I think this is exactly right.
I also agree with Tim's proposal- it can be made computationally equivalent to a single UPI, but only at the point / time of use; abuses would be much easier to identify. I think that the trick is to interpose a trusted third party (some small institution or part of government whose scope is limited, and which is transparent) between the interfaces of the different Ids; they have to investigate any request to use Ids outside their original purpose (e.g. request by the Tax Office to use Medicare ids).
At 01:46 PM 12/17/2003, Tim Churches wrote:
I agree, but we don't need a single, broad-scope Unique Personal Identification number. It is a recipe for abuse, just as the Social Security Number has been in the US. Instead we need lots of separate, narrow-scope UPIs, which are linkable, but only for good reasons and only through the auspices of an independent body charged with carefully balancing privacy against the public good, and/or with individual consent to link.
Dave
-- .............................................................. CTO Ocean Informatics - http://www.OceanInformatics.biz
openEHR - http://www.openEHR.org Archetypes - http://www.oceaninformatics.biz/adl.html Community Informatics - http://www.deepthought.com.au/ci/rii/Output/mainTOC.html ..............................................................
