written.

Most of the times that I have been stopped in the last few years the policeman
has checked to see that the car has a current licence disc, and asked to see
my driving licence and then waved me on.

If it is day time, they might ask you to switch on the lights, to see if they
are all working.

If, however, you have just scaled a robot (AmE gone through a red light) or
committed some other ticketable offence, yes, then they will want to check
those other things.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Ah. That kind of thing doesn't happen here, and I'm pretty sure that
it's not allowed to. Even when they want to stop somebody for DWB,
they need to at least pretend that they've observed an infraction.
The closest thing is when they set up checkpoints to check people for
drunk driving (usually on holidays), but even there, I don't think
they're allowed to ask for ID unless you appear drunk (or they spot
some other violation after they've stopped you).

So if they stop you and demand to see your ID here, you can be pretty
sure that they think you've committed some infraction, at least.

> If, however, you have just scaled a robot (AmE gone through a red light) or
> committed some other ticketable offence, yes, then they will want to check
> those other things.

[1] Driving While Black

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |You cannot solve problems with the
SF Bay Area (1982-) |same type of thinking that created
Chicago (1964-1982) |them.
| Albert Einstein
evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/